Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[L00b]

41 minutes ago, retep said:

This fella?  Jean-Marc Puissesseau

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/no-deal-brexit-dover-calais-ports-consequences-queues-france/

Is Puissesseau still pushing the same line of bullcrap as back in January before the 'first' Brexit deadline? Looks like it.

 

Meanwhile, far from the "it will all be fine" one liners unsubstantiated by any concerete evidence, here is rather the contrasting view about Calais, as of early July 2019, from a highly-respected Brexiter (yes, there are some of these to be found, and Richard North is certainly one of those), moreover who is a professional customs & safety expert. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat]

33 minutes ago, Obelix said:

It's been pointed out to you many times by myself and others why a customs barrier will stop flow of trade.

The ‘no deal deniers’ on here would have done well to have watched the interview with the Professor of Nuclear Medicine at University College London  on Channel Four earlier this year.

 

She said that it was completely irrelevant that an agreement had been reached between the NHS and the EU about radioactive materials for X-ray machines and radiotherapy, because most these material come from Brussels in a small van which would be swamped in the cluster**** at Dover. 

 

These materials have a very short shelf life and are supplied weekly which is why they can’t be sourced in the US.

[L00b]

4 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

 (...)

 

These materials have a very short shelf life and are supplied weekly which is why they can’t be sourced in the US.

Ah, give it up now: they can get flown in by the RAF's Spitfires sorry, Galaxy airlifters, in what is by now typical Brexit "spend £10 to save £0.01" problem-solving 

[Top Cats Hat]

13 minutes ago, L00b said:

Ah, give it up now: they can get flown in by the RAF's Spitfires sorry, Galaxy airlifters, in what is by now typical Brexit "spend £10 to save £0.01" problem-solving 

These materials could be flown from the US but being radioactive would have to be flown on specially chartered aircraft which would increase the cost to the NHS by literally 1000’s of percent.

 

Just as well Boris has earmarked more money for the health service. They’ll need it.

[L00b]

31 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

These materials could be flown from the US but being radioactive would have to be flown on specially chartered aircraft which would increase the cost to the NHS by literally 1000’s of percent.

 

Just as well Boris has earmarked more money for the health service. They’ll need it.

Well quite, that was the sense of my "£10 for £0.01" quip.

 

The problem for Boris -and you all, by extension- is that there is little such 'new' or 'more' money to be had for the NHS: it's now been confirmed by NHS England's very own CFO, that over £1bn of Boris' recent £1.8bn promise to the NHS, is withheld money that should have long gone to the NHS already, but never did (see today's news, take your pick from Sky, Mirror, Guardian etc.)

 

Your public healthcare -and public services more generally, including frontline like police & fire brigade- have been deliberately cash-starved for years, so that future Tory governments could make these promises...and you know what they say about "one in the hand or two in the bush", right? I'd check very carefully on whether these spending commitments are actually spent in the end, if I were you.

 

Accessorily, you could factor all that, against the cost of Brexit planning and no deal contingency measures to the Exchequer, to date (significantly higher than this new-not new money for the NHS). And I'm not just talking about the public-money-to-friends-for-nothing à la Chris 'cancelled ferry contracts' Grayling, here.

 

Brexit is such a con on the British public purse, of unprecedented proportions, and yet so much of your population not only don't seem to care one bit at this senseless waste, they want to double-down on it with a no deal Brexit! 

Edited August 20, 2019 by L00b

[retep]

2 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The ‘no deal deniers’ on here would have done well to have watched the interview with the Professor of Nuclear Medicine at University College London  on Channel Four earlier this year.

 

She said that it was completely irrelevant that an agreement had been reached between the NHS and the EU about radioactive materials for X-ray machines and radiotherapy, because most these material come from Brussels in a small van which would be swamped in the cluster**** at Dover. 

 

These materials have a very short shelf life and are supplied weekly which is why they can’t be sourced in the US.

We can always give the EU their nuclear waste back.

[L00b]

1 hour ago, retep said:

We can always give the EU their nuclear waste back.

You could, but not without first exiting the IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management, on top of exiting the EU.

 

Topical Brexit-related advice here, should you care for a primer and details (or just look at points 7 & 8 on page 3 if TL;DR: EU law on the topic is derived from the IAEA Convention, not the other way around, which why the UK's exit from the EU is largely immaterial to existing nuclear waste arrangements).

 

An actual list of all the international treaties and conventions which you want to exit would be useful. Would make it look a bit more...erm...planned, if you know what I mean.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat]

And let’s not forget air travel.

 

The only way that any UK registered aircraft can continue to legally  fly after a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, is if we became associate members of EASA, which puts our aviation under the control of the European Court of Justice. So even the precious ‘no-deal’ is not actually no-deal at all.

 

Of course this is all Project Fear. If the UK wants to fly un-certificated aircraft, what is stopping it?

[Pettytom]

15 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

And let’s not forget air travel.

 

The only way that any UK registered aircraft can continue to legally  fly after a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, is if we became associate members of EASA, which puts our aviation under the control of the European Court of Justice. So even the precious ‘no-deal’ is not actually no-deal at all.

 

Of course this is all Project Fear. If the UK wants to fly un-certificated aircraft, what is stopping it?

That’s typical of you remoaner types .

 

Always looking for a problem where there is one.

[retep]

33 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

And let’s not forget air travel.

 

The only way that any UK registered aircraft can continue to legally  fly after a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, is if we became associate members of EASA, which puts our aviation under the control of the European Court of Justice. So even the precious ‘no-deal’ is not actually no-deal at all.

 

Of course this is all Project Fear. If the UK wants to fly un-certificated aircraft, what is stopping it?

That's all it is,

 

"Ownership and control

The EU has stated that UK airlines licensed before the UK leaves the EU will continue to be eligible for permission to operate provided that they are majority owned and effectively controlled by nationals of the UK and/or nationals of the EU and EEA countries. For airlines licensed in the UK after exit day to be eligible to operate, they would have to be majority owned and controlled by UK nationals.

The UK believes restrictions on ownership and control in aviation are outdated, and do not reflect the reality of the global capital markets. What matters is that an airline is safe, secure and properly regulated, not the nationality of the owner. Ownership and control restrictions simply constrain the ability of airlines to raise capital. Therefore, the UK intends to take a more liberal approach for the duration of this measure. Rather than require member state airlines to be majority owned and controlled by nationals from that EU country, in order to be eligible to operate services between the EUand the UK, member state airlines would instead need to satisfy the CAA that they are majority owned and effectively controlled by EU nationals and/or nationals of other EEA countries and/or nationals of the UK.

The UK will start discussions on future ownership and control arrangements from the perspective of a level playing field."