BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Why would you not let the disaster that you predict unfold when people are locked down. Surely it is easier to sort out lorry traffic when there are no cars travelling. At least you are in good company with Wee Jimmy Crankie in getting your extension wish in early.rick_chasey said:Honestly if this rona is as bad as they say they have to extend the transition period as it’s nuts trying to do both.
0 -
It's the perfect cover for them to smash out with no deal, any problems can be blamed on Covid (even more so than was the case already).- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.1
-
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.0 -
Trebuchetmorstar said:
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.0 -
In case anyone's interested - here's the proportion of powered vehicles and unaccompanied trailers for 2019 and 2020:morstar said:
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.
One third unaccompanied - so when Grant Shapps says it's not a big problem, I'd take it with a grain of salt.0 -
So long as it's not eggs!darkhairedlord said:
Trebuchetmorstar said:
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.0 -
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.
He could be right though.kingstongraham said:
In case anyone's interested - here's the proportion of powered vehicles and unaccompanied trailers for 2019 and 2020:morstar said:
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.
One third unaccompanied - so when Grant Shapps says it's not a big problem, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
The slowing down of physical movements to match the increased customs processing time is an unplanned stroke of genius.0 -
Which gets me thinking...
If you’re going to go all conspiracy theory, the UK government invented Covid as a cover for Brexit.
This surely explains the poor decision making designed to maximise disruption to coincide with peak Brexit chaos.0 -
I'd take anything with a pinch of salt that comes from that chap. Repeatedly lied about his second income and lied about using a pseudonym to run another business whilst also being an MP.kingstongraham said:
One third unaccompanied - so when Grant Shapps says it's not a big problem, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
0 -
Strangely when I proposed this in the summer it was poo poo'd as unworkable. 🤔kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yeah alright CoopStar...morstar said:Which gets me thinking...
If you’re going to go all conspiracy theory, the UK government invented Covid as a cover for Brexit.
This surely explains the poor decision making designed to maximise disruption to coincide with peak Brexit chaos.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I see what you did there but...ddraver said:
Yeah alright CoopStar...morstar said:Which gets me thinking...
If you’re going to go all conspiracy theory, the UK government invented Covid as a cover for Brexit.
This surely explains the poor decision making designed to maximise disruption to coincide with peak Brexit chaos.
I’d argue this is the antithesis of your suggestion.
A Coopstar theory would be that Remainers created the virus to ensure Brexit was chaotic rather than the inevitable success it is destined to be.3 -
after 31st we can send them their fish.Dorset_Boy said:
So long as it's not eggs!darkhairedlord said:
Trebuchetmorstar said:
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.0 -
Classic Peston to exaggerate. Can't stand that bloke.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
0 -
They will be like returning bottles to the off license.darkhairedlord said:
after 31st we can send them their fish.Dorset_Boy said:
So long as it's not eggs!darkhairedlord said:
Trebuchetmorstar said:
Container transport is the obvious plan B.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
But that port has been struggling for months and containers to cross the channel are slow. It takes days to load and unload container ships which is fine for China to ROW, not ideal for a 1-2 hr crossing. Hence ro-ro being the preferred method.
Hand over a fish and you get 25p back.0 -
We're treating an agreement which will define our relationship with our biggest trading party like the t&cs on a new app
Just click agree
You don't understand it anyway
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Provided there is a break clause, I can accept it.tailwindhome said:We're treating an agreement which will define our relationship with our biggest trading party like the t&cs on a new app
Just click agree
You don't understand it anyway0 -
I'm sure if you dont accept it boris will go no deal, you have his number?TheBigBean said:
Provided there is a break clause, I can accept it.tailwindhome said:We're treating an agreement which will define our relationship with our biggest trading party like the t&cs on a new app
Just click agree
You don't understand it anyway0 -
When someone accepts their fate, do you think they had much of an input into it?darkhairedlord said:
I'm sure if you dont accept it boris will go no deal, you have his number?TheBigBean said:
Provided there is a break clause, I can accept it.tailwindhome said:We're treating an agreement which will define our relationship with our biggest trading party like the t&cs on a new app
Just click agree
You don't understand it anyway0 -
Old enough to remember we had to break international law to get out of the last agreement we signed without reading.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Meanwhile in Scotland, kids will not come into school until 18 jan - term should start on the 6th - but teachers have to come in, presumably so we can sit in our classrooms using our semi-useless school webcams to do home learning for the 2 or 3 kids in each class who'll show up.
Or maybe it's just to stop the Mail whingeing about shirking teachers?
I mean, I'll come in and work less effectively than I could at home if I have to, but what happened to "work from home if you can"?0 -
Child care for essential workers with no alternatives?bompington said:Meanwhile in Scotland, kids will not come into school until 18 jan - term should start on the 6th - but teachers have to come in, presumably so we can sit in our classrooms using our semi-useless school webcams to do home learning for the 2 or 3 kids in each class who'll show up.
Or maybe it's just to stop the Mail whingeing about shirking teachers?
I mean, I'll come in and work less effectively than I could at home if I have to, but what happened to "work from home if you can"?
Probably in the wrong thread too.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It is low from anytime I have been on a ferry. Each trailer has to be driven on disconnected and then tied down over a trestle. I have never seen a ferry with more than 5 or 6 trestles.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
0 -
john80 said:
It is low from anytime I have been on a ferry. Each trailer has to be driven on disconnected and then tied down over a trestle. I have never seen a ferry with more than 5 or 6 trestles.kingstongraham said:It's trucks with drivers that are banned, so containers and unaccompanied trailers can still go across. No idea what proportion that is.
I was stunned when I did Dover-Calais in July. The ferry was late, I was right at the front of the queue, and it must have taken 30 minutes of non-stop lorries coming off at decent speed before we could load. I would have liked Raab to have been watching.0 -
Oops, yes, wrong thread.pblakeney said:
Child care for essential workers with no alternatives?bompington said:Meanwhile in Scotland, kids will not come into school until 18 jan - term should start on the 6th - but teachers have to come in, presumably so we can sit in our classrooms using our semi-useless school webcams to do home learning for the 2 or 3 kids in each class who'll show up.
Or maybe it's just to stop the Mail whingeing about shirking teachers?
I mean, I'll come in and work less effectively than I could at home if I have to, but what happened to "work from home if you can"?
Probably in the wrong thread too.
Just felt like venting.
When we were doing online teaching before the summer, we had an average of about 10 kids in our "essential worker" nursery from a combined roll of about 1000.0 -
To me this article reeks of an insular, inwards looking population here in the uk - and as it appears to regrettably be true, I find that incredibly sad, disheartening and depressing - both for myself, but even more so for the likes of my 7 year old daughter and her generation.rjsterry said:
Um... I guess it illustrates a point of view. One that ignores huge tracts of history but everyone likes a bit of mythology. Feels like someone thumbing through their Reader's Digest Encyclopedia of British History looking for events to back up their starting assumption.Stevo_666 said:Also from a more philiosophical standpoint, this might help a few people understand the current situation:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/16/great-britain-never-never-will-european-country/
"“Britain is a European nation,” Remainers still often say when calling for the closest possible relationship with the EU after Brexit. I’m never sure what they think this means. And do our Continental neighbours agree? It is hard, perhaps impossible, really to feel the subconscious characteristics that stem from geography, history and culture. Certainly, we lucky islanders have rarely had existential worries about our “identity” or our borders. But France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary – to mention only the biggest – have experienced border disputes or territorial changes even within living memory. You can fight over these things, or you can try to transcend them. So thought Europeanism’s founding fathers, who included men from borderlands wanting to end a nightmare.
Rightly or wrongly, this can never be an instinctive British preoccupation. We could never have been at the heart of this “Europe”, with its quasi-religious mission to replace old nationalisms with an ersatz Europeanism seen as benign. “We have made Europe, now we have to make Europeans”, wrote one leading EU politician a few years back. We might theoretically understand the mistrust of popular sovereignty that has created the EU as a secretive elite power structure. But most of us can never feel this to be the inevitable price for peace. The 20th century taught us a different lesson: that the democratic nation is the bulwark of European civilisation, not its enemy. We instinctively feel that suppressing democratic choice is the truly dangerous course.
Like it or not, we are on the edge, as our eventual relationship with the EU ought to reflect. “Europe” is there, not here. Even the keenest British federalists talk about it as a different place which they wistfully dream of being part of. Semi-detachment runs through our history. We have had shifting relationships with different parts of the continent, so that it is hard even to say with which we have most affinity. Christianity came from Rome. Later we became a southern colony of pagan Scandinavia. Our language is Germanic. We went through a transformative four-century relationship with France. We had a long economic and security relationship with the Netherlands, for a time having the same ruler. For more than a century, after the Hanoverian succession, we were a power in Germany.
Britain has been both the ally and the enemy of every great Continental state, Catholic and Protestant, monarchy, democracy and dictatorship. Its monarch even has a plausible claim to be a sherif of Islam, a descendent of the Prophet Mohammed. It has never been tempted or forced to ally with the hegemonic Continental power to share in the spoils of dominating Europe. If national identity was important, 20 miles of sea were certainly no less; and trans-oceanic connections provided global resources to oppose Continental threats and work to create a “balance of power”. So Britain was the only major European state that never became an ally or a willing satellite of either Napoleon or Hitler, but decided to resist them even when the struggle seemed hopeless. Finally, it never made a serious attempt to join a triumvirate with France and Germany to control the EU. Independence has been our watchword.
The lure of opportunity overseas pulled us away from Continental ambitions. Though the Glorious Revolution of 1688 began the “second hundred years war” with France, ending only at Waterloo, the struggle became increasingly global, fought not only on the plains of Flanders, but in India and America. After Waterloo, Britain refused to be part of the Holy Alliance, a Great Power scheme to run the Continent, becoming instead the patron and protector of independent states, including France, Belgium, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Britain made little effort to shape the unification of Italy during the 1850s, and watched with limited concern and negligible influence as the separate German states were turned by Otto von Bismarck into a new and powerful Empire by aggressive wars against Denmark, Austria and France. Even had Britain wished to interfere it could scarcely have done so. It was never a superpower, but always a medium-sized state, sometimes having to punch above its weight but not getting into the ring at all if it could avoid it. Bismarck joked that if the British landed their army in Germany, he would have it arrested, and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli declared that Britain “was really more an Asiatic power than a European”.
Was this a great geopolitical mistake? Many who later supported European integration thought so. But Brexit proves that it was too late to alter it. The millions who emigrated over the last two centuries in search of a better life did not cross the Channel or the North Sea to become Europeans, but went to English-speaking countries across the oceans. Today, two and a half times as many British citizens live in the “Anglosphere” as in the EU, and Britain’s main ethnic minorities are from Commonwealth countries. Even when we were striving to be “at the heart of Europe”, we were less economically integrated than any other EU member, and for 20 years our trade has been increasingly moving away from the Continent.
Opinion polling shows that our views of the EU are not very different from those of our Continental neighbours – that is, unenthusiastic or worse. The difference is that they feel that they have no choice but to remain members. Economic calculation weighs. But so do the instinctive feelings that stem from geography and history. The detached or semi-detached countries – Norway, Switzerland, ourselves and the non-Eurozone member-states – are all in different ways outsiders.
Our peculiarity – or so General de Gaulle thought when he vetoed our entry into the European Economic Community – was that we were too global: “an island, sea-going, bound up, by its trade, its markets, its food supplies, with the most varied and often the most distant countries”. It has taken us half a century to realise he was right, and finally to go with the grain."Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
Scott CR1 SL 12
Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
Scott Foil 180 -
-
You could look at it like that, but recognising that we are different from our continental friends is not necessarily being insular (although one meaning of insular is 'relating to or from an island'daniel_b said:
To me this article reeks of an insular, inwards looking population here in the uk - and as it appears to regrettably be true, I find that incredibly sad, disheartening and depressing - both for myself, but even more so for the likes of my 7 year old daughter and her generation.rjsterry said:
Um... I guess it illustrates a point of view. One that ignores huge tracts of history but everyone likes a bit of mythology. Feels like someone thumbing through their Reader's Digest Encyclopedia of British History looking for events to back up their starting assumption.Stevo_666 said:Also from a more philiosophical standpoint, this might help a few people understand the current situation:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/16/great-britain-never-never-will-european-country/
"“Britain is a European nation,” Remainers still often say when calling for the closest possible relationship with the EU after Brexit. I’m never sure what they think this means. And do our Continental neighbours agree? It is hard, perhaps impossible, really to feel the subconscious characteristics that stem from geography, history and culture. Certainly, we lucky islanders have rarely had existential worries about our “identity” or our borders. But France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary – to mention only the biggest – have experienced border disputes or territorial changes even within living memory. You can fight over these things, or you can try to transcend them. So thought Europeanism’s founding fathers, who included men from borderlands wanting to end a nightmare.
Rightly or wrongly, this can never be an instinctive British preoccupation. We could never have been at the heart of this “Europe”, with its quasi-religious mission to replace old nationalisms with an ersatz Europeanism seen as benign. “We have made Europe, now we have to make Europeans”, wrote one leading EU politician a few years back. We might theoretically understand the mistrust of popular sovereignty that has created the EU as a secretive elite power structure. But most of us can never feel this to be the inevitable price for peace. The 20th century taught us a different lesson: that the democratic nation is the bulwark of European civilisation, not its enemy. We instinctively feel that suppressing democratic choice is the truly dangerous course.
Like it or not, we are on the edge, as our eventual relationship with the EU ought to reflect. “Europe” is there, not here. Even the keenest British federalists talk about it as a different place which they wistfully dream of being part of. Semi-detachment runs through our history. We have had shifting relationships with different parts of the continent, so that it is hard even to say with which we have most affinity. Christianity came from Rome. Later we became a southern colony of pagan Scandinavia. Our language is Germanic. We went through a transformative four-century relationship with France. We had a long economic and security relationship with the Netherlands, for a time having the same ruler. For more than a century, after the Hanoverian succession, we were a power in Germany.
Britain has been both the ally and the enemy of every great Continental state, Catholic and Protestant, monarchy, democracy and dictatorship. Its monarch even has a plausible claim to be a sherif of Islam, a descendent of the Prophet Mohammed. It has never been tempted or forced to ally with the hegemonic Continental power to share in the spoils of dominating Europe. If national identity was important, 20 miles of sea were certainly no less; and trans-oceanic connections provided global resources to oppose Continental threats and work to create a “balance of power”. So Britain was the only major European state that never became an ally or a willing satellite of either Napoleon or Hitler, but decided to resist them even when the struggle seemed hopeless. Finally, it never made a serious attempt to join a triumvirate with France and Germany to control the EU. Independence has been our watchword.
The lure of opportunity overseas pulled us away from Continental ambitions. Though the Glorious Revolution of 1688 began the “second hundred years war” with France, ending only at Waterloo, the struggle became increasingly global, fought not only on the plains of Flanders, but in India and America. After Waterloo, Britain refused to be part of the Holy Alliance, a Great Power scheme to run the Continent, becoming instead the patron and protector of independent states, including France, Belgium, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Britain made little effort to shape the unification of Italy during the 1850s, and watched with limited concern and negligible influence as the separate German states were turned by Otto von Bismarck into a new and powerful Empire by aggressive wars against Denmark, Austria and France. Even had Britain wished to interfere it could scarcely have done so. It was never a superpower, but always a medium-sized state, sometimes having to punch above its weight but not getting into the ring at all if it could avoid it. Bismarck joked that if the British landed their army in Germany, he would have it arrested, and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli declared that Britain “was really more an Asiatic power than a European”.
Was this a great geopolitical mistake? Many who later supported European integration thought so. But Brexit proves that it was too late to alter it. The millions who emigrated over the last two centuries in search of a better life did not cross the Channel or the North Sea to become Europeans, but went to English-speaking countries across the oceans. Today, two and a half times as many British citizens live in the “Anglosphere” as in the EU, and Britain’s main ethnic minorities are from Commonwealth countries. Even when we were striving to be “at the heart of Europe”, we were less economically integrated than any other EU member, and for 20 years our trade has been increasingly moving away from the Continent.
Opinion polling shows that our views of the EU are not very different from those of our Continental neighbours – that is, unenthusiastic or worse. The difference is that they feel that they have no choice but to remain members. Economic calculation weighs. But so do the instinctive feelings that stem from geography and history. The detached or semi-detached countries – Norway, Switzerland, ourselves and the non-Eurozone member-states – are all in different ways outsiders.
Our peculiarity – or so General de Gaulle thought when he vetoed our entry into the European Economic Community – was that we were too global: “an island, sea-going, bound up, by its trade, its markets, its food supplies, with the most varied and often the most distant countries”. It has taken us half a century to realise he was right, and finally to go with the grain." ) "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So if the non-UK trucks are all stuck here beyond 31st does uk impound them?0
