The whole thread is predicated on the likelihood of No Deal. That’s the only condition that applies.
The whole thread is predicated on the likelihood of No Deal. That’s the only condition that applies.
Wait, what did he literally say that confirmed IT IS or IT WILL BE an actual requirement.... Like, literally?
I've just watched it and he says, roughly word for word:
Reasonable worst case scenario planning ASSUMPTIONS
Indicating what COULD happen
Stress that this is not a prediction or forecast but a PRUDENT EXERCISE IN SETTING OUT WHAT COULD, in the WORST CIRCUMSTANCES, occur, IF we DON'T improve
It is clearly far better that everybody is aware NOW of what is needed to prepare rather than to face additional disruption next year and that's why we're publishing our reasonable worst case scenario NOW.
So, in summary, IF we DON'T get better terms THEN we COULD have a situation where a KAP is required. That is NOT the same as Gove says it WILL be required irrespective of circumstances.
See what I mean?
No I don’t see what you mean. The ‘reasonable Worst case’ line he’s spinning is just no deal. They’re already trying to make out that there are different levels of no deal and it appears it’s working.
If we get no deal, then then the KAP is a thing.
And it's the if that's important.
No mate, I'm sorry but I completely disagree.
You said that the way it's been reported and the way I'm interpreting it are "wildly different" to what went down.
Michael Gove stood at the dispatch box and told us that the KAP is coming in the case of the "reasonable worst case scenario". There is no worst case scenario for No Deal. It's digital. We either have a deal and require no checks, or we have no deal and require checks with mandate the KAP.
You're saying the same thing as me but overlaying your view that No Deal is all that's going to happen therefore guaranteed that we'll need a KAP. You said it was a thing - I disagree with that, namely on the grounds that it isn't, and it might only be a thing should a bunch of other things go one way or t'other and then they decide to go with it anyway; for all the flip-flopping of Govt recently, who knows where they might be in a couple of months time.
I'm not annoyed at you. I'm annoyed at BBC. I want news in facts not misleading headlines laced with their own personal opinion - getting to paragraph 7 or whatever before any of the meat of it comes out and, even then, is a thin image of the truth is unacceptable.
No I'm not mate, I've already said the entire topic is predicated on the No Deal scenario
The Government appear intent on throwing the country under the bus because of stuff they campaigned on that just doesn't matter. So all my comments here are on the assumption there's No Deal.
This is actually the bit youre missing arry, if we dont get a deal then KAP is happening. Same as WTO, a Northern Irish border, the Navy defending our fishing waters, delays in imports and exports, this is all going to happen.
Things like food and medicine shortages and power outages MIGHT happen, but the other stuff isnt in doubt. To misquote you its actually a bit disingenuous to describe it as a "worst case scenario" - it is the worst case but its also probably going to be the reality.
Originally Posted by scimmy benOriginally Posted by sprout
Power outages if they do happen will be purposely carried out for political reasons. ...
They will not happen because of any kind of shortage in fuel etc....
Sent from my SM-N970F using Tapatalk
Will they. Remember we import around 30% of our electricity from France.
Food? We are self sustaining with regards to Meat and Dairy, but we import a lot of veg. Much of our NHS medicine is manufactured in the Republic of Ireland.
It's not a.completely.ridiculous.idea if the EU decide to stiff us
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
We don't require any imported power in the UK....
There is a DC high bolt age link through the channel tunnel, but for the last 6 months most fossil fuel generation has been inactive and its surprising how much "green" energy is just fed to dissipate into the ground as there's too much for the infrastructure to cope with
Sent from my SM-N970F using Tapatalk
Docwra and I have had our differences of opinion. Sorry Doc. But he is right here. Our economy is tied into European and global. The Tories think they can force what they want through. They will.quickly.find out they cannot. But by then it may be too late for us minnows who will have to pay for their stupidity
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
They passed the Internal Markets Bill tonight. 21 Tories who opposes it didn’t vote. Which shouldn’t be allowed. But it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Will this be the bill the Lords refuse? Let’s hope so.
Pieman, you whine about democracy but moan when democracy doesn’t agree with you
I voted remain and agreed with Docwra when he said “you fools” but your arguments don’t always make sense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
What on earth?
An MP is elected to represent their constituency, and that means voting on bills, acts and amendments. Not voting at all is, in my opinion, a dereliction of their duty. Mrs. May came across to me as hugely credible last week with her words to the Government. But then she abstained on voting.
If they vote against something, it wipes out a Yes vote and reduces the majority. If they don't vote at all, then the Yes vote isn't affected. It's wrong.
So in today's new, rules of origin exemption for the UK Car Industry have been denied by the EU
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54345882
I won't pretend to fully understand what the current position is in our relationship, but the Government's position is it cannot insist on this being part of the deal, despite the consequences of it for electric vehicles.
But we can insist on fishing waters
£18.6 billion vs £725 million
A million jobs vs 25,000 jobs
The Kent thing, had to speak to a logistics colleague about it as its something I have no interaction with.
There is no additonal cost and it's not really a "permit". It's a system being put in place to double check that logistics firms have managed to run through the process (which the majority of our trade flows through). Pretty much solely do to the lack of resilience and flexiblity at Dover to cope with any delays (due to the pretty much single road into it).
Our logistics people seem relaxed enough about it, obviously rather not have to bother, but no more hassle than the stuff coming from China/US plants to other ports. Their other plan is to container the non-urgent stuff and not use Dover.
Fishing - UK/Norway have signed a deal on fishing arrangments, this is the same type of deal that EU has with Norway and has refused to discuss with the UK. The reason that it's "important" is not commercial. It is about the ability of a country to control its territories and the use of its resources. If it was not important then why have the EU refused to discuss anything other then "maintain the CFP (which is widely regarded as not fit for purpose)"? Why has no other country had to agree (or even been asked) to agree to giving control to the EU of its fishing/territorial resources? Seeing it in a purely commercial sense is missing the point.