UKC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46142188

Oh my. I don't know what else to say about this really! 

Yup. Turns out we're an island. Who knew eh?

Yet another political pygmy.

He should have asked me or any of the other hundreds of thousands of people who actually do something productive involving a European supply chain. 

Twat

"isn't port a drink? Who knew there was another kind of port, or that we ship goods through them?"

The mind boggles, it truly shows the level of intelligence of some of the people "running" this country.

He's following the Brexit politician standard model: mouth blithe and overconfident statements about how simple and easy it all is, get pole-axed by reality, back-track... to be followed by resignation shortly. 

We've had a Secretary of State for Ireland that didn't understand the difference between nationalists and unionists & a Brexit Secretary who hadn't quite understood how reliant UK trade in goods is on the Dover-Calais crossing.

Let's have some suggestions as to who can top this for incompetence.

 How about everyone that voted for Brexit.

I think Liam Fox's 'easiest deal in history' has to be way up there.

Yep. I could be wrong, he is a bit of an unknown entity but my bet is that little moment of candour wasn't a mistake (as intensely embarrassing as normal people in his position would find making such an admission), it's just the opening move in positioning himself for a retreat from responsibility, he's realised the game is up and someone else needs to be left holding the turd when the music stops. Obviously he couldn't possibly as a mere minister be expected to just know and understand the fine details of how we interact economically with the union he is responsible for us leaving, he must therefore have been improperly briefed! Next will be the pretence he's being actively stymied by the EU or the civil service or remoaners or his cabinet colleagues (take your pick, it'll be left to the press's imagination anyway), that he doesn't the have free rein required to deliver a brexit for the people... Then the flounce, back out of the tent pissing in with the other quitters.

jk

Ah, strategic stupidity... excellent!

Strategically mislead

On the other hand he could just be another donkey who's been promoted beyond his ability to maintain brexit balance in cabinet. It's easy in these strange times to forget that sadly simple possibility.

jk

An overestimation of his abilities, surely. 

It is utterly depressing. Port of Dover authorities have been warning for months, as have all the users of the port, of the consequences of Brexit. To date, it seems the only signs of awareness from Government of the difficulties to be imposed have come from the DfT, with their work to turn parts of the M20 and M26 into lorry parks. One can only wonder why Raab has paid no heed to these warnings. 

I desperately want to believe that this is part of Big Tel's masterplan to turn Brexit into such mess it never happens. Ha.

I heard him called Raab C Brexit the other day.

According to a piece in  the Guardian (if I've remembered correctly), so do some of his own staff

… this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/09/dominic-raab-brexit-g...

Theres a great analogy near the end of that piece:

May’s government is the obnoxious hatchback driver in the Ferrari baseball cap, with negotiators such as Davis veering from ill-mannered to unrealistic. It has squandered much of the negotiating period since article 50 was triggered, acting like its bumper sports the legend “MY OTHER COUNTRY IS A SUPERPOWER”. 

We do seem to be blessed, at this crux in our history, with the worst possible selection of incompetents in government. 

I hear,on the radio, men and women of real stature and intellect speaking on a whole range of topics. What on earth is this shower doing in power?

If you need cheering up then I have just the thing: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrTjvyOWkAEzSvJ.jpg

That sort of thing should come with a warning!!

Do the bookies already have odds out on Raab being reelected or not next general election?

You should send him your details. I’m sure your advice would be much appreciated. Always sage, temperate and designed to help. Perhaps you and MG, Rom, and The Climber should offer your services to HMG. Then we wouldn’t be in this mess. Just a worse one. 

Maybe you should give him a call John. You could tell him to just get on with it . And you could explain what "it" is, at the same time. 

It would help me too, because I have no idea what they are trying to achieve  

Go on then John 

Tell us how it should be done. 

Awaiting inaccurate bluster possibly backed up with a link to a biased and barely relevant article....

No, it just shows how desperate the Remain gang are to twist words. His faux pas pales in comparison to JCJ’s grandiloquent claim that U.K. leave vote could spell the end of ‘western political civilisation’ or man of the people Baron Adonis claim that it could lead to World War. It’s only a deeply prejudiced person that could think Raab doesn’t know we are an island or that goods are transported via ports. But there is no shortage of such small minded bigots on here that will gloat at his discomfiture. Personally, I think the claim we are an island is another remainer lie.????

Yes, but John, what advice would you give him. 

I'll admit that, though I have an A level in Geography , I didn't really have a clue about our trade and business with the continent, until I saw the awesome number of containers on the docks at Zeebrugge and Hull, the thousands of cars with no number plates ready to be brought across to the UK for finishing.

But then I'm not a government minister. I only need to have an informed notion of the issues in order to vote .

You clearly believe you are well informed. But you haven't actually explained anything yet . It won't help, you know  if you simply respond by calling me a lefty. 

Several have tried to get JY to; a) explain the benefits of brexit and b) play nice.

Thus far I've seen little evidence of success on either count. Good luck.

Eh?

You won't get odds: he holds a very safe Conservative seat, so he'll be reelected if he chooses to stand (and isn't deselected by his constituency party.)

That line made me think that Mr Yates is playing some sort of game that he thinks is very clever and funny. I'm not sure what, but it's all rather surreal.

Someone needs to tell him that the blue bit on the map is the sea. 

What's the 'C' stand for?

Let's be generous and say "Clueless".

John's motivation is very hard to fathom but his tactic is clear: spout pro-brexit nonsense then derail the discussion with something like that or a deluge of barely related cut and paste before he has to substantiate any of it. It's a tactic borrowed from a previous generation of conspiracy theorists.

jk

Well the most obvious point is that we are *not* an island, we're a series of islands one of which is split with the other half being another country.  The daft quip that he's "realised" that we're an island just shows the stupidity of those speaking.  Pete Pozman's utterly irrelevant reference to Hull is more of the same.

Your tactics are to distort anything said and then reply to your distortion.  I'm really not sure why you do it, or what you hope to gain by it.

Would you like to revise this statement?? I feel you will upset a country if you don't!

I'm sick of this. What have I distorted, what *exactly* are you accusing me of?

jk

Your post about John that I replied to.  We're not an island.  His post being replied to wasn't cut and paste or hard to understand.  He does cut and paste a bit, but not that much the vast majority of his posts are him speaking.  You're distorting what he does instead of replying to what was actually said.

Or, e.g. https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/peeps_vote_march-694597?v=1#x88...  Leaving EU = the destruction of all ties with the world, massive distortion.

You do it a hell of a lot, if you're sick of it being pointed out stop doing it.

girlymonkey - if you mean Scotland, it's not a country any more than England is.

But John says that Raab knows we're an island, and now you're telling us we're not. So is John wrong, or is Raab wrong? 

I know we're not an island.  We're people on an island.  TAKE THAT!

Great Britain is correctly described as 'an island' (see Wikipedia), even though it has a large number of much smaller islands around its coast. Just as Ireland (as a geographical entity) is a single island, with many small islands round its coast.

Try looking at a map.  John's basic point as I understood it was that nitpicking and distorting is pointless.

Raab was, very obviously, saying that he didn't appreciate the significance of Dover.  Not that he wasn't aware of ports, not that he didn't appreciate that we traded with the EU, or that we do so using ships.  You could have a go at him for not appreciating the importance of Dover.  Or you can rewrite what he's said into something quite different and have a go at him for that instead.  Why people do the latter I don't know.

John said "Personally, I think the claim we are an island is another remainer lie.????", this is Alice in Wonderland nonsense, the content of which I wasn't addressing but the reason for its inclusion, as a nonsensical throwaway distraction. It's a tactic he uses over and over again.

The salient point being discussed is our brexit secretary, a prominent leave advocate doesn't by his own admission actually understand the UK's economic connection to the EU.

You said something along the lines of you wouldn't consider anything but the complete severance of all ties with the EU and its institutions a true brexit (I paraphrase from memory, enjoy nit the picking). The effect of that is to willingly give up 50+ FTA delivering favourable access to a huge fraction of the global economy. I was blunt about the merit of that for sure.

jk

John said (it's up there ^) that Raab knows we're an island. The nit picking and distorting is you claiming we're not.

Then he's a f*cking moron.

I certainly can, the ignorant tw*t.

 > Or you can rewrite what he's said into something quite different and have a go at him for that instead.  Why people do the latter I don't know.

Stop doing it then, it comes across as quite disingenuous.

This is yet another distortion.  Raab said he didn't understand the significance of Dover.  It might be bad, but it's not at all what you've rewritten it into being.

What I said is in the thread.  Removing ties with the EU doesn't affect our links with the UN, or NATO, for example and it's a ridiculous distortion to say what you said.  You distort constantly, don't get precious when it's pointed out.

No one actually thinks Raab was unaware we are an island, everyone is astounded that the Brexit Secretary doesn't understand the significance of Dover and are quite rightly having a pop at him, sometimes with a serious point, sometimes is a mocking manner, joking he didnt realise we were an island.

It's pretty depressing that the Brexit Secetary has little grasp of how we trade, how goods pass in and out of the country etc and even more depressing that you are willing to brush that under the carpet in an argument about his knowledge of basic UK geography. You should be furious and be questioning his ability to deliver the Brexit you want, not covering for him because he is "on your side", it's like watching a one-eyed football fan listing excuses for some awful behavior of a player just because they wear a red/blue/etc (delete as appropriate) shirt on a Saturday afternoon.

It scarcely matters what anybody else says or rewrites. The issue is the fact that he failed to understand the significance of the port of Dover. For someone who is supposed to be involved in negotiations on our departure from the EU, this suggests staggering levels of ignorance and incompetence. Quite how we are supposed to think anything good will come out of this sorry exercise when such idiots appear to be leading the charge is beyond me. 

Okay, not sure why you jump from that perfectly reasonable stance to then saying he "has little grasp of how we trade, how goods pass in and out of the country etc".

Do you think you fully understand the significance of Dover?

According to the article it is not the biggest, by a long long way.  Less than 20% of the value of trade in goods, just making the top 10 biggest ports in terms of volume.  I'd have guessed it was more than that.  Did I study in detail the volume and goods passed through which ports in the UK?  No.  Have you?  Do I think it is utterly terrible that a minister new to a post and now having studied the detail wasn't fully aware of all of the detail?  No, not really.

So Thomas, what is the significance of Dover from the brexit perspective if not as a major trade portal into Europe?

Dover-Calais is especially interesting from a brexit perspective in that it illustrates the importance of the gravity model of trade, the denial of which is key to brexiter's claims we can easily offset our losses in Europe.

Not directly but the ultra-hard version of brexit you advocated would seriously diminish our ability to contribute to those alliances and their programs by impoverishing us for years to come. Did you vote to be weaker and poorer?

jk

But we don't trade with the UN or NATO, so that is an utterly irrelevant statement.

No. However, I'm not the Brexit Secretary.

No, all I know is that we generally try to use ports local to the final site as road shipping is quite problematic but for high value items that are on a short time frame to get to site in time/on the critical path etc we use Dover, assuming the size of the item doesn't preclude long distance road shipping.

I would say that is a relevant level of knowledge for an engineer who has no involvement with procurement after the engineering is complete and a cursory look at the delivery time frame to confirm it'll be there in time. If I was responsible for the government department attempting to extricate ourselves from the EU, I would hope to have a better understanding of ALL the locations of entry/exit points of goods into and out of the UK.

He's been in post 3 months and has been part of the Brexit party for a lot longer than that. Maybe I expect too much?

Ha ha, I assumed you DID mean Scotland and had forgotten about Wales! There is no other Island that is part of Great Britian which has two countries on it. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. NI is on the island of Ireland, not GB!

Wales isn't a country either.

The only mention of GB I can see in the thread is Gordon Stainforth's.  There's no mention of it in the article.  We are the UK, we're not GB.

"a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."

I'd say Scotland and Wales fit.  

What exactly did he mean?  I don't know.  If there's somewhere that was discussed I'd be interested.  The BBC article linked just has people reacting in a pretty childish way.  "doesn't even understand the very basics of Brexit"

I'd say that any regional government isn't sufficient.  Wales doesn't have it's own government any more than Bristol does, it has regional governance that is subordinate to the country's (the UK's)government.

The relevant body in terms of trade is the UK, not Scotland or GB or NI.

I've no idea what he meant but the quote:

"We are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing."

and the rest of his speech wasn't very confidence inspiring. We seem to have been at the negotiating table for quite a long time, spend a small fortune on trying to sort this out, and the current Brexit Secretary "hasn't quite understood the full extent of one of our key ports/trade routes". We were meant to signing a deal this week!

I think this is just exasperation. The Government should know their position and the impact of that decision, not just "realising the full extent of anything"!

Indeed. But D Raab was talking about the UK as a "peculiar, frankly, geographic, economic entity" in the way it is "particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing". He was talking about the "peculiarity" of being separated by a channel of water from all the other countries of the EU. (He wasn't making any distinction between the UK and the island of Great Britain, but was simply emphasising our island status, of us being cut us off from Europe by a strip of water). What was so embarrassing was that he said that he 'hadn't previously fully understood the full extent of this'. By the 'full extent' I took him to mean the 'full implications', because I can't see what else he could have meant.

Agree it's not very confidence inspiring, whatever the meaning it doesn't sound very good.

I think it's part of a standard way of doing politics/news, take anything said use the worst possible interpretation and then do childish responses/run click bait stories based on it.  What he was saying was something that was past tense of course, he didn't understand it and he does now (or so he says).

As you say yourself, he was talking about the UK, not GB.  The full extent bit referred to Dover specifically (not to our use of ports generally).

I do hope he does! As much as I agree with you about the general standard of the media, I must admit I let out a sigh listening to that part of his speech, prior to reading the media commentary on it (I knew it was bad, otherwise the clip wouldn't have surfaced....). At least if they could give us the impression of being competent we could all sleep easier......

Overall, he shows a desperately simple/primitive grasp of our relationship, geographically, economically and politically, with the rest of Europe. He's a bit like someone calling himself a climber, who's been taken up a couple of moderates, doesn't know anything about belaying, and has never led anything. I.e. a complete novice. Both embarrassing and frankly scary.

Sorry to disappoint. I’m thinking more of a put down by John Cooper Clarke to a northern heckler.... ‘sorry cant hear you, your mouth is full of...’

Aye there we have it. The screaming arrogance of the noisy minority. Democrats all. You don’t deserve a Third People’s Vote. And just like all the other remainer forecasts, the idea that you will get one will turn to ashes in your spittled mouths 

Based on the slimmest of snippets ..and I’m accused of selectively choosing sections from articles with links to the full thing.. yet, because Raab’s slip supports your group think fantasies you all lap it up and regurgitate it ad nauseum. Private Eye is littered with the gaffes of the famous who live every waking hour in the media eye..grow up and stop being so infantile. 

If many of us were quoted verbatim we would sound muddled and confused. You are all so judgemental. Of those you have already decided to despise. 

No. They do not have their own government as they are subservient to a higher authority. They have devolved powers from the UK government. But I suppose by your definition the EU is a country. 

What he hadn’t understood was presumably the importance of the single Dover-Calais crossing, not the UK’s island status. Given that it is only the UK’s 9th biggest port in tonnage terms its importance is slightly counterintuitive. But there is no reason that should affect the way people voted.

 Foolish of him not to realise how the remainers would jump on it.

Of course it is a country. Wales was forcibly subsumed by england in the same way as poland, hungary etc by the soviet union. The fact that this is so long ago is irrelevant.

Temperate and balanced as a bag of frogs. 

You never rise to the occasion. 

Oh dear. Humour transplant required. I was taking the piss out of myself by ‘claiming’ the fact that we are an island is a remainer lie. You really are. Dense. 

I’m sick of this...you say..but

Not so sick that you get a doctors note and rest up a while

My my last comment about Raab at 15:52, btw, was not simply relating to that 26 sec clip from RT TV (unfortunately, I don't think there's a longer clip of the full speech or the context anywhere easily available) but an assessment based on multiple statements he's made on the media over the last two months.

Night on the pop was it John? Hope the head's ok this morning.

jk

You don't think that if the MP's heading the charge for leaving the EU misunderstood its costs and consequences then they might have unwittingly misrepresented the cost-benefit balance? Or that the electorate might also have harboured some of the same misconceptions Raab as the no doubt very well briefed minister responsible for the consequences of leaving is only just getting to grips with less than 6 months out from the deadline? If our brexit secretary, a prominent leaver didn't make a properly informed decision can you really argue the rest of us did?

Foolish* of him not to develop a better understanding of the consequences of the policy he promoted.

*Utterly irresponsible really

jk

Wales wasn't ever a country was it?  There was a collection of kingdoms which were individually taken over and subsumed into England. 

Do you think Saxony is a country?  How about Gwynedd?  They were historically countries.  I don't think they are, they were and now they're not.  Just like Scotland and England.

Whatever you want to call it the UK is the relevant administrative unit, whether you say state, country, kingdom, or whatever doesn't really matter it's just quibbling about terms.

Galpinos - fully agree there.  I do think more sensible questions would be more helpful, I might have actually learned something - or I might be agreeing he should have known and is incompetent!  As it is I just don't know what he meant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales 

Okay, I didn't know that, it was a "country" for 7 years.

From the first para of the wikipedia "Country" page:

"Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise[clarification needed] of legal jurisdiction.[citation needed]"

Wales doesn't independently exercise legal jurisdiction.

So that first line of Wales' wiki entry where it says it's a country is wrong; you better submit an edit I guess.

It contradicts their "country" article, but then that article contradicts itself.  I'm not minded to get into changing wiki articles, I'd hope you don't take them as gospel!

I think they are a good start, for example it lead to this article https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/international-body-grants-wal...

Recognised as a country by ISO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1#Current_codes

They might recognise it as a "country" (not sure what they mean by that) but it doesn't get a country code, and neither do England or Scotland - the UK does.

under which entry you will find Wales listed as a country along side England and Scotland 

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GB

Is the UK a country?

jk

You don't find it just a bit odd that out of all the countries in the world Scotland, England and Wales are "recognised" but don't get country codes, that they're all under the same one?  Country means the legal definition quoted from wiki above, and has a clear useful meaning that applies everywhere...except for here.  Seems daft to me.

jk - Yes.

You can keep disputing if you like, but if the international organisation for filing shit correctly recognises them as countries that is good enough for me. 

So the UK is a country and a country must according to you be able to 'independently exercise legal jurisdiction' but then you also believe (and please correct me if I'm misremembering) we must withdraw completely from the EU and its institutions to regain sovereignty, our independence if you will.

Those three beliefs don't appear to hold together as a coherent whole so what am I misunderstanding?

jk

  It's a (major)short term logistical problem if there is no deal. Short term logistical problems should not dictate massive long term decisions.

Not that it matters but I disagree here; Scotland and England are both countries, they just happen to part of a union called the United, (excuse me while I suppress a giggle at that) Kingdom. As for Wales (and Cornwall) I'll leave that up to them as it's none of my business what they want to see themselves as.

Massive long term decisions shouldn't be made without taking into account permanent geographic realities.

  No, but this isn't one of those.

It's a problem that exists whilever we are outside a customs union with the EU which is your government's stated endpoint for negotiations. If that is short term we're not speaking the same language.

Jk

Sorry but yes it is. JIT supply chains, low cost perishable food and academic cooperation are all facilitated by close proximity.

It's just daft to think otherwise.

How so?

PS. It's your government as well. That's how it works.

Good news, after getting the concept of a "port" . Raab now has 24hrs to understand a 500 page withdrawal agreement. 

To be fair he is a 10 times smarter than his lazy and silly predecessor.

You are right, we shouldn't let "short term logistical problem" like the disruption of entire industries and supply chains, jobs and livelihood, get in the way of the much grander holy pursuit of becoming an irrelevant vassal state.

I don't know... he's stupid enough to be left holding the gun

Still a relative genius compared to DD...

Outside a customs union there will need to be border customs checks. Dover processes an enormous volume of roll on roll off freight traffic but does not have the land available to build holding and customs check facilities capable of handling the existing throughput. Dover is trapped between cliffs and sea so that won't change significantly. The alternative is to run down Dover as a truck freight port but that requires massive infrastructure investment elsewhere and it increases road and ferry transit times, plus of course the newly imposed customs clearing time driving up costs and driving down supply line reliability making Britain a less compelling place to assemble complex products, particularly those destined for the EU even if it is not ultimately behind a tariff barrier.

They are nothing to do with me.

jk

   Ramsgate has very significant spare capacity ready to go and spare land for development. Other ports (Folkstone,London, Harwich etc) could be ramped up.

  Yes, it's a major project but perfectly doable. Some timings may increase by a few hours but it's not the end of the known universe.

  Have you ever looked at a map of the UK and Europe by the way?

  Sorry son, UK citizen , UK government aka. Your government.

But there are good reasons why they are currently unpopular for truck freight into France, mostly related to accessibility and longer crossing times, this may not matter so much with containerised freight but when you have a driver on the clock and perishable goods in the back that is all added cost. Outside the customs union which I will say again is your government's goal (the one it appears to be failing to deliver) adds cost to doing business in Britain, it costs jobs.

Of course not but the effects ripple far out from the choked ports into the wider economy. Remind me what the point of all this is. Was yours the brexit of jumping ship before the EU fails or of 'sovereignty', I forget? Seems to me we're clearly ceding sovereignty in real terms and run by these donkeys we'll now easily beat the EU in the race to fail.

Curious question, what do you think? Let's save the nonsense and you can explain where you're going with this.

Nope, they're all yours. Useless shower of *****, they richly deserve their place in history.

jk

As much as the above is true, if all the above are ripe for expansion:

• Why haven't we done it already? Dover seems to be at capacity/over capacity already but there appears to be no investment in the other ports or any desire to move some of the 'JIT' burden to them.
• If this is the answer, why are we not doing it already? If we are doing Brexit, Dover has been identified as an issue and the solution is develop the other ports, why aren't we doing it?
• We are not exactly renowned for delivering large scale infrastructure projects quickly. If the solution is improvement/expansion of these ports, by the time they are operational won't the damage have been done?  

I'm not saying Dover is the be all and end all, but it does seem as though this is a known issue that has been ignored. I get the feeling it's not the only issue that hasn't seen the level of scrutiny that is required.

  W

  Why haven't we put in proper infrastructure in Northern England and Scotland either. Lots of complex reasons.

  In addition: there has been a lot of development at Ramsgate but Dover has maintained a vice like grip on the business. Presumably nobody is prepared to make the investment until it becomes necessary rather than "quite a good idea" or "essential".

  Damage will be done but this comes under the "short term logistics" .

  In the 50 year + time frame it will look like a nasty hiccup, unless, and this is a big risk, it enables a Corbyn government and a generation of socialist misrule

  So Dover, Ramsgate (and Folkstone) will be the route of choice for "urgent" goods and others will go elsewhere.

   Yes, chequers is a disaster and the proof of Varoufakis'  Hotel California line. If both sides had acknowledged their mutual interests rather than playing a game of brinkmanship a reasonable solution, over a longer timeframe, was perfectly possible.

  For some parts of Northern Europe a good service into East coast ports may not be much longer than driving all the way to Calais.

  Do you think that, in the event of "no deal" both sides will insist on playing it out to the point of severe economic disruption all over the UK and Europe? (that is not a rhetorical question)

It seems strange that he appears to have paid absolutely no heed to the myriad warnings from business organisations with explicit regard to the importance of the Dover-Calais crossing. These warning began even before the referendum, so it cannot be claimed that it's only recently become apparent there might just be an issue with this specific crossing. 

The suspicious might think he was choosing not to pay attention to anything which might make his job harder. 

Ramsgate certainly has some capacity, but its docks are not currently suited to larger vessels. Currently, I believe that only one ro-ro ferry has been identified as being suitable for docking there. It is also backed by high cliffs and only a limited amount of space to build on. Certainly way-way-way less than Dover. There would have to be a significant amount of land re-captured from the sea to expand much.  There is also limited capacity on the roads in and out of Ramsgate to get to the more major roads. You have about 7 miles of stop-start traffic to get to the easier roads.

My guess is that less than one ferry every hour would be its limit in capacity (500000 lorries per year stated capacity, 85 lorries per ship).

Time for an illustration, I think:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr9FgojX0AAYeOJ.jpg

No according to stuff I've read, including on the port website. It need dredging but otherwise is ready to go and the roads have been upgraded accordingly. There is developable land identified (which, planning considerations aside) could very quickly be turned into parking and customs office space>

  Thanet council reckons that a £7mn grant would enable capacity to be doubled to 1mn units per year ( to put that in context, Dover moved 2.6mn last year and tunnel 1.6mn so it's a big chunk.

caveat.I've never driven a truck down there to find out....

edit.to insert "never"!

At increased cost. Everything about brexit is about damage limitation.

But this was the obvious outcome from the very start, we were in a weak position with unrealistic expectations. Everyone wants cake and unicorns, only some of us actually believed we could get them.

Indeed and they do. Nobody picks the costlier or less advantageous route unless they're forced to, if traffic comes through Dover that is as a result of market forces.

No, I think we'd go cap in hand for a short pause on the A50 clock to buy time in which to deliver a referendum. If that returns another leave vote the pressure will be back on to push May's deal give or take cosmetic tweaks through parliament. I don't think the EU are going to capitulate, we have put ourselves in a position of profound weakness.

jk

  It is damage limitation on one part of one side of the equation, economic relations with the EU.

  Largely, but also because that is where the facilities are.

  Nobody, of course, should be arguing in terms of either side "capitulating" but, that aside, the approach of the EU has just confirmed what a ghastly institution it is.

Which part do you think is wrong?  

Length limits of 180 m mean most new ro ro wont fit . Depth of 6.5 m is OK as long as regularly dredged. (big ro ros seem to be about 6m). When there was one sailing per day the terminal was about 1/3rd full with trucks waiting. There isn't much spare capacity on the roads nearby for waiting without it holding up all local traffic in and out of the 'island'.

Sorry for late edit, pressed submit too soon.

  Take your pick. They claim they've got modern facilities capable of dealing with modern vessels and containers, and plenty of land (owned by Thanet council) to expand into.

http://www.portoframsgate.co.uk/media/2776286/Maritime-Plan-July-2015.pdf

I have no time for Corbyn's outmoded 70s conception of socialism but do explain how exactly it will be even worse than our current experience of misrule. 

No, life is too short.

The EU and the 50odd other nations we have FTA with through our membership delivering favourable access to c75% of the global economy. Also on the sovereignty issue, we are clearly going to be ceding meaningful influence over the rules we live by for the foreseeable future. But yeah, apart from the economic damage and the loss of control it's all roses.

There are ports all over Britain, the ones that do well do so for good geographical and economic reasons. Your argument that if brexit breaks one or two of them the others will pick up the slack glosses over the real economic harm that implies.

By that I mean the EU will give nothing more than window dressing to make the deal palatable to parliament under pressure. They are in a much stronger position and the UK will have to give ground if it comes to 'no-deal'. Davis and his ilk with their misguided narrative of an EU run by the German car industry coming to our rescue to sell BMWs have grossly misunderstood how this will play out. Whatever the PM may claim in public 'no-deal' represents economic suicide for Britain and electoral oblivion for the Conservative party. While a minority of a minority of her backbenchers may still be willing to pull the trigger for reasons of nationalist delusion or treasonous profiteering she knows the harm it will do and she and won't. The decision may of course be taken out of her hands, for shame a total wreck is still quite possible.

jk

That will be solved quickly in time to secure business and manufacturing deliveries post Brexit and Dover gridlock? I'm always the optimist but......

I hope it is only "short term logistics" but many businesses seem to be saying that they will move/reduce/rundown their UK operations if their delivery model is affected and that business might not come back by the time we've sorted it (improved Folkstone etc).

This may be bluster by businesses, I don't know, but once we lose manufacturing etc, we will be unlikely to get it back for a long time. This seems a bigger risk than a "blip" for "short term logistics".

There are ports all over Britain, the ones that do well do so for good geographical and economic reasons.

  Actually the reason Ramsagate didn't gain share was that has been overcapacity in the Roro sector so the existing providers will obviously win.

   Whatever I came on to make one point about Raab's comment. I am not interested in the usual stuff and the usual insults from your fellow remainers who are not actually interested in discussion because they don't believe there is one to be had.

Do you think it disappointing that the SoS DExEU failed to understand the significance of the Dover-Calais crossing, or do you consider such ignorance to be acceptable in a senior Cabinet Minister? 

I've not insulted you. If you have complaints about the conduct of others take it up with them, don't use it as an excuse to duck out of a discussion.

jk

The revisionism is strong in this one, already blaming the EU for not getting your special leavers cherry cake.

Any member country is of course free to submit an article 50 notice, but if you then amateurishly weaken your negotiating position by drawing red lines all over the place you better be prepared to own the resulting clusterf*ck. This includes, in particular, the effects on the Irish border.

It is clearly not the job of the EU to solve the problems arising from the UK government trying to renege on binding commitments it made during the negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement.

That aside, how on earth did anyone on the UK negotiating team expect that the rEU would be willing, or even able, to compromise on the fundamental principles of its single market? Coupling the four freedoms is one of the main reasons for its existence. Abandon these principles, and you may as well dissolve the entire union.

Free trade always was the means, not the aim. I wonder how this was never really understood in the UK, despite being stated clearly since the very inception of the union.

Bizarre.

CB

  I didn't say your had. I referred deliberately to "your fellow remainers". Which is another frustration, people don't read what is written!!

  I don't remember saying that the government has played a brilliant negotiating hand. Which is yet another problem, people don't address what is said.

I read, understood and I responded directly to that point, you're using the conduct of others as an excuse to end your conversation with me. Your call.

jk

Compounded by the fact that there was no agreed position when the A50 letter was written, and that valuable time was spent on internal party politics, rather than negotiations for the good of the country. The EU can hardly be blamed for the fact that it took 2 years for the government to develop a set of proposals upon which to negotiate. 

Its true to some extent - but essentially the commercial port is used only a few times a year currently. It could be used a lot more than it is currently....  As I say it is limited - there has been a struggle to identify a vessel that could be used. There has been talk locally for a replacement ferry service for many many years and it still hasn't happened.  

Dover state they do about 2.6 million per annum. Ramsgate claim 500,000 capacity, so about 1/5th of Dover. The claim of 3360 per day in the newpaper report below would mean about 1.25 million per annum, which seems to be very unrealistic. It can take smaller ships, it has much less land and poorer infrastructure around it - I look at it most days. There is probably about 1/4 to 1/5 of the area of land at Ramsgate, so from that I would guess about 500,000 lorries per year would be about right. Or less than one sailing per hour. The most likely route is to/from Oostende - if Calais is also at capacity (though I'm not sure it is to be honest). This takes about 4.5 hours port to port rather than about 1, so extends travel time quite a lot compared to Dover-Calais), but it does only add about 40 minutes if you go to Calais.  An operator would have to find about 5-6 ships to run a service at one per hour Dover to Calais. P&o use 4 on Dover Calais to get an approx 23 sailings per day, so given the extra time 5 or 6 would be needed. There isn't one ship that has been located as yet. . And the cost would be higher by about 30-50% is my guess...

It could certainly be used, but I'm not sure I believe the headlines. If there could be one sailing per 2 hours and 4 ships, then 350,000 lorries per year would be about right - about the 1/7 th of the capacity of dover. It would then depend on whether any additional checks would mean dover had more or less than a loss of 1/7th of the capacity...

https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2018/11/12/government-told-ramsgate-port-co...

Nice question-dodging. 

But you did say that the negotiating strategy of the EU revealed it to be a "ghastly institution".

In contrast, I would argue, the EU was meticulous and highly professional in documenting its negotiating position from the very start, not something you can say about most transnational bodies.

Show me one concrete step in the negotiations where, during the negotiations, the EU dishonestly or in bad faith deviated from what it said before the Art. 50 notice was served or had agreed to at an earlier stage of the negotiations.

That matching the skills and preparation of Davis and Barnier (and their respective teams) could only ever had one outcome is a separate issue.

CB

I totally agree. The incompetence, deceit, obfuscation and bad faith shown by Theresa May, David Davis and now Dominic Raab have made me ashamed of my country in a way I cannot ever remember before. (I don't remember Suez, and this is much, much worse.) This was not something the EU asked for or instituted, yet they appear to have assigned a highly professional team and more than adequate resource  to negotiating a mutually acceptable outcome; which we haven't begun to match.

As an aside, and I've said this before, I think regarding the EU as an optional institution is wrong, a bit like regarding gravity as an independent  force. Gravity is what happens when mass distorts the space time continuum; the EU (or something very like it) is what happens in the 21st century when countries are bound together by close geographical, social political and economic ties. Whatever fudge we end up with next year, our children will inevitably negotiate their way back in, hopefully within our lifetimes.

Yere right. Brcause I haven’t participated in such discussions probably hundreds of times before over 15 years on here!

  I should really feel the need to repeat my views to people who feel the need to vent their frustrations on line for the thousandth time

 No, you didn't. You implied I had accused you of insulting me. I hadn't.

Yes, it's over. You are less offensive than most but I learn nothing from these debates except that their are some very angry remainers on here whose anger precludes any reasonable discussion or self awareness . You really do yourself no favours.

   Which doesn't mean it isn't ghastly. If you think it's luvley jubbly then feel free. Presumably you're fully aware of it's defects but choose to think they are outweighed by its positives. I don't.

Do you have mirrors in your house?

  Clearly one a one year view, if there is no deal then there is a major logistics problem . You haven't really why this couldn't be partially alleviated by Ramsgate and, over a period of several years, by expanding Ramsgate and other southern ports.

  I think you are acknowledging that Ostend Ramsgate or Boulogne/Dunkirk Ramsgate or even Folkstone or couldn't be expanded to deal with the problem.

The usual suspects will pooh pooh improved electronic customes checks etc but over the medium term can that really not be massively enhanced?

No, I am aware of many of its defects, and even accept that you can rationally be in favour or against membership. However, I struggle to see how you can take exception to the negotiation strategy of the EU over the last couple of years. I thought this was exemplary on the EU side. No tantrums such as third reich comparisons, no silly red lines, in general a professional and well prepared team, clear documentation of positions (unlike, say, the non existing sectorial assesments..), the list could go on forever.

CB

  Yes, and I have made very clear from 2015 that I felt it was a very hard to decision and acknowledge that there are many practical advantages in being a member of the EU which I would miss a lot. I was shocked by the vitriol from the remain camp who seem unable to acknowledge that there is another perfectly rational view and started caricaturing brexiteers as extremists blah blah..

  I left the site for a bit because I was being dragged down to remainer levels of insult. It's actually quite funny, you're all so desperate for somebody to shout at you start frothing when somebody turns up

What would you do without us?!

Ramsgate? Of course! Ramsgate!

Have you been shocked at the vitriol by the Leave camp, either here or elsewhere? For example, the description of High Court judges as enemies of the people, the description of Remain supporting Tory MPs as mutineers and traitors, the death threats issued against Gina Miller. 

This is typical of the sort of pathetic comment that drove me away. You're not thick and you can read so you can see that Ramsgate might be one part of a long term strategy to facilitate smoother post brexit trade. It simply happened to develop as a sub thread because Dave had a view. You know that (I hope) but you can't help yourself.

    It's the same attitude which I drew me to the thread. People were making no effort to understand what Raab said or why. Its easier to to create a childish caricature of it which, if you stopped to think, you'd know is bollocks, but wouldn't allow you let off steam.

  And somebody wondered why people don't engage with you lot.

Yes, much of it, of course!! But I'm referring to the remainer coven on UKC.

And you don't, presumably, consider 'remainer coven' to be remotely inflammatory? The idea that the vitriol flows in one direction only seems somewhat misplaced. 

You are comparing people taking the piss out of tbe brexit minister's self-acknowlegded ignorance of basic parts of his brief with people being called enemies of the people and traitor, and death threats. I hear the White House have some forthcoming vacancies, you'd fit right in. 

I asked earlier:

Do you think it disappointing that the SoS DExEU failed to understand the significance of the Dover-Calais crossing, or do you consider such ignorance to be acceptable in a senior Cabinet Minister? 

Perhaps you've just failed to articulate a compelling and rational case that stands scrutiny.

Your characterisation of yourself as someone torn two ways on brexit doesn't sit very well with the increasingly hard-line position you took up over the past two years and the language you use about the EU and remain supporters in debate today. Perhaps it's where you started, sat on the fence but if so you've apparently developed one hell of a blindspot in defence of your leave decision!

jk

It's supposed to be! I've just said that I withdrew because I was sinking to their level.

  They're like a bunch of yobs hanging around a street corner waiting for someone to pick on, and when someone like JY (or me) gives them a taste of their own medicine they squeal "sir, sir , that boy said horrid things to us"

Sorry, too many grammar errors in yours to understand fully what you are saying, but hopefully I get the gist. The second paragraph - can you rewrite so its clear. 

I'm just giving more info about the limits of the port I know, Ramsgate... and how likely it is that the solution 'we just use ramsgate and folkestone and newhaven' to add to our capacity.

Folkestone has even less portside capacity (probably about < 1/14th of Dover) and has been building the area as a tourist destination. Making it a working port again will be quite challenging - as there will be a lot of local opposition to it. It was last used as such in ~2000. All movements have to go through quite small roads through the town.

I think my main point is that there would have to be reasonable investment for a small quantity of additional capacity and I would wonder how commercially viable it would be. I;m not a financial whiz, so I couldn't make a judgement . It certainly isn't viable currently, nor has it been for the last 10-20 years. If prices increase at Dover due to additional wait times, then it could well be viable - but that will have a certain knock on effect on the price of goods in the shops. For a big increase in capacity, then we are looking at big investment and who knows if that would pay off. I'm glad I don't have to make that call, even though it will be my council tax that pays for it either way.

I know too little about Newhaven to comment. I've only been through it once.

Pete's response was a light hearted and sarcastic expression of a very serious issue. What we are - only now - being told is that there are significant and major infrastructure changes to be made to get over the issues caused by Brexit. 

This idea - Davis suggested it as well - that oh well, if one port can't cope just move to another - is plain wrong, and is very ignorant of just about every aspect of freight transport. Ships can't just rock up on the off chance that berths will be available or that depths will be sufficient, and they have to be met by lorries who have schedules to keep and journey times, proscribed by law and planned to the nth detail. Then there have to be customs facilities, security checks, communication links, IT, new staff and staff trained to implement new procedures that haven't even been invented yet.

Excuse me, Brexit is 4 months away. 

   I was never under illusion that people would change their minds, which is not the same as saying that there is not a rational case. You sound very conceited.

  If I have hardened my position it is probably the result of two things: the appalling behaviour of certain elements of the remainer camp, including some elements on here. (But as usual, that sort of behaviour sometimes makes one appear to defend positions one doesn't really hold.)

  The reassertion by Junckers, Merkel and Macron that they are committed to further integration towards a federal state. And as a corollary of that, that serious compromise must be avoided at risk of weakening the drive to integration.

  No, it was a lazy put down that he thought would look funny to his mates.

  Anyway, I'm going out. Happy loitering. I'm sure somebody else to shout at will come long soon

Sorry, but I did think it was quite funny. Does that make me a bad person? 

I note you continue to avoid my questions:

Do you think it disappointing that the SoS DExEU failed to understand the significance of the Dover-Calais crossing, or do you consider such ignorance to be acceptable in a senior Cabinet Minister? 

Perhaps this kind of evasion and avoidance bothers some people more than it appears to bother you, and it is that kind of evasion which provokes poor behaviour? 

3/27. And it could have been just 3/28.

I'm not saying there is no rational case, I'm saying perhaps you failed to articulate one that was compelling and stood scrutiny. You sound very confused.

And we're ceding our power of veto over that progression, just going along for the ride now for better or worse. You knew serious compromise of the union's principals was not on the cards, you were very very clearly told that before the vote.

jk

The fact that both Macron and Merkel have publicly supported the idea of a European Army is a significant escalation of rhetoric, at the least.

I wonder why both have done so just now. Is this merely a reaction to the current here-today-and-gone-tomorrow holder of the US Presidency? That seems almost incredible to me. Or is there more to it?

  We don’t know that he didn’t understand it in his current role because that’s not what he acknowledged.If he did, yes, that would be disappointing.you have twisted the quote.

  The coven cherry picks stories and avoids answering questions all the time.

  Incidentally, I’m not here to have a debate about brexit in case I havent made myself clear.  

Once again, a pretence not to grasp the point or its implications. These three (+others) are the key players. That theycontinue to intensify their agenda in the midst of the many problems facing the EU is “interesting”.

You know this so stop thinking you’ll get away with cheap superficial answets.

I think probably the growing realisation the US (as it turns its attention increasingly toward the Pacific) and perhaps even the UK will not always be a reliable ally against a resurgent, currently quite troubling and potentially unstable Russia. That coupled with the loss of a major brake on further integration in the form of the UK. I suspect they also foresee growing trouble on their borders that NATO will not be willing to respond to as climate change further destabilises our surroundings driving huge migrant flows in the coming decades, something which will require a coordinated European response likely including significant military capability.

jk

(intendigy - that isn't a word is it?)

Yes, it almost looks like they've given up with us now and just getting on with it. Possibly even giving us a healthy shove - certainly not worrying anymore about knee jerk responses from Farage or the DM.

I don't really know the pros and cons of having a combined force, even if it was attainable; I do regret not having the opportunity to discus it.

That's an interesting perspective since it suggests that the idea is that the UK (were it to remain in the EU) should be the permanently-unwilling partner to the entire 'project.'

That seems an uncomfortable position.

Whereas the Leave side give full and well-considered answers at all times? This really is too dismal, this idea that the Leave supporters act with scrupulous integrity and honesty, while the Remain supporters are nothing but a baying mob. 

It is clear that there are elements on both sides which have behaved badly, and continue to do so. It is also the case that there are elements on both sides who wish to have sensible and informed discussion. It might have been hoped that you would be able to distinguish between the former and the latter. 

We're clearly not the only nation uncomfortable with the case for or pace of European integration but we were influential in controlling that. The argument for greater integration could be made and won (or lost) over time or a two tier EU could emerge temporarily or permanently or perhaps there will be some more exits in the coming decades, likely there will be new accessions either way. Who knows exactly what the future brings. The point is it was all governed by a democratic process we participated in with robust safeguards. By leaving we cede that control but we're still tethered to Europe by geography, history, culture, family and economy.

Still, nothing is permanent.

Only if you see our position as eternally unchanging, implacably opposed rather than currently slightly out of step.

jk

I think the objection to tighter integration isn't integration itself, it is an objection to the UK being part of a federal EU. Once outside of the EU, I suspect most brexiters are happy for the EU to integrate to its heart's content. Indeed, if that creates a more stable EU (political integration could certainly create a more stable euro-zone) then so much the better. 

Kohl said it as well decades ago, as some French presidents have.

I do not think a real European army coupled to a common foreign policy is on the cards in the next 30 years (unfortunately, in my view). Merkel and Macron probably want to encourage European leaders to think about more strategic autonomy (and to keep European army purchases in the union as opposed to buying American).

The US is not only Trump. The EU and the US were growing apart during Obama's presidency as well and this will probably continue after Trump. Examples are the differences in dealing with Turkey on the topic of Syria, the war in eastern Ukraine, and all the European army presences in northern Africa. The US wants to be less involved in these issues and the union has to be involved because it directly concernes the stability of nations at our doorstep. Some enhancement of collaboration is required.

One of the ironies here is that the UK was quite happily pushing military coordination of European armies a few years ago...

I think I've found the article in a paper that indicated that all that was needed a dredging to have the big Roro.

It's missing a bit that ramsgate port is limited in size, so boats above 180m can't Dock. Most of the Dover calais fleet is 240 m

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/port-lined-up-for-200m-plan-193287...

Duck, duck...straw man incoming!

Surely not really a straw man, more a bit of whataboutery. 

Oh, now you are just being a neg. JRM will fix that little problem with his bare hands.

He’s resigned now so it no longer matters!

Not because of his incompetence though, more of a toys out of the pram decision!

I think it bodes well that the Secretary of State for leaving the EU, head of the Department for leaving the EU has resigned because he is unhappy with the deal that, I had assumed, his department had negotiated? Sounds like the government if a real team working towards a common goal........

I don't quite get who has negotiated the deal if we've ended up with a deal that he's unhappy with and if he/DeExEU didn't negotiate the deal, what did he actually do?

I think TM's train has just run out of track. Unfortunately we're passengers on it.

Perhaps, but my point is simple. For every charge you make against Remain supporters, the same charges can be made against Leave supporters. You may say you are only making your charges against the Remain supporters here, but with a background of a prime minister launching A50 without any clue as to what the plan might be, the enemies of the people headlines, the traitors and mutineers headlines, the death threats, the f*ck business attitude, the hostile environment, the sheer bloody ineptitude of all parties, is it any wonder there is outrage at the hopeless dealings of this government and the opposition, a sense of dismay that the well-being and prosperity of the country seems to be of so little concern to the rival factions, and a sense of disbelief that a Cabinet minister should be so bloody clueless? 

However, he has now departed the scene. We plunge deeper into the mire. I'm sure there will be Leave supporters ready to blame it all on 'Remoaners', with the Leave supporters bolstered in their staunch belief that it's all someone's else's fault, and in their total inability to take responsibility for their own actions and those who should be representing them. 

It sounds like he is effectively admitting that he failed to negotiate a satisfactory deal or that it was impossible to do so. Lets hope others start going like dominoes and the whole thing falls rapidly apart.

I'm not normally known to be short of words, but I really am at the stage where words fail me in regard to British politics!

Are you saying he has done the honourable thing? Hmm … not sure that any surprises have crept out of the woodwork in the last few months - or in the last two years, for that matter.

It's a bloody good question.

TM and co (Olly Robbins) negotiated the deal.

'I really am at the stage where words fail me in regard to British politics!'

I think I'm going to have to brush up my non-existent New Zealand accent before I go abroad next, so no-one suspects me of being a Brit....

DeExEU is mainly responsible for managing the consequences of brexit rather than negotiating the terms if I understand correctly. The negotiations have been almost exclusively handled by civil service professionals at the behest of the cabinet (So that's the PM smacking their heads together to agree to pretend they agree on a plan buying the brexiters time for a coup and the PM time to deliver a dreary compromise). Now they fight like cats in a sack.

jk

Another way of saying : facts didn't go our way, so now let's double down instead of admitting we got it wrong in the first place.

I assume that's because TM doesn't trust the Brexit Secretary to do a deal she is happy with (either Raab or Davis before him)?

All bets are off on what happens next. I'm rather sick of listening to it all TBH. 

Well that's just a completely logical response to shifting geopolitics. As the US is retreating from its role of "policeman of the world" somehow Europeans need to get their arse in gear when it comes to Defense. And the effort required is always going to be too big for any single country.

Bear in mind they are not calling for a real european army as it's being portrayed, but rather a stronger military alliance and more cooperation.

It's common sense and I frankly I fail to see what's the problem with it. It's an absolute necessity.

Even for a Brexiteer why would anyone want to betray the geopolitical interest of the UK and of the continent ? Who's gonna protect the interests of the UK and the continent  against increasing Chinese power ? Trump ?  That ship has sailed...

That's why its so utterly gripping and compelling.

I can barely drag myself away from it......

Brexiters all think Putin is our friend.  Why else would he help fund the leave campaign?

No need for defenses, no sir!

That's debatable obviously. But of course I am aware that it has long been mooted (as HanStuttgart remarked above) - indeed, it's an integral part of the European 'project.'

My comment was really raising an eyebrow at the timing (in the UK context) of Macron's and Merkel's recent remarks.

NATO still exists. Cooperation and treaties are one thing; a single European defence force is quite another.

What on earth do you think the "european defense force" is if not "cooperation and treaties"?

The idea is, for example, a single army (necessarily under the control of a single governing body); not a set of cooperating armies. We already have the latter, after all.

This morning's Brexit soundtrack:

youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&

McVey has just resigned.

He seems to have improved his schoolboy geography a little.

'It's a (major)short term logistical problem if there is no deal'

While I agree that it is in itself a short-term problem, it's long-enough term to affect the supply chains of major foreign manufacturers such as Nissan, Honda and BMW who rely on the prompt delivery of components from Europe. And if full customs check are implemented in our ports, they will probably need substantial extra warehousing space to provide a buffer.

Listening to the commons debate on my phone.

My god, this is absolutely savage for T May. Not sure she survives this and given the atmosphere in the house, clearly no majority for that deal.

Well that's it, she's cooked..

Dominic Who?   

You could always ignore the angry people and present you arguments to those who are civil to you, providing you do the same of course, without the snide insinuations and based on what's actually posted.

Perhaps but she's been slow cooking for months, who actually wants to get into the fire in her place that isn't also obviously incompetent, divisive and despised by their colleagues?

jk

Well one thing is sure the Brexiteers have all ran away.

She might still survive a now unevitable no confidence vote. But that deal is just not going through parliament.

Only way this deal goes through is if the gouvernement frustrates the parliamentary process and timing enough to deny a meaningful vote. At which point at least it'll be very clear to everybody that this democracy is dead.

Gove appears to have turned down DExEu while he decides whether to run away too. Scuttling spineless c***s the lot of them.

Looks like that, at least not without public support or to pause a spiralling economic crisis if one develops.

I trust May won't go that far. Can't quite believe I just wrote that!

jk

Well they've already scrambled the parliamentary rules geeks to try to find a way to make it a binary unamemdable vote.

Personnally I'm somewhat in favour of T May's deal.

Given that this country obviously can't manage itself we might be better of as a vassal state and let the grown up in Brussels  deal with things.

Sad but true.

From what I've seen of it seems a pragmatic deal. It's a shame so much capital has apparently been squandered pursuing restriction of free movement, something I personally consider the most important of the four freedoms and one the public apparently aren't actually that exercised about when forced to engage with the issues, to weigh options against each other to find a compromise rather than parroting the tabloids' poison. FOM has been May's obsession at least as much as it has been the public's ever since her stinging failure in the home office to hit unrealistic annual targets year after year.

Personally I'd still like to remain, I still think all things considered that is with public consent the best course of action but if the electorate were to choose May's deal eyes open then basically all it does is make Britain a little poorer, significantly less sovereign and individuals, particularly the less educated/qualified very significantly less free. It's not the end of the world and we can afford to see how it plays out for a few years.

I still want the electorate to give informed consent, I want the government to make the case, warts and all for their deal not as an alternative to economic ruin but to the deal we currently have.

Interesting day and I doubt it's over yet.

jk

Or parliament votes against -> EU refuses to renegotiate and says take it or leave it.* -> Large companies leave, pound value drops, etc, etc. -> UK parliament votes to accept the deal.

* even while being open to a much softer brexit or remain/rejoin, there is an argument to be made that it is in the EU's interest to first settle this withdrawal agreement and renegotiate everything else during the transition.

Fully agree. Given the constraints they had the UK negotiators did a good job. 

As you rightly point out the main issue is that one of those major constraint was zero compromise on ending free movement.

What happened here is that this country will end up in vassalage just for the sake of preventing hard working EU citizens from coming in and contributing to the economy. Talk about shooting yourself in the face...

At the end of the day if this is what people want, then let them have it. Sometimes people need to burn their hand on the stove of stupidity before they learn.

Possible but I don't see the time for that to happen.

-

Brave Sir Raabin ran away.

Bravely ran away away.

When Brexit reared it's ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail & fled.

Yes, brave Sir Raabin turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Swiftly taking to his feet,

He beat a very brave retreat.

Bravest of the brave, Sir Raabin!

That's something at least  

So there are some positive benefits of Brexit!

It's like an enema of the Conservative party. 

That's an awful lot of "stuff" to have deal with.

See you are your usual foul mouthed abusive self. 

Usual tripe and lies about free movement. Massively the most decisive issue for leave voters and the least relevant to a successful EU economy. MAS report clear mass immigration had done little to improve our economic performance as record shows. Major mistake letting Remainer PM and civil servants screw up the negotiations. Corbyn can sit back and enjoy. Why not. 

'Massively the most decisive issue for leave voters' - So you knew them all personally, did you? 

Incidentally, are you aware you are beginning to adopt the style of Trump? You may of course think this is a Good Thing.

He's clearly not met Postman "sovereignty" Pat...

Scotland's working age population has peaked and is about to drop. We have a birth rate of 1.5 kids per woman and many of those women can't afford to work. We need immigration! We cannot staff our country!

I voted leave because of my hatred of industry.  Once we get rid of all the car factories we can put the workers in the fields and declare year zero.

Free movement has to go so we can stop the buggers from emigrating.

Best news of the day: Suella Baverman (spelling may be a bit off) has resigned. The worst example of promotion beyond level of competence i have never seen. I truly horrible person that shouldn't ever have been elected to do anything. Reference - any of her appearances on Question time

What the MAC said is that overall the impact is at worst neutral.

Which begs the question as to why you would want to become a vassal state just for the sake of stopping something that has at worst a neutral impact.

They did not screw up. They did a pretty good job given the constraints they had on free movement.

And yet, the reality has proven the "remainers" right on pretty much all counts. And no, there was no other perfectly rational view. Brexit is irrational, driven by anger, frustration, ignorance, fear, and indentity politics. 

After all the jingoistic nonsense you spouted about sovereignty and so on it's becoming pretty evident to any educated observer that the end result will be massive abdication of sovereignty.

And yes, Brexiteers are extremists, by definition they are pushing for extremely radical changes.

If you consider the only fact that it will result in ending freedom of movement, that's a pretty massive blow that will reduce massively the opportunities and freedom of the current and future generation.

Funny, it's always someone else's fault isn't it.

Jk

Brexit means vassal state status, one way or another. Somehow this myth of "sovereignty" still permeates the debate. It's meaningless.

True. The biggest screw up really was in expectation management domestically.

Usual snarling drivel here from the Remainer camp. Castigates leavers as uneducated, and motivated by only the most base of motives. Bodes ill for the most serious issue around Brexit, which is the deep and ugly divisions in our society exposed by the referendum. If the blind arrogance of the know-it-alls on here reflects a wider sentiment in our society, then we have a great deal to learn and extensive bridges to build. Messsge on here is that we are burning bridges and refusing to learn. 

It says neutral in terms of economics. In terms of social, political and cultural impact it has had a massive impact. Both here and on the continent. It’s the proximate cause of the referendum and the subsequent leave vote. Most remainers on here point to the massive benefit of free movement. It’s hard to see that now.

Because they are. They are also clearly cowards, running away from the chaos they have created and attempting to blame everyone else.

Thanks for so comprehensively proving my point. 

You say you're not motivated by the most base of motives but then here we are.

Given the unpleasant, insulting and hateful nature of your contribution on here frankly when you talk about bad "social, political and cultural" impact, I suggest you look in the mirror instead of blaming EU citizens.

In two years brexit has done more social, cultural, and political damage to this country than any one of your much maligned evil EU immigrant you keep throwing your bile at has ever done.

Have you tried reading any of your own posts lately?

"Snarling Drivel" is a pretty accurate description of your output, but I don't see anyone else foaming at the mouth around here.

'Snarling drivel' - could you give an example?

 "It’s only a deeply prejudiced person that could think Raab doesn’t know we are an island....)

"Aye there we have it. The screaming arrogance of the noisy minority. Democrats all. You don’t deserve a Third People’s Vote. And just like all the other remainer forecasts, the idea that you will get one will turn to ashes in your spittled mouths "

"If the blind arrogance of the know-it-alls on here ...."

There you go. Oh, hang on........

To quote J. Karrans post of 9th November

Bit behind the curve on that one John.

Is growth the only solution?

Birth rates are falling globally. Every country can't have net inward migration to solve its economic problems. 

No. Is there yet any real public support for alternative social and economic models? No.

Falling but still very significantly above one-for-one replacement. Every country with a falling population could, for many decades yet rely on immigration to boost its population and birthrate. It's also likely the populations of some nations will need to fall as local resource shortages become dangerous. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good idea to keep the UK population growing or that a population growth pyramid scheme is the only viable way to run a country, even one where we have life-long expectations based on that model but there is not yet a significant movement for change. Global population is not forecast to level off for decades and we still have very little idea how climate change will alter those predictions, it could go either way.

jk

youtube.com/watch?v=BkvEp_B5Kq8&

So rather than try to improve health, welfare, education in countries like Niger, we should just get them to leave their homeland and move to Scotland so the Scots, or anywhere else in the West don't suffer a drop in their own standards of living?

Why on earth would you think that, we've known each other through here for years, have I ever given you the impression I would broadly oppose what is essentially a socialist humanitarian agenda?

That said, some of those sub-Saharan countries are going to rapidly lose their ability to sustain their populations as climate change bites. Frankly it is a reality we're going to have to face up to while recognising and mitigating the issues mass human movement can cause. Gracefully managing rapid cultural and demographic change is a challenge we have coming that we cannot hide from.

jk

Excellent!

CB

Get real. 

Here’s Arran

Scuttling spineless c***s the lot of them.

????

Of course not. But every country can't have net inward migration to keep the wheels on the wagon. 

Of course. Africa is also a massive continent, not all of it is drought ridden desert. We should still do more to fix the problems of the millions who live there, rather than welcome just a few thousand here just because we need cheap labour to work for us.  

You remember some dick’s post from seven days back? ???? 

If that wasn't a reference to me you need to make that very clear. If it was a reference to me I need an apology as you've gone too far this time.

Really it isn't worth upsetting yourself John. He has bigger problems than you. Or Brexit, for that matter.

He's just moaning about my reaction to the quitter MPs quitting and cocking up spelling my name when attributing the quote.

Jk

The thing is we have too many olds and not enough youngs, and many of these countries have the opposite problem with too many young people.

So there is an argument to be made in favour of transferring some of that balance.

You a blur into one big whinge

Oh dear. Get over yourself. 

I’m not upset. But thanks.

x

Getting into the #3 poster position purely by posting angry replies is the very best way to show the world that you aren't upset.

Have you considered going climbing?

You could say he's a Yates Screamer.

Just back from the Glen. Thanks for your concern. X

Haha like it. I have one. A yeah, maybe I am one. Like their Ts.

j

What we need is world government to fix it for us and get the balance just right. A sort of Goldilocks world, not too hot and not too cold. Just right. Can I nominate you as our first President? 

Who the f*ck is saying I’m angry!!!!

Who the F*CK is saying I'm concerned?

Irony is lost on you. Soz x

On the contrary, the irony is the best thing about this whole situation.   You need to work on your delivery.

On a related note, Mencken once said that democracy was the theory that people knew what they wanted and deserved to get it good and hard.  A lesson people are finally learning.

You’re probs right. And Mencken too. The poor are f*cked. Now they want the middle classes and Guardian readers to get f*cked over too. It might reduce inequality. A plus for Guardian readers. 

Number three? Down two places. Must try harder. X

also Mencken:

Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.