UK tech supply chain in dark over Brexit preparations months ahead of final heave-ho The IT supply chain remains in the dark over how to plan for Brexit with mere months to go before the UK potentially exits the European Union without a trade agreement, according to one of Britain’s biggest IT distributors. Negotiations between the EU and UK remain deadlocked, and just yesterday UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson …
"and just yesterday UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s self imposed deadline to get the thing done came and went."
Which hopefully means now the advice will be hard brexit and all the preparation the gov has made to implement that and assistance to businesses can be rolled out and waiting for the day. After 4 years there should surely be such prep and when offering such a referendum the option of leaving would surely have been thought through and planned?
Only one thing is certain. We are in for a big change in the way business works. The irony is the only way the economy can navigate its way through the shock is how well business adapts and innovates its way through the change. It's largely the Remainers in business who can save the Brexiteer's bacon.
I just filled in a Government survey on how my business is doing that. I replied, we can't plan and execute until we know what the change is. The survey asked what government could do to help.
I answered - "extend the transition period to at least six months after a deal or no-deal is agreed for that to be put in place". True Brexiteers can't surely begrudge this to minimise disruption, M20 lorry parks, no fresh veg in Sainsburys and other potential issues which may invite a backlash they could well do without at a time when Covid-19 will still be challenging for the headlines and the government's attention.
Surely a very small price to pay?
The issue is that the EU will not agree a deal while the transition period continues.
We're seeing that now. They're delaying and delaying and refusing to accept that they aren't going to bully the UK into falling to its knees and begging them to take all of the fish.
As someone that voted to leave the EU I'm entirely sympathetic to the uncertainty this is causing you. Hopefully the behaviour of the EU throughout this entire experience has helped you understand why people like me voted to flee that corrupt bullying state.
I voted leave too because I want an independent Scotland and I knew the tories would botch Brexit. Of course I didn't anticipate Boris being PM or Covid accentuating the disaster.
You do realise 90% of the British catch is actually Scottish? So long, and thanks for all the fish ;-)
I can accept that 90% of the British catch is from Scotland (can't be bothered to look it up) but I can't accept that Scotland will turn away and cease trade with England - in which case what point are you making?
BTW, you do realise that voting to mess the UK up in a vague attempt to promote Scottish independence was a bit of a dick move, right?
No, Scotland and England will still trade - you'll want your fish and chips, or langoustines. You'll want your single malt whisky. And we'll want your cigarettes.
My point is England and Scotland will both be better off as independent, friendly, neighbouring trading nations.
A side point is it seems inevitable and so better planned for. At the start of the Indy ref. campaign the polls said 25% of Scots supported it, by the end 48%. Currently 58% support it.
I want all those selfish, lazy, racist brexit voting pensioners to be forced to go back to work and get us out of this mess. I want their pensions stopped and their assets taxed heavily.
They are the ones that keep saying we can be great again. Well get off your old, white racist arses and make it happen.
What's that? Oh you've had your time in work, when houses were cheap and jobs were plentiful. If you refuse to get off your arses, then hurry up and die.
Just sayin'
I'm guessing a Millennial ??
I am nowhere near pension age but I remember the industrial action of the 70's, the unemployment of the 80's, the early 90's recession that put house prices back to 70's level so everyone suffered negative equity for 10 years... etc. The 2008 financial crash...
It has always been a bit of a struggle and every generation thinks they are the ones being hard done by. We certainly did in the 80's!
That said, who voted in the referendum?
Yes, older people generally voted leave and yes, younger (generally remainers) did not turn out in numbers to offset the grey vote - who's fault is that? But it was mostly lower educated, lower income people who voted to leave not the wealthier people with their own houses.
Why type when several graphs can do it for me:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-who-voted-for-brexit-and-who-didnt
Just sayin' back...
"No deal" means cutting your own legs off.
The EU would prefer the UK didn't do that because it'll make a mess and they'll need to replace the carpet, but the UK will be the one crawling on the floor, unable to stand.
Even arch-brexiteer Rees-Mogg is on record saying that it'll take 50 years to see any economic benefits to leaving. If he is right, almost every single person who voted to leave will be long dead by then.
In top of that, Boris has deliberately shredded all the supposed benefits by breaking the treaty he signed.
No country is going to bother wasting time negotiating with someone who they know will just break any agreement anyway. What would be the point?
Brexiteers have utterly trashed the UK.
@Richard 12
""No deal" means cutting your own legs off."
Thats how some people see it, not others. I see remain as cutting our legs off.
"The EU would prefer the UK didn't do that because it'll make a mess and they'll need to replace the carpet, but the UK will be the one crawling on the floor, unable to stand."
I hear that except it really doesnt seem to represent what is happening. The last ditch and desperate acts along with the forever transition period suggest the EU dont want this happening for their own good. The EU finally had to pull themselves from the brink by telling Eurozone banks they dont need to go bust when the UK leaves.
"Rees-Mogg is on record saying that it'll take 50 years to see any economic benefits to leaving"
Did he? I thought he said the overwhelming opportunity for brexit is over the next 50 years. That is a very different statement. Assuming we mean the same interview.
"In top of that, Boris has deliberately shredded all the supposed benefits by breaking the treaty he signed."
He hasnt broken the treaty, something I found recently that its a bill not an act and until it becomes an act the EU cant do anything and may not be able to if it becomes an act (that is legally). I am not sure what that has shredded however as its our country and we are leaving the EU so the EU is not in a position to tell us what we can and cant do. One of the reasons for leaving.
"No country is going to bother wasting time negotiating with someone who they know will just break any agreement anyway. What would be the point?"
Then the EU is royally fucked and the UK shoudlnt deal with them as they cannot be trusted. Assuming we apply the same standard to them.
"Brexiteers have utterly trashed the UK."
Oddly we have the same opinion of remainers. Particularly the ones who kept us in this long after we should have left.
Yeah right. So go on. What is Britain (60m people) going to do to put the EU (450m) in their place?
Are you really so demented that you think pluky Perfidious Albion can put the EU back in their box?
I'll tell you what will happen. We may well get a 'no deal'. Wow! We've left and now have no relationship with the EU. Brilliant! Now what to do. Wait a minute. Canada, New Zealand and Australia (notice three mainly white British ex-colonies) add up to around 60m people. So we are 390m people short.
Hmm. Looks like we are going to have to go back to the Europeans -- BUT ON OUR TERMS -- and see what we can do. What's that? They are dictating how we trade with them, and we can't afford not to trade with them?
Hmm. Easier to just join Schengen and the Euro now and get it over with me thinks. It will come eventually.
@AC
"Yeah right. So go on. What is Britain (60m people) going to do to put the EU (450m) in their place?"
Thats an aggressive approach. Why is anyone trying to put anyone in their place, we are talking about the UK leaving a group that is voluntary isnt it?
"We've left and now have no relationship with the EU. Brilliant! Now what to do."
Why do you think we have no relationship with the EU? The EU doesnt think that so why do you?
"Hmm. Looks like we are going to have to go back to the Europeans"
You know not all of Europe is in the EU? When you say Europeans are you suggesting in general or do you mean EU?
"They are dictating how we trade with them, and we can't afford not to trade with them?"
They are dictating how we trade. Thats part of why we voted leave, because we can trade without protectionism for French farms and Spanish orange growers.
"Hmm. Easier to just join Schengen and the Euro now and get it over with me thinks. It will come eventually."
That would be one way to get it over with. The Euro being a terrible currency which is killing off member countries. Did you miss the 2008 recession where the Euro was nearly destroyed so they had to tank countries economies instead?
A tangible one. A specific one.
You've never even tried to say what you want.
Leaving carries a high cost, everyone who isn't a blithering idiot agrees.
So what's the benefit?
Leaving under WTO greatly increases the cost, and means either mass unemployment, or handing our sovereignty over to the USA and perhaps China with no say over what they do.
"Sovereignty" is bollocks. You can't eat it, and its not a thing you either have or not - every single trade means sharing it.
So what's the benefit?
What will my daughter gain in return for losing the rights she had last year?
@Richard 12
"A tangible one. A specific one."
Ok. Food prices will fall. While reports say food from the EU will be more expensive (possibly) the asterisk points out that its just from the EU. The world provides quality food at cheaper prices.
"You've never even tried to say what you want."
If you honestly believe that then you have never read my comments.
"Leaving carries a high cost, everyone who isn't a blithering idiot agrees."
To mildly change that- 'Remaining carries a high cost, everyone who isn't a blithering idiot agrees.'. But that doesnt get us anywhere does it? Brexit has saved the UK billions already thanks to the EU bailout package we didnt join in with.
"Leaving under WTO greatly increases the cost"
Nope. Costs fall already. Unless a country is applying export costs the import tariffs will be under UK control and we dont need to protect our orange growing industry for example.
"and means either mass unemployment, or handing our sovereignty over to the USA and perhaps China with no say over what they do."
Since your first assumption is wrong this can be ignored. Why do you have a fear of the US or China? Are such foreigners bad? We trade with both, soon to be more I expect.
""Sovereignty" is bollocks. You can't eat it, and its not a thing you either have or not"
Then you dont understand it. Sovereignty is effectively freedom. If you dont understand that then you really should look it up as it is important. Not just at a national and supranational level but in life.
"What will my daughter gain in return for losing the rights she had last year?"
She went to jail? If not then how has she lost rights?
The poster child of the Brexiteer: "Since your first assumption is wrong this can be ignored. Why do you have a fear of the US or China? Are such foreigners bad? We trade with both, soon to be more I expect."
We should not 'fear' them, but we would be naive (as Brexitters are) to think that we would hold any kind upper hand in negotiations with them on trade. Please do tell what leverage we have to use in trade negotiations? And please don't go on about how 'we hold all the cards'. China and the US know we had limited trade agreements and they will take advantage of that.
"If not then how has she lost rights?"
Erm, right to travel freely and work in that huge jobs market just over that little stretch of water? That is quite a big one to a lot of people.
"Then you dont understand it. Sovereignty is effectively freedom"
I thought that Brexiteers wanted sovereignty for our Parliament? So why does this government spend so much time trying to bypass Parliament? Or is that only when they think it will make decisions that don't suit them? Is that the kind of sovereignty you voted for?
Still yet to hear a real and tangible benefit of Brexit. I jsut keep hearing a stream of 'prject fear, it won't be as bad as you are all making it out to be'. Well personally I don't want 'not as bad as it could be', I want 'good'. So give me an example of what is good, not what may not be as bad as I think.
@AC
"We should not 'fear' them, but we would be naive (as Brexitters are) to think that we would hold any kind upper hand in negotiations with them on trade"
Why do we need an upper hand? You do realise that trade is good for both, its about creating a win win situation where we provide stuff and they provide stuff to the benefit of both? The adversarial approach penalises the country, as the US is being criticized for (but a stated aim of Trump and an action voted for).
"China and the US know we had limited trade agreements and they will take advantage of that."
By being willing to trade with us? Oh dear.
"Erm, right to travel freely and work in that huge jobs market just over that little stretch of water? That is quite a big one to a lot of people."
So she cant go over and get a temporary residency permit? Then she is an idiot because she just needs to go over and get one in whichever country she wishes to work in. Others have done it so why not her? As for travel, why cant she travel? Too stupid to get on a plane or boat? The prior arrangements for visa free travel existed before the EU and to my understanding still stand when we leave.
"Still yet to hear a real and tangible benefit of Brexit"
I cannot help if you are deaf (or incapable of reading). Feel free to go back and read my answer to that very question.
"So she cant go over and get a temporary residency permit? Then she is an idiot because she just needs to go over and get one in whichever country she wishes to work in."
No, having lost freedom of movement she cannot necessarily get a residence/work permit. It is likely that the host country will only issue that if she has skills to offer which the locals and other EU citizens do not have. Just like EU citizens will face those problems in the UK. (Example: as far as I understand it, people without a degree and the self-employed will not qualify under the system envisaged by Priti Patel - somebody whose own parents would now be denied a residence/work permit under these rules.)
Many of my friends' children have benefited from freedom of movement to study, live and work wherever in Europe they wanted. Same applies to many of my colleagues. Hence I am v sad that they've lost that freedom.
So, Codejunky, if anybody is an idiot it is you. (I've so far refrained from applying that term to you, but as you erroneously apply it to others that restraint has just evaporated.)
@H in The Hague
"No, having lost freedom of movement she cannot necessarily get a residence/work permit. It is likely that the host country will only issue that if she has skills to offer which the locals and other EU citizens do not have"
Then my friends are having a different experience to wherever she wants to apply. As long as they can support themselves they are given temporary residency. Basically no sponging it seems. Dont know where Richard 12's daughter is trying to go however.
"Many of my friends' children have benefited from freedom of movement to study, live and work wherever in Europe they wanted. Same applies to many of my colleagues. Hence I am v sad that they've lost that freedom."
Where is this assumption the EU will want to stop students from coming? And before the EU people could travel to Europe and many people worked there too. You are assuming the EU will reject the UK population, and then blame the UK that the EU are apparently arseholes.
"So, Codejunky, if anybody is an idiot it is you"
Thats fine, I too have a limit when I consider the other person an idiot. Usually after being told rubbish for a while. Not saying you are near that limit yet, you seem to have concerns but with questionable validity.
And as to "why are the EU trying to get a deal?"
It's because the EU isn't some amorphous blob. It's people. People who have friends who live in the UK, and don't want to see them suffer.
Have you never had a friend?
Even if you don't, imagine that you've got a lodger. You don't really know them, but they pay their rent and everything seems fine.
One day they announce that they're going to hack off their own leg and bleed all over the place.
Do you try to stop them?
@Richard 12
"It's because the EU isn't some amorphous blob. It's people. People who have friends who live in the UK, and don't want to see them suffer."
The EU is a bureaucratic institution with the intent to have authority over its members. It isnt a country nor a person nor a collection of people. The EU is not trying to save the UK from the kindness of its heart. Its loosing a serious contributor who's currency helped bail out the EU during the 2008 recession. Its losing regulatory authority over the European financial hub of the global markets.
They want us in for purely selfish reasons.
"People who have friends who live in the UK, and don't want to see them suffer."
Unfortunately, a lot of those people started to get quite annoyed (or bored) about the never-ending Brexit shenanigans. It is one thing to support the British in their quest for independence (and nobody in the EU disputed their right to leave). It's quite another to deal with badly undefined and unrealistic British demands. Fortunately, the EU administration is run by bureaucrats, so those emotions probably won't affect the negotiations.
For the past year, it feels like the EU is just waiting for the British government to figure out what they actually want, what they can get, and how to match the two. For the EU, there is no big price or penalty to extend the deadlines, so maybe the UK can get another year or two to throw their tantrum.
@ICL1900-G3
"How is life in the Daily Mail?"
I wouldnt know. Why? Are you looking for recommendations of something to read? Maybe someone else can help you with a DM review. Or if there is something you are particularly interested in maybe someone could recommend something for you to read if you tell us.
Or are you a moron who thinks they know what I read?
Perhaps Boris would like to import some Oz wildlife to keep as pets at No 10?
But would those Aussie critters get on with the "pets" in the Cabinet? The RSPCA in the UK and RSPCA Australia may object to the welfare issues raised by having to mingle with Boris' mainly spine and talentless Brexiteers and being under the whip of ringmaster Cummings
The UK won't "become like Australia". Because we *do* have a comprehensive low-friction trade agreement with our nearest neighbour -- the Closer Economic Relations treaty with New Zealand (and our Constitution has an invitation to New Zealand to join the Commonwealth of Australia). We also have a trade agreement with our next-nearest neighbours, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. As you'd expect we also have FTAs with major trading partners like USA, China and Japan. These treaties are the result of over twenty-five years' sustained effort. Ironically an effort initiated by the UK ending Commonwealth Preference to join the EU (which caused an economic crisis in Australia).
Australia doesn't yet have a trade agreement with the EU. The issues there are around agricultural goods, and especially the ever-increasing application by the EU of 'appellation' to limit competition. So trade with the EU occurs on WTO terms. This is no great drama for Australia as the EU is on the other side of the world -- and thus not tightly integrated into production chains. Whereas for UK firms European firms are a few hundred kilometres away and production processes have become tightly interwound.
Australia's situation is in no way comparable to a UK having no trade agreement with the EU and seeking to trade with close-by nations under WTO terms.
Agree that comparing the UK to Australia is daft.
Its not about Business, they know nothing of Business especially trade and they don't care about Business.
This is cargo cult'ing at its worst.
As for Australia, NZ is 2.8 of exports, the USA 4%, a paltry amount.
There is only one country relevant to Australia:
https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports-by-country#:~:text=Australia%20Exports%20By%20Country%20Value%20Year%3B%20China%3A%20%24103.00B,2019%20United%20Kingdom%3A%20%2410.57B%202019%20United%20States%3A%20%2410.17B
China is 40% a huge amount for one country.
You have to add the values of the next 8 Export countries to get even close to that.
Where China goes Australia goes. For good and bad.
The UK has exports to the US of 15%, Germany 9.9%, France 6.7%, Netherlands 6%, Ireland 6%.
Much more evenly balanced but of course just about ready to tell its nearest free trade area thanks but no thanks.
However there will be Portaloo's in Farage Park, maybe they could lay some music on, deckchairs, that kind of thing I can hear it now 'Who do you think you are kidding ~~~~~' wafting over the muddy fields
I'm sorry, what's unrealistic about the proposals that the UK have made?
We've gone through existing EU trade deals with smaller economies than ours and offered terms that match those deals, even though we're a stronger economy that could demand more.
That sounds realistic and reasonable to me.
I'm also someone with reading comprehension skills. We could have demanded more, but we didn't, because we're being reasonable.
I'm amazed that you failed to understand that from what I wrote, and indeed that you failed to already know that's the case. There's no irony here.
I'd ask you too to tell me what's unrealistic about the UK's position in this trade talks but we both know that you can't answer that question, because the UK has been very realistic and very reasonable, quite beyond anything the EU deserves.
The demands in these talks have been coming from the EU. They demanded that we accept rulings from the ECJ, even though that would destroy our sovereignty, so we said no. They demanded they be allowed to impose state aid rules on us - despite never enforcing them against German or France - and we said no. They demanded that we let them continue to hoover up our fish stocks, and we said no.
I'm quite certain that wanting to protect our national interest, protect our sovereignty and retain control of our own territory is not unrealistic. Why would you disagree?
I'd ask you too to tell me what's unrealistic about the UK's position in this trade talks but we both know that you can't answer that question, because the UK has been very realistic and very reasonable, quite beyond anything the EU deserves.
UK has expressed it is already unilaterally refusing to bind to the already negotiated 'divorce settlement'. Why should EU (or anyone) trust any negotiation with UK since there is credible doubt on its sincerity in keeping to any agreement.
The Withdrawal Agreement explicitly allows unilateral deviation from its terms by the UK, and the UK has not even refused to be bound to it or deviated from it. Unlike the EU, which has failed on multiple occasions to negotiate in good faith, and has made unreasonable threats towards the UK.
The EU and everybody else should trust the UK because the UK's the only party to that agreement that's kept to it.
Meanwhile I still haven't seen a reply telling me what's unrealistic about the UK's proposals. Because nothing is unrealistic about them.
The Withdrawal Agreement explicitly allows unilateral deviation from its terms by the UK
Indeed. The Withdrawal Agreement is four-hundred pages of obligations for the EU and the sentence "The UK can do whatever it wants" for the UK and it's because the UK held all the cards while negotiating it, right?
You'll have to forgive me for having actually read the Withdrawal Agreement. It was dull but someone had to do it. You obviously didn't bother.
See Article 16 - here, let me help, have a look at the EU's version:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1580206007232&uri=CELEX%3A12019W/TXT%2802%29
Then factor in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act - the only thing that makes it remotely legally binding in the UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/1/section/38
So no, you're not right.
So I went to the link you provided and read the cited article. Very interesting. Could you go into your theory a little more for our enlightenment and entertainment (mostly entertainment).
Article 16
Accumulation of periods
Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who before the end of the transition period resided legally in the host State in accordance with the conditions of Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC for a period of less than 5 years, shall have the right to acquire the right to reside permanently under the conditions set out in Article 15 of this Agreement once they have completed the necessary periods of residence. Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.
Maybe the three people who upvoted you could also explain why they did.
Annex 7 explains exactly why the UK or the EU taking unilateral action under exceptional circumstances before notifying the joint committee is not a free license for the UK to do anything it likes.
ANNEX 7
PROCEDURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 16(3)
1. Where the Union or the United Kingdom is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 16(1) of this Protocol, it shall, without delay, notify the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, through the Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
2. The Union and the United Kingdom shall immediately enter into consultations in the Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may not take safeguard measures until 1 month has elapsed after the date of notification under point 1, unless the consultation procedure under point 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the state limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.
4. The Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
5. The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the Joint Committee every 3 months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application. The Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may at any time request the Joint Committee to review such measures.
6. Points 1 to 5 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to rebalancing measures referred to in Article 16(2) of this Protocol.
That may become relevant but as of this moment in time, the UK has not taken unilateral action.
Given the threat made by the EU to the UK the provisions of the Internal Markets Bill fall very firmly within the scope of safeguarding. Should those provisions become necessary to enact, there is an opportunity for the UK to provide the required notice in advance.
As you can see if you wish to look, the kind of permanent unilateral action coded into law that is permitted by the Internal Market Bill obviously runs a coach and horses through the Withdrawal Agreement as well as the GFA.
It would basically mean the Joint Committee would have to be immediately notified on 1-1-2021 and the Internal Market Act (when passed) would have to be rescinded to comply with point 5 as the Act itself is incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement, or at the very least the Northern Ireland Protocol clauses are.
The Internal Markets Bill itself is (as it pertains to the Withdrawal Agreement) a direct response to the EU's statements regarding their interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
The clauses in the Bill thus don't run a coach and horses through the WA, they clarify and confirm the interpretation of it, and assure that the UK remains sovereign and retains internal integrity.
Which is essential for the GFA, something the EU's interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol would breach.
Point 5 of Annex 7 can be complied with by merely reviewing and discussing the relevant clauses in the Internal Markets Bill. It imposes no obligation on either party to change the safeguards should those be considered by that party to be reasonable and necessary.
Which they are.
All of which is a distraction from my original question, which hasn't been answered. The UK is not being unrealistic, the breakdown in talks is because the EU refuses to negotiate and I've heard and seen nothing that makes me prefer either of remaining in the EU or accepting the EU's imposition of unreasonable demands on the UK to leaving with no deal.
As with most people that voted to leave the EU I'd greatly prefer open and free trade across the whole continent. It's such a shame that the EU disagrees.
'I'm amazed that you failed to understand that from what I wrote, and indeed that you failed to already know that's the case.'
And there is the absolute proof I need for my comprehensive skills to tell me that engaging with you is futile and pointless.
Your complete inability to understand why you cannot communicate your belief effectively or that anyone could possibly hold an alternate (or deity forbid, valid) belief.
Canada isn't on the doorstep and is moving towards EU. Even an ESA associate. Getting treated badly by USA.
UK is leaving, only a train journey or ferry away and doesn't want to keep any EU or European or even some UN rights or laws. No-one asked the UK to leave and they invented the rules of Article 50 and got the others to agree to them.
What he should be saying is the UK should prepare for an Afghanistan-style deal because the EU has agreements with Australia to facilitate trade even though it doesn't have a full trade agreement with Australia yet. Also, the EU will probably get a full trade agreement with Australia before the UK does.
Yup.
Clothes and LP-records were really cheap so we bought lots of those when travelling to the UK.
I also remember the constant strikes, the garbage piled up everywhere never quite collected before the bin-men striked again. Strange hotel food out of tins. And my parents having to arrange a totally different route through France and Germany to get home from our UK vacation because the train or ferry or both, who cares at this point?, were on strike or out of fuel or spares or all of the above!
Whatever. It sure was an Adventure, "the way things were done".
One is rather looking forward to seeing those times once again, I'd say (but only from a safe distance).
The strikes happened because of a rather ham-fisted attempt to manage inflation by a "wages and prices freeze". What actually happened was that wages were frozen but prices were not. Food prices shot up in the 1970s, for example -- joining the EC required considerable readjustment as imports of foodstuffs from traditional sources (Australia, NZ, Carribbean, South America) were dumped in favor of EC products. (Anyone remember the "Great Sugar Shortage"?)
The whole Winter of Discontent thing was folklore turned into propaganda. It served its purpose, though -- paving the way for Thatcher's "There Is No Alternative", the financialization of the UK economy and consequent deindustrialization. The North Sea Oil went AWOL in the process; instead of ending up with a soverign wealth fund like Norway and investment in infrastructure the money just went to the usual suspects.
Its a pipe dream to think that the trading relationships summarily disrupted 40 years ago will suddenly be reestablished overnight. Other customers were found for their food, other sources for our manufacturerd products (the UK used to make things back then.....). You might get a bit of stuff 'for old time's sake' but as for any large scale shift, its not going to happen.
Yeah, before the single market, there was the common market. Before the common market the UK was in the EFTA. The EFTA was a kind of copy of the EEC with a bunch of other countries which weren't in the EEC and the driving force behind setting it up was UK. The UK's reason for setting it up was because it was becoming clear the EEC wouldn't have them. Once the UK had got the EFTA set up it carried on lobbying to get into the EEC as it became clear that the EFTA wasn't good enough to sort out its economy.
So basically you have to go back to 1959 to get to the point where the UK wasn't in some kind of European trading bloc.
I remember it vividly, especially c. 24 hours with no food, little sleep and many remarkably heavily armed police, with big dogs.
All because some numpty messed up the paperwork for certain equipment I was carrying. West Germany, they really did not have a sense of humour.
Even now I can't really laugh about it.
They’re _Chermuns_. Not well known for their sense of humor. I was last in the FRG in August of 1978, and discovered first-hand the lack of humor, the number of cops, the number and size of guns, and the number, size, and general toothyness of the dogs. Apparently their cousins over in the DDR had even less of a sense of humor, but I’ve never been there. Austrians and Swiss were much more friendly. The French didn’t give a damn, or were on strike, or something. Das polizei, they take paperwork very seriously, they do.
I went on holiday to Berlin before the wall came down. I wanted to visit the East, and I actually photographed the building of the publisher which published my first academic paper. During the visit, I was crossing a car park when a DDR Police car raced into the car park, screeched to a halt near me (I am not joking) and all four occupants leapt out. I was a bit stunned, but they all raced to a transit type van and opened their lunch boxes. I breathed again ...
The real problem with East Berlin was getting out, not getting in. The passport control actually checked that I looked like my photograph.
When the wall was falling I had a tourist visa to Prague, but got on the wrong train In West Germany and travelled through East Germany where I didn't have a visa. I reached the Czechoslovak border and was marched off the train by three ugly soldiers wearing long-coats, furry hats and AK47s. They made me walk the 100m back to East Germany, where a pretty blonde German border guard waved her pistol at me and ordered me back to Czechoslovakia. I laughed and mimed I was staying there, her gun was smaller. She mimed I had to go to Berlin (using a wall map), and I agreed but instead went back to Munich. The East Germans were much nicer than the Czechs.
There was indeed a plan not to have a plan. Until then none of the pro-Brexit factions could agree with each other on how to Brexit (SM & CU, EFTA, FTA, Switzerland, WTO, some other TLA). Once they all agreed that all they wanted to do was Brexit and not ask each other any questions, they could put aside their deferences and work with each other.
And that's how we got to where we are today. Every time the government has to do something they can only agree on kicking the can down the road because if they don't it'll implode (the government, not the can).
As I remember it the plan for Leave was to let Cameron deal with it because he'd foolishly said he would. Having discovered that the result actually was Leave he did the sensible thing and bailed. That left Leave scouring the woods for unicorns. Come January we'll discover whether they found any.
@Doctor Syntax
"As I remember it the plan for Leave was to let Cameron deal with it because he'd foolishly said he would."
I remember Cameron refusing to discuss the possibility of leaving with the EU and being absolutely insistent that he would remain to negotiate if we vote leave. On the same news feed was Cameron stating clearly he would stay and that he resigned. UKIP had a plan and I expect the brexiters of the conservatives did too. But instead we got May who wanted to 'please both sides'.
Only with the arrival of Boris is there hope that he will stick to the brexit deadline. I dont think that is a situation to please anyone.
'UKIP had a plan and I expect the brexiters of the conservatives did too. But instead we got May who wanted to 'please both sides'.'
So allegedly a party with one parliamentary MP had a 'plan' and a minor faction of the incumbent governing party had a 'plan' . However, the majority governing party chose to select a leader which represented the whole of the party. That's about it right?
Have you thought that may be because the Conservative party didn't think much of their faction's so called 'plan'?
As I recall, in the run up to the referendum, discussion of actual plans were swerved or dismissed. At best you got claims that it would be the easiest negotiations ever or just claims that we would walk away if things didn't go our way.
Its pretty clear there was no 'plan', as if there were, the NI border problems wouldn't be an issue. An 'oven baked' solution would have been in place ready to slide into place the moment the issue of land borders was raised by the EU.
The sad reality is that the delay created by parliament in an attempt to ensure the country acted honorably in our exit from the EU will forever be used by the disingenuous to blame their own failures upon.
A bunch of chancers got lucky and going forward will blamestorm their own inadequacies on anybody they can pin it on. The end.
@Killing Time
"So allegedly a party with one parliamentary MP had a 'plan' and a minor faction of the incumbent governing party had a 'plan' . However, the majority governing party chose to select a leader which represented the whole of the party. That's about it right?"
Yup. The party of brexit that campaigned for brexit all this time and got the referendum delivered had a plan and the governing party chose a leader representing their party. I am fine with that assessment.
"Have you thought that may be because the Conservative party didn't think much of their faction's so called 'plan'?"
I expect that is entirely correct. Cameron was desperate to remain, as was May. Its only the part of their party willing to leave the EU who had any interest in leaving the EU. However the result of the referendum was leave.
"As I recall, in the run up to the referendum, discussion of actual plans were swerved or dismissed"
Yup. Annoyed the hell out of us who wanted to leave. It was a deliberate act not to allow consideration for leave, then to accuse leaving as being without a plan.
"The sad reality is that the delay created by parliament in an attempt to ensure the country acted honorably in our exit from the EU will forever be used by the disingenuous to blame their own failures upon."
Probably. The EU make it easy to push this narrative but simply the desire to leave was removed from dealing with the issue. Brexiters who had originally been put in negotiating positions were removed and overruled.
"A bunch of chancers got lucky and going forward will blamestorm their own inadequacies on anybody they can pin it on. The end."
I think Boris will tag on to anything to win him approval. I still dont assume we will leave the EU, I cant trust the guy.
@codejunky
'It was a deliberate act not to allow consideration for leave, then to accuse leaving as being without a plan.'
Mate, that's the kind of doublespeak we have sadly become accustomed to throughout this process. Who was it barring those campaigning to leave to outline their plans?
Please don't try to now claim that it would have biased future negotiation. That would just compound the nonsense.
@Killing Time
"Mate, that's the kind of doublespeak we have sadly become accustomed to throughout this process. Who was it barring those campaigning to leave to outline their plans?"
Nobody which is why we know UKIP had a plan.
"Please don't try to now claim that it would have biased future negotiation. That would just compound the nonsense."
I agree. The only way it would bias future negotiation is if the attempt was to remain or be entirely dependent on a deal.
So, nobody barring all the leave campaigners from outlining their plans is proof that UKIP had a plan?
No offence but I would hate to follow your code.
What was to stop UKIP outlining their plans to pressure Boris into giving Farage a role in Brexit. Nothing, and then he would at least have salvaged some dignity. Let's face it, he tried hard enough and all he got was summarily dismissed.
'Not a fit and proper person' I recall the slight being.
@Killing Time
"So, nobody barring all the leave campaigners from outlining their plans is proof that UKIP had a plan?"
Now you have me confused. UKIP had a plan. UKIP wasnt the party in power but they had a plan for leave. Are you not aware they had a plan for leave? I am happy to agree the Tories have a range of never leave to hard brexit people with a varied idea of what to do.
"What was to stop UKIP outlining their plans to pressure Boris into giving Farage a role in Brexit."
They did outline their plans and challenged Cameron. After that of course UKIP fell apart but Farage challenged May with her attempts to remain and threatened Boris to get on with it.
Amusingly one if the major problems with the negotiations was the EU twats refusing to negotiate because UKIP were in the room. They had every right to be there and their presence was accepted by the British side but the EU nobs showed themselves up. Then UKIP showed those nobs up publicly in
the EU for those specific actions.
Farage it is worth noting was quick to strengthen our relationship with the US while our gov messed around with BINO.
@ Codejunky
'UKIP had a plan'
I have no recollection of ever seeing it and I followed the run up and subsequent outfall closely. I assume it was published? Happy to look it over if you direct me to it. I would love to see their solution to the land border issue.
It's not as if UKIP's European parliament members weren't aware of Europe's position on borders, they took the money and accrued the pensions, I would hope they did a little more there for their money than attempt to phiibuster debates and insult their fellow members.
@Killing Time
"I have no recollection of ever seeing it and I followed the run up and subsequent outfall closely."
Ah ok. Their 2016 manifesto would probably be a good start.
"I would love to see their solution to the land border issue."
My understanding at the time was the proposal of digital tracking technology. Unfortunately the EU wanted a border problem. But simply there isnt an Irish border problem (for the UK). Its just not an issue for us. The EU might try to use it as a poor excuse to land grab but its the EU that is protectionist so they are the ones who would be breaking the GFA with a border.
A quick google search will provide you his views on it.
"I would hope they did a little more there for their money than attempt to phiibuster debates and insult their fellow members."
UKIP did hold them to account a few times.
'Their 2016 manifesto would probably be a good start.'
Yes, as I recalled, not even the slightest suggestion of a plan. Just a statement of their intention to 'take back control of our borders'.
Unsurprisingly, the same border you go on to say is not a problem for us but is the EU's problem.
No point in taking this debate any further, there is no reasoning with blatant hypocrisy.
@Killing Time
"Yes, as I recalled, not even the slightest suggestion of a plan. Just a statement of their intention to 'take back control of our borders'."
Thats it? In 70+ pages thats it? Wow I assume it was large font???
"Unsurprisingly, the same border you go on to say is not a problem for us but is the EU's problem."
Yes, its the EU's problem. Are you somehow contesting that in some way? It is unsurprising, in fact its pretty well baked in.
"No point in taking this debate any further, there is no reasoning with blatant hypocrisy."
I would agree except there doesnt seem to be much debate. You have told me you didnt see information, I pointed you in the right direction and you seem to claim not to see anything. You say hypocrisy but so far I seem to be leading you to information you dont seem to have. Debate suggests you are contributing something contrary. Have you?
Very soon the UK will see the real impact of Brexit.
Not the image painted by the Brexit campaign, not the prophesied doom from the alleged 'Project Fear', but reality.
This story shows a reality like this:
The engines are not working, we are losing altitude.
We are seeing details on the ground before impact. But we are past the point of no return.
Brace, brace!
I'm sure a trade deal can be negotiated between the end of November and Easter next year, once it's clear who's won the US elections, whether the Japanese Diet will ratify the UK FTA despite the UK's internal markets Bill (violating State Aid provisions of the Japan-UK FTA) and everyone seeing how well the UK handles the no deal situation.
We muddled through in 1940 using pure British spirit
In spite of having more fighters and pilots than the Germans
And less far to fly so more time on target
With a well planned radar, reporting, and control system
And deeper and better organised industry supply, recovery and maintenance chains
But mostly better mustaches
So all we need i the mustaches and we can win again
William Shatner has prepared. He's looked into it and won't be beaming down any tribbles to the UK from his orbiting store.
There's no clarity possible unless the people creating policy are sufficiently informed about the subject. For example, the British Chambers of Commerce recently published a "guidance dashboard" for brexit drawn from official sources that classify personal data protection as "digital". As a lot less than 10% of data protection law in Europe and the UK relates to technologies (90%+ relates to human rights and corporate governance), this is indicative of zero understanding of the subject on the part of policy makers. But I'm sure this is not an isolated example (remembering the allocation of a shipping contract to a ferry company with no ferries whose T&Cs were those of a fast food take away).
Even that's unclear.
You get residency in Ireland, but until you have Irish citizenship you are still a Brit as far as the eu is concerned.
Will you need a visa to go to France?
But France isn't going to have a consulate in Ireland because it's an Eu country
Will you have to travel to London to get a visa to go from Ireland to France ?
Good job all this will be sorted out before anybody makes any rash decisions to leave
"until you have Irish citizenship you are still a Brit as far as the eu is concerned."
No problem for my children (born NI), my grandchildren (mother born in Ireland) and any great grandchildren (grandmother born in NI), my sister-in-law (as per my wife) and her husband (Irish mother) and at least some have their passports to prove it. It's just me who doesn't qualify.
They'll naturalise you on basis of the rest of the family. Not at all like the UK Home Office. Or like that USA RomCom Green Card.
I know Polish, Kenyan, English and South Africans that have been naturalised. We just happen to speak English, it's not like the UK.
Unless your parents or grandparents born in NI after 1922 (as before then it didn't exist), or ANYWHERE in Ireland otherwise. Geneva convention, not just the Good Friday Agreement. Or if you were born in either part of Ireland before some more recent date.
I'm not sure what proportion of mainland UK people that covers. It does cover some in USA, Canada, South Africa and Australia.
They do, because non-EU foreigners can have residency in the UK or Ireland and still need a visa (Schengen or otherwise) to visit other EU countries. E.g. Australians resident in London with a UK work visa still need visas to visit the rest of the EU.
This won't change after Brexit, except British citizens may need to apply as well. It depends on what Schengen area countries and each individual non-Schengen country decide to do afterwards.
The world is laughing, slightly awkwardly, at a fifteen year old trying to fly with a superman cape.
It's adorable .. but shouldn't he know by now that he needs to train to be a pilot if he wants to fly for real?
Of course it's possible for the UK to become an independent global trading nation again. But it's a 20 year project that starts by reverting to a purely trade relationship (EFTA/EEA membership) followed by a decade reorientating the economy away from our dependency on the EU before we can finally sever ties with minimal impact.
But no one seems to have told that young lad who now stands atop a cliff with a red towel over his shoulders.
"The world is laughing, slightly awkwardly, at a fifteen year old trying to fly with a superman cape."
Reading this I didnt quite know which side you were talking about. The EU keeps trying to be important on the global stage but keeps being ignored or fail hard.
"But no one seems to have told that young lad who now stands atop a cliff with a red towel over his shoulders."
Nobody thought they would screw up so bad as to tank whole economies to save a dumb project but the EU were warned. And I dont mean by the UK I mean the big boys who couldnt believe the economic suicide effort.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
