Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[caratacus]

Anyone old enough to have that 'Ted Heath' moment, when we had to queue for bread, sugar fuel or other random stuff Britain ran out of?

I found Dominiuc Raab's admission and other comments that the UK government would have to work with industry to avoid a no deal diruption of food supplies and medical supplies rather extraordinary-.It is as if May's government is saying that saving face on the leave issue is more important than the general welfare of Britons.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/24/contingencies-planned-to-ensure-uks-post-brexit-food-supply-says-raab.

How is there a comparison, with the guy who led us into the Common Market without a referendum or electoral mandate. His government was a another shining example of our post war decline, as he mismanaged an economy with high inflation rates and rabid industrial action by the unions, which led to the infamous "3 day week.

What we have now is "Project Fear" stepping up another notch in its campaign to undermine Brexit. The problem is that government should have been advising business about a no deal Brexit some two years ago. To expect any kind of concessions from the EU is incredibly naive. Britain leaves the EU, we leave the Customs Union.

It seems Mark Carney, who hasn't hidden his disdain for Brexit but remained largely quiet, is doing his bit as Autumn approaches and parliament is away for the summer.

Carney: No-deal Brexit risk 'uncomfortably high
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45055861
Mr Carney was speaking a day after the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee voted unanimously to raise interest rates from 0.5% to 0.75% - their highest level since March 2009.

A case, if it were needed after the crash of 2008, to take back full government control of the Bank of England. With remainers like Mr Carney, sitting in the high echelons of the UK's government and civil service, any way forward is hobbled indeed. But add to this global uncertainties caused by a potential trade war between China and the US, and a substantial increase in oil prices caused by Iranian oil sanctions or even war!, and a difficult is made several times worse. In that I could agree with you. But in the words of any good boss to his employees “don’t tell me about problems, give me solutions” Brexit is a solution with problems, not a problem, with no solution. Although reading the press, especially the paper used in your quote, one is given to understand otherwise.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I'm following the discussion between you guys, as its very interesting points being made, that i haven't yet had time to form a perspective on properly enough to engage, but something Caratacus said i'd expand on:

In that I could agree with you. But in the words of any good boss to his employees “don’t tell me about problems, give me solutions” Brexit is a solution with problems, not a problem, with no solution. Although reading the press, especially the paper used in your quote, one is given to understand otherwise.

Your rather spot on here in that essentially both sides of the brexit debate have yet to actually 'move on' from their original terms. Its where as i've mentioned before the brexiteers have messed up (in regards to a sustainable brexit being forged) as the press and conceptions coming out are not 'solutions' to Breixt's problems, but are essentially defending the 2016 referendum decision in very stark ways that are polarising and will not build conducive support (the 'will of the people' quip). The majority of the media which supports brexit simply labels it as 'good' and offers a very basic 'wish list' vision of what brexit is like (The Sun's 'duty free' article a few weeks ago for instance, or the Mails advocation of a 'no deal' with scant regard or even mention to the consequences for the UK's biggest economic sectors. Meanwhile the 'remainer' camp point out problems (which is good- though some are very much problems which are used still as part of the campaigning against brexit and thus are politically charged- for instance the far-reaching predictions of a European War, or the states entire collapse)- but its good for a government to be held to account, now more than ever, considering the current incumbents penchant for secrecy and a somewhat authoritarian streak in governance, which is i believe what Mongrels piece is doing- but as you say there is not in existence any 'popular' soft brexit plan that offers solutions to the current issues, the same though goes for the brexiteers with both 'official' plan from Chequers and Davis's own one being flawed and 'wish-listed' and no other serious plans in being beyond as Boris said ' business' or Reese-Moggs downplaying of the Irish border- which while indeed a political football for the EU and UK (due to the DUP being now so key), its in the game has consequences to the outcome (As seen with the DUP's pressure on May over their own 'red lines').

A lot of work has been done by independent institutes and think tanks of course- but most of this is either ignored by the media and politicians as it does not fit their 'ideological perspective' or isn't an immediate 'vote winner' (Of everything will be epic, or everything will be dire), or of course for certain institutes has a heavy political bias (and thus is worth absolutely sod all in trying to portray a solution to the problems of brexit). The sidelining of actual independent experts and professionals in favour of ideological politically- motivated spin will be one of the legacies of this process that i fear will undermine British politics in the future as the precedent is set. What's arguably even worse is that politicians have actively from their own ideological perspectives (be it remain or leave) have undermined public trust in their opposite factions governmental institutions- such as the Civil Service or 'experts' or Think tanks of varying shades and Universities. Its a sure-fire way to mean that potentially the next few governments of whatever colour for the UK can essentially escape expert scrutiny as the Conservatives (and it was started with them and Gove's infamous remarks which thankfully he's retracted) have actively undermined their credibility.

I'm rather waiting for if a Corbyn government happens, the 'punishment' this will be for the Conservatives as all the precedents they've set- the discrediting of economic experts and policy advisers, the use of secrecy in government, the weighting of committee's against tradition and precedent and the avoidance of parliamentary scrutiny and indeed press interviews is going to bite them in the proverbials by giving Corbyn a major free hand, which is worrying in general for holding governments of all colours to account.

[Copperknickers II]

How is there a comparison, with the guy who led us into the Common Market without a referendum or electoral mandate. His government was a another shining example of our post war decline, as he mismanaged an economy with high inflation rates and rabid industrial action by the unions, which led to the infamous "3 day week.

What we have now is "Project Fear" stepping up another notch in its campaign to undermine Brexit. The problem is that government should have been advising business about a no deal Brexit some two years ago. To expect any kind of concessions from the EU is incredibly naive. Britain leaves the EU, we leave the Customs Union.

It seems Mark Carney, who hasn't hidden his disdain for Brexit but remained largely quiet, is doing his bit as Autumn approaches and parliament is away for the summer.

A case, if it were needed after the crash of 2008, to take back full government control of the Bank of England. With remainers like Mr Carney, sitting in the high echelons of the UK's government and civil service, any way forward is hobbled indeed. But add to this global uncertainties caused by a potential trade war between China and the US, and a substantial increase in oil prices caused by Iranian oil sanctions or even war!, and a difficult is made several times worse. In that I could agree with you. But in the words of any good boss to his employees “don’t tell me about problems, give me solutions” Brexit is a solution with problems, not a problem, with no solution. Although reading the press, especially the paper used in your quote, one is given to understand otherwise.

Let's be clear here. There are 3 ways forward now:

1. Soft Brexit: Theresa May manages to agree (with Brussels and her cabinet and her parliament) a Brexit deal. It will be a watered down version of the Chequers agreement (which is already very watered down from what most Brexiteers would like) and it will not address many of the concerns of Brexit voters and their representatives in the Tory party. It will however be subject to further negotiations over the next couple of years, which might quietly achieve some cherrypicking successes for the final version.

2. Hard Brexit: either no deal, or a very simple trade deal. The implications of this are becoming clear, but most notably it will have serious implications for Gibraltar and Northern Ireland, as well as Scottish independence in the longer term.

3. Continued stalemate in Westminster, leading to a new election, leadership challenge or referendum, or some combination of those. The outcome of that would obviously depend on the results, and on what happens in the Labour party. It would mostly likely lead to no-deal by accident unless it was very soon, because it would likely lead to a Remain victory and thus call into question whether Brexit was going ahead.

Firstly it should be said that it's obviously in everyone's interests to hype up No. 2, because it benefits literally everyone to do so - Theresa May because it scares her MPs into supporting her, Remainers because it increases the chances of rolling back Brexit as much as possible, and also hard Brexiteers because they think it will scare the EU into giving us a good deal. Nobody thinks it's actually going to happen. Of course the one thing that might actually cause it to happen is nobody actually thinking it will happen which may lead to stumbling into it by accident as Mark Carney warns.

Secondly, the latter two numbered points would represent crises of a magnitude that would cause all of the crises of the last 3 years to become minor historical footnotes. The first one depends on Theresa May's monolithic incompetence continuing to be outmatched by the even greater incompetence of her rivals. I think the smart money is on exactly that. I think the real danger will come next Spring, when one way or the other she will definitely have been forced out and then we'll end up with a major disruption just when we are starting the serious negotiations. Either way the political chaos will continue until such a time as we end up either incurring the wrath of the Brexit constituency, or a Jeremy Corbyn government, or the disaster of a hard Brexit. What definitely will NOT happen is that we won't manage to fit a round peg into a square hole by coming up with a deal which is acceptable to Brussels, to parliament and to the 55% of Brexit voters. So somebody will have to lose and whoever it is has the power and a strong motivation to bring everything crashing down.

[Katsumoto]

What we have now is "Project Fear" stepping up another notch in its campaign to undermine Brexit. The problem is that government should have been advising business about a no deal Brexit some two years ago. To expect any kind of concessions from the EU is incredibly naive. Britain leaves the EU, we leave the Customs Union.

How can you be dropping that old 'Project Fear' chestnut when the country is genuinely facing the possibility of food shortages? There are serious concerns about leaving the EU without a proper deal. Pointing out these concerns is not some nefarious plot to undermine Holy Brexit.

[mongrel]

How is there a comparison, with the guy who led us into the Common Market without a referendum or electoral mandate. His government was a another shining example of our post war decline, as he mismanaged an economy with high inflation rates and rabid industrial action by the unions, which led to the infamous "3 day week

What we have now is "Project Fear" stepping up another notch in its campaign to undermine Brexit. The problem is that government should have been advising business about a no deal Brexit some two years ago. To expect any kind of concessions from the EU is incredibly naive. Britain leaves the EU, we leave the Customs Union. .

I'm not really comparing Heath with May, its more the experience of a being part of puzzled and fed up populace having to queue for basic needs, like we were some 3rd world nation and now contemplting a repeat performance decades later.

Yes the government should have worked with business and indeed all the other stakeholders, including the wider general public. But they have not. The reality is now that the food, medical and fuel industries work on a just in time basis which relies on free movement of imported / exported EU goods. They will now have to guess likely outcomes and make contingencies for that.That will incur costs that will inevitably be passed to consumers. Knowing past behaviour, I think hoarding will be inevitable as B-day looms.

it's not 'Project Fear', it is Project Real Life and real people will pay real money for this breathtaking policy failure .That's is of course they are able to purchase the desired goods.

[NorseThing]

If the free movement of food and medicine can only be while a part of the EU, what about the rest of the world that is not a part of the EU? The longer this goes without a resolution, the greater the probability in a hard break that satisfies no one including the EU ministers blocking a quiet exit.

[mongrel]

Just to spell out what a "no deal" means in clear, no BS terms.


Virtually all of the current arrangements that join us to the rest of Europe – covering everything from food, industrial parts, air transport to pharmaceuticals, they would all would disappear.

It would leave millions European citizens living here and Britons elsewhere in Europe, without the rights they used to enjoy and left unsure of their future.

The first impact of a no-deal would be felt will be felt before B-Day as financial markets create a run on the pound. Indeed, the pound fell yesterday in reaction to Governor Carney’s remarks that a No-deal was likely. Further falls in the pound will push up inflation by making things we import more expensive, and will reduce the real value of wages. it would also make it more likely for the Bank of England to push upinterest rates.The fall in the pound following the original Brexit vote is estimated to have already cost the average household about £400-a-year.

Emergency measures would need to be negotiate to prevent aircraft being delayed or grounded and road hauliers becoming gridlocked.given the visible lack of preparation for Brexit policy, is it resonable to presume that Britain has prepared for implementation?

People will find they neeed a visa for their summer holiday, and will have to pay for health insurance as the E111 card is withdrawn.
Many UK-based manufacturers that are part of ‘just-in-time’ supply chains may have to choose between uncertain production issues, stockpiling, and thus incurring costs, or moving the EU where no such issues exist.Factories might have to shut production lines and lay off workers for lack of parts, (back to the 70s again) and the NHS which would find it even harder to recruit and retain nurses, hotels and restaurants likewise.

With a third of our food comes from the EU, so further price rises and maybe shortages may occur. Stockpiling can prevent a potential disaster scenarios, like running out of essential medicines. But it will drive up the costof affected goods and may also lead to hoarding, creating 1970's style shortages.

This will be the future of no deal Britain, subsisting on Fray Bentos pies.



Ok , its not Fallout 4 or anything , but I can't see how any responsible government would even dare consider no-deal an option, having pissed away any chance to mitigate the likely outcomes. It is economic madness.

[caratacus]

Just to spell out what a "no deal" means in clear, no BS terms.

It means we would be a completely sovereign state again.

Virtually all of the current arrangements that join us to the rest of Europe – covering everything from food, industrial parts, air transport to pharmaceuticals, they would all would disappear.

Arrangements that need not be severed because of Brexit

It would leave millions European citizens living here and Britons elsewhere in Europe, without the rights they used to enjoy and left unsure of their future.

You forgot to mention the main problem, that we don't know who they are, where they are or where they came from, given we have had open borders for years. Virtually any Tom. Dick or Harry some of which maybe criminals. And I guess that works the opposite way to, given the amount of UK criminals retiring in sunny Spain. However Brexit is not going to lead to poulation exodus of a working population, it wouldn't be in anyones interests if it did.

The first impact of a no-deal would be felt will be felt before B-Day as financial markets create a run on the pound. Indeed, the pound fell yesterday in reaction to Governor Carney’s remarks that a No-deal was likely. Further falls in the pound will push up inflation by making things we import more expensive, and will reduce the real value of wages. it would also make it more likely for the Bank of England to push upinterest rates.The fall in the pound following the original Brexit vote is estimated to have already cost the average household about £400-a-year.

Carney is a fear monger for the Remainers! The interest rate adjustment was as much about the continuing escalation of world oil prices pushing up inflation as anything, and has been delayed by Carney as long as possible. But seeing an opportunity to tie this into Brexit directly, he gave the interview to voice his worst fears. Even though he has already contradicted himeself before on the matter.


Mark Carney eats humble pie on Brexit

The head of the Bank of England makes a major U-turn on economic impact of the Brexit vote to the glee of Brexiteers.
https://www.politico.eu/article/mark...pie-on-brexit/
1/11/17, 7:38 PM CET
Brexit is no longer the biggest risk to the U.K.’s financial stability, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, reversing his previous warnings about the threat Britain’s EU exit posed to the British economy.

Perhaps the governor of the Bank of England, should concentrate on the job instead of voicing opinions to the press and causing a currency depreciation.

Emergency measures would need to be negotiate to prevent aircraft being delayed or grounded and road hauliers becoming gridlocked.given the visible lack of preparation for Brexit policy, is it resonable to presume that Britain has prepared for implementation?

Yes and they won't be able to fly over Ireland because the Irish government will ban UK aircraft if we chosse a no deal Brexit.'

Ireland threatens to block UK planes from its air if Britain crashes out of Brexit talks with no deal
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...lanes-12950238

People will find they neeed a visa for their summer holiday, and will have to pay for health insurance as the E111 card is withdrawn.
Many UK-based manufacturers that are part of ‘just-in-time’ supply chains may have to choose between uncertain production issues, stockpiling, and thus incurring costs, or moving the EU where no such issues exist.Factories might have to shut production lines and lay off workers for lack of parts, (back to the 70s again) and the NHS which would find it even harder to recruit and retain nurses, hotels and restaurants likewise.

With a third of our food comes from the EU, so further price rises and maybe shortages may occur. Stockpiling can prevent a potential disaster scenarios, like running out of essential medicines. But it will drive up the costof affected goods and may also lead to hoarding, creating 1970's style shortages.

Fear, fear fear!! Industry has largely voiced no such dangers of this happening. Perhaps that third of our food should not be coming from abroad anyway. In the war, the Country was almost starved into submission by the Germans. This made subsequent Britsih governments promise that we would never again be dependent on foreign food. Here we are in 2018 with the same dilemma we are told.

Gosh, given what you say, I should rush down immediately to a German supermarket Aldi, or LIDL (you know the ones who have invested heavily in the UK) and stock up with Fray Bentos meat pies.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8151141.html

I see hoards of Londoners this weekend rushing up to Scotish hills with the East European au Pairs., carrying cases full of French cheese and wine

Family maintains millennium doomwatch
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo.../05/y2k.uknews

The sacks of rice lie uneaten in the cellar of the remote farmhouse. As yet, there has been no need for the water purification tablets.
The stockpiled medicines remain untouched. But the family who gave up mainstream life to escape the millennium bug yesterday claimed it was too early to return to normality.

Almost two years ago, Angela Perron and her family abandoned their Wiltshire home and headed to a hillside cottage near Forres, Moray.
They feared Y2K could bring food shortages, the accidental discharge of nuclear weapons, the breakdown of global capitalism and rioting on the streets. "sound familiar!)

Yesterday, as utilities functioned normally and the stock market got back to work with no apparent problems, the family admitted their worst fears had not been realised. But Mrs Perron said she would not be fully confident the world had been spared millennial chaos until April.
"We are glad that we have done what we have done," she said. "There could still be problems: nobody knew what was going to happen before January - why else do you think the government was building bunkers? I don't think we can be certain of an all clear until at least April."

[mongrel]

It means we would be a completely sovereign state again.

Yes ,a 1974 sovereign UK.

A meanlingless intangible if you end up having to pay loads more for food, mortgages, medicines and other necessities of life, straight after a decade of austerity. This so-called sovereign state wont deliver German engine parts to a Midlands car assembly plant, manufacture insulin for diabetics nor will it provide the essential parts of my cheesebard. Its the 21st century now, I'm done with Spam, Fray Bentos and Bird's trifle.

[Genghis Skahn]

manufacture insulin for diabetics

Genentech, an American company, is the one who pioneered the modern insulin production model(using E. coli to produce insulin after discovering it's code via oligonucleotides IIRC), and still exists as a company today. I'm sure that the UK can get insulin from the US instead. Europe does not have a monopoly on insulin production.

[mongrel]

Genentech, an American company, is the one who pioneered the modern insulin production model(using E. coli to produce insulin after discovering it's code via oligonucleotides IIRC), and still exists as a company today. I'm sure that the UK can get insulin from the US instead. Europe does not have a monopoly on insulin production.

The issue isn't we won't get any food , medicines etc, it is that it will cost a lot more and take longer to arrive.

[NorseThing]

The issue is not that food clothing and medicine will cost more or are you saying the EU subsidizes exports to other EU countries and has some weird export tariff regarding non-EU countries? How can the rest of the world survive outside of the perfect world of the EU?

[mongrel]

The issue is not that food clothing and medicine will cost more or are you saying the EU subsidizes exports to other EU countries and has some weird export tariff regarding non-EU countries? How can the rest of the world survive outside of the perfect world of the EU?

No I'm saying that in a free market prices will rise if some goods either become scarce, or costs are imposed, such as tariffs, increased time moving the goods or keeping in in storage and so forth. This would inevitably lead to price rises. Not solely my view but the view of of people who actually produce and sell stuff.


Heres a list of imports /exports so one can get the food picture. in my view it would take some adjustment for people to plan their shopping if we have a poorly managed Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rs-union#img-2

[NorseThing]

I understand the most countries do indeed import as well as export food (an medicine to a lesser degree). But I see nothing in your post that deems a price rise by simply not being a part of the EU. Are you suggesting that the UK would impose tariffs post Brexit? If so, that would be what the Parliament wants and not what a Brexit requires.

[mongrel]

I understand the most countries do indeed import as well as export food (an medicine to a lesser degree). But I see nothing in your post that deems a price rise by simply not being a part of the EU. Are you suggesting that the UK would impose tariffs post Brexit? If so, that would be what the Parliament wants and not what a Brexit requires.

What part of fresh or just in time items standing around for customs checks and therefore imposing costs are you not getting? It is not a political issue it is a logistical one.

And yes of course the UK would impose tarrifs and vice versa under WTO rules until such time bilateral arrangements are made.

[caratacus]

What part of fresh or just in time items standing around for customs checks and therefore imposing costs are you not getting? It is not a political issue it is a logistical one.

And yes of course the UK would impose tarrifs and vice versa under WTO rules until such time bilateral arrangements are made.

What you see as a disadvantage, I see as a positive. What is wrong with customs checks? It adds a little time to your package tour to Spain! Currently the biggest social problem affecting the UK and elsewhere today is drugs, the Country is awash with them. Gang violence is up to unprecedented levels, criminality linked to drugs has risen now for years and is a cost to everyone. An island nation surrounded by sea has been rendered defenceless against the importation of illicite substances through open borders which comes from the European continent. Not only that, but a great many East European gangs have the UK as part of their network of distribution and their activities include peole smuggling.

There needs to be a full on war against drugs, and the first part of that should be the closure of open borders and substantial increase in the number of customs officers doing spot checks. I don't care if it adds an hour to people waiting at airports or puts another 50p on the cost of European produce, if it makes the Country safer it is worth every bit. The cost of not doing must be anyway in the order of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, a fact people are deliberately not made aware of because of our relationship with the EU.

Another exploitation of open borders by criminals, is the ability to ship stolen goods out of the country. An example of this is the rocketing of rural crime in which expensive farm machinery is stolen. Farmers are having to take precautions that hark back to pre-law and order days, by building defences around their farms. The majority of these stolen goods are sent across to Channel for sale in Europe. A criminal network has developed which means quad bikes can be stolen, dismantled and shipped to Europe within 24 hrs of the theft.

No mention of open borders in this police strategy I see as far as the BBC are concerned just "The strategy paper says the rise in crime has been caused by the "collapse" of close-knit rural communities and the growth of modern transport links that allow thieves to export stolen machinery in a matter of hours." (transport where and how?)

Rural crime rise prompts 'medieval' defences
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45042294

[Genghis Skahn]

There needs to be a full on war against drugs

Errrm, I admit drug-related crime is a problem since drugs enrich criminals so much, but you REALLY don't want to do that. The US has conclusively proven, in my mind's eye, that the war on drugs cannot be won and that it costs taxpayers a load of money, without much material benefit. Increase customs checks is one thing(reasonable IMO), but once you get a DEA-like entity formed, that's gonna be a lot of wasted taxpayer money, if you ask me. Not to mention, such agencies also have a history of aiding the drug-world, mostly because to keep themselves in business they need to keep arresting people based on drug-related charges and also because some people, rather than locking away or burning/destroying millions of dollars worth of drugs, will want to sell them again:

The CIA, DEA, State Department, and several other U.S. government agencies have been alleged to have relations with various groups which are involved in drug trafficking.

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring: "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."

The War on Drugs has been a highly contentious issue since its inception. A poll on October 2, 2008, found that three in four Americans believed that the War On Drugs was failing.^[119]

At a meeting in Guatemala in 2012, three former presidents from Guatemala, Mexico and Colombia said that the war on drugs had failed and that they would propose a discussion on alternatives, including decriminalization, at the Summit of the Americas in April of that year.^[120] Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina said that the war on drugs was exacting too high a price on the lives of Central Americans and that it was time to "end the taboo on discussing decriminalization".^[121] At the summit, the government of Colombia pushed for the most far-reaching change to drugs policy since the war on narcotics was declared by Nixon four decades prior, citing the catastrophic effects it had had in Colombia.^[122]
Several critics have compared the wholesale incarceration of the dissenting minority of drug users to the wholesale incarceration of other minorities in history. Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, for example, writes in 1997 "Over the past thirty years, we have replaced the medical-political persecution of illegal sex users ('perverts' and 'psychopaths') with the even more ferocious medical-political persecution of illegal drug users."^[123]

The War on Drugs is often called a policy failure.^{[155][156][157][158][159]}

Brexit is one thing, a war on drugs is another. Globally, the evidence suggests that a war on drugs is futile and costly; meanwhile, simply leaving the UK isn't nearly as demonstrably disastrous, since plenty of countries have sought full independence in the past and turned out A-OK.

[caratacus]

Errrm, I admit drug-related crime is a problem since drugs enrich criminals so much, but you REALLY don't want to do that. The US has conclusively proven, in my mind's eye, that the war on drugs cannot be won and that it costs taxpayers a load of money, without much material benefit. Increase customs checks is one thing(reasonable IMO), but once you get a DEA-like entity formed, that's gonna be a lot of wasted taxpayer money, if you ask me. Not to mention, such agencies also have a history of aiding the drug-world, mostly because to keep themselves in business they need to keep arresting people based on drug-related charges and also because some people, rather than locking away or burning/destroying millions of dollars worth of drugs, will want to sell them again:

The West is experiencing a huge drug problem at the moment and I cannot see a concerted effort being done to resolve it. The war I speak about would set up agencies specifically to target those who deal and smuggle drugs and make their punishment severe enough to deter others. The users are victims and should be assisted as far as possible to beat their addiction. Schools should routinely educate about the dangers of drug addiction and promote health and well being. Decriminalising drugs themselves is not the solution, but neither is filling up prisons with addicts, as is the case in the US. It only perpetuates the problem. This problem is as much about reassessing criminal punishment as anything, because the prison system in many countries is under strain and simply not working. It is also about protecting the vulnerable from criminal exploitation and promoting good heath.

Yes, controlling borders is a significant step to combating the problem of drugs but it needs to be part of an overall strategy. For example building a wall between the US and Mexico will not stop the drug cartels in a business that is worth billions. It is the biggest crisis since WW2 and yet attracts very little public debate let alone action.

[mongrel]

What you see as a disadvantage, I see as a positive. What is wrong with customs checks? It adds a little time to your package tour to Spain! Currently the biggest social problem affecting the UK and elsewhere today is drugs, the Country is awash with them. Gang violence is up to unprecedented levels, criminality linked to drugs has risen now for years and is a cost to everyone. An island nation surrounded by sea has been rendered defenceless against the importation of illicite substances through open borders which comes from the European continent. Not only that, but a great many East European gangs have the UK as part of their network of distribution and their activities include peole smuggling.)

How is being laid off as car production and retail distribution slows to accomodate the end of just in time warehousing a positive? Portugal has managed its drug issues without wrecking its economy.

There needs to be a full on war against drugs, and the first part of that should be the closure of open borders and substantial increase in the number of customs officers doing spot checks. I don't care if it adds an hour to people waiting at airports or puts another 50p on the cost of European produce, if it makes the Country safer it is worth every bit. The cost of not doing must be anyway in the order of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, a fact people are deliberately not made aware of because of our relationship with the EU.

Another exploitation of open borders by criminals, is the ability to ship stolen goods out of the country. An example of this is the rocketing of rural crime in which expensive farm machinery is stolen. Farmers are having to take precautions that hark back to pre-law and order days, by building defences around their farms. The majority of these stolen goods are sent across to Channel for sale in Europe. A criminal network has developed which means quad bikes can be stolen, dismantled and shipped to Europe within 24 hrs of the theft.

No mention of open borders in this police strategy I see as far as the BBC are concerned just "The strategy paper says the rise in crime has been caused by the "collapse" of close-knit rural communities and the growth of modern transport links that allow thieves to export stolen machinery in a matter of hours." (transport where and how?)

So how is pulling out of cross border policing and inteligence arrangements helpful? The entirely hypothetical effect of Farmer Giles getting his quad bike nicked will be as nothing compared with the certain loss of EU subsidies and the potential loss of market for his lambs. I care if the price ofessential goods go up, althoughI can take the hit. Price increases mean inflation, inflation is the mother of interest rate and mortgage increases. Ordinary working people, many already on the brink and reiiant on food handouts will be driven to bankruptcy and homelessness.


Here is an authorative figure who tells it as it is, together with another vid by a farmer.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-brexit-facts/

[caratacus]

How is being laid off as car production and retail distribution slows to accomodate the end of just in time warehousing a positive? Portugal has managed its drug issues without wrecking its economy.

Car production routinely has measures to deal with delays in parts distribution, whilst supermarkets will be forced to consider closer alternatives if supplies cannot be guaranteed, which is good for UK business. Russia dealt with sanctions by the EU on its goods and this has actually benefited Russian producers, why should the UK be a different.

Portugal has managed its drug issues without wrecking its economy.

Singapore has also tackled drugs effectively, but they aren't in the EU.

So how is pulling out of cross border policing and inteligence arrangements helpful? The entirely hypothetical effect of Farmer Giles getting his quad bike nicked will be as nothing compared with the certain loss of EU subsidies and the potential loss of market for his lambs. I care if the price ofessential goods go up, althoughI can take the hit. Price increases mean inflation, inflation is the mother of interest rate and mortgage increases. Ordinary working people, many already on the brink and reiiant on food handouts will be driven to bankruptcy and homelessness.


Here is an authorative figure who tells it as it is, together with another vid by a farmer.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-brexit-facts/

Cross border policing, phooey. Stolen goods are freely passing through borders with criminals having networks from one end of Europe to another. Farm machinery is now almost stolen to order and transported across the Channel, without fear of border checks, its what is feeding the rural crime wave. The same goes for stolen cars. After decades of increasing levels of car crime the rate in the UK dropped substantuailly thanks to a crackdown on avenues of resale. Now car thefts, especially of expensive 4x4 cars have increased again, because they are stolen, dismantled and the parts shipped into Europe.

As for Farmer Giles, he won't find himself out of pocket after Brexit. Its just he will be getting his subsidies directly from the UK government instead of the EU. Perhaps then we can ensure that the food he is paid to produce will be consumed by the taxpayer, rather than wagon loads of such things as British lamb for consumption in the Middle East, which is curretly the the case in the crazy system of EU subsidiies.