being ? you're being too kind.
Congratulations America
Does he think business leaders are lying? Does he think business leaders are stupid and/or incompetent? What are his reasons for believing people who make their living buying and selling food from all over the world are so wrong about their assessments of a no deal Brexit's impact on their business that it can be dismissed as "bollocks"?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The person I quoted calling it bollocks is a business leader who makes his living doing that too. So why dismiss him but treat the others words as gospel?
Business leaders can be not just wrong, but also risk averse and PR savvy.
Get a deal or we may be irritated by some more costs for customs paperwork isn't good news. Get a deal or we may have no food is.
In other words it's as the business leader quoted says "bollocks".
That's didn't answer my question.
This analysis seems to sums things up reasonably, unless you disagree?
https://www.ft.com/content/dfafc806-...4-408cfba4327c
I read it. Please explain if you're insisting on making an appeal to authority fallacy why you are ignoring the authority calling the fear mongering "bollocks"
That it is inconvenient to you isn't an answer. Either you don't believe in appeals to authority so what he said is moot but so is what the others said. Or you do believe in it so what he said is relevant. Your pick.
No they are not. They will be difficult because they have to fit a certain framework that you lot won't accept. If there is no exit deal (which you implicitly say if you think you can walk away from the financial settlement) then you will have to deal with an opposite party that WILL actually want to punish you by making a deal excessively expensive or not dealing with you at all.
Congratulations America
That doesn't change what I've said at all and even reinforces the bargaining chip of why a deal will happen no matter what. Even if at the end of the process there is no grand deal and we go to WTO terms then there will always realistically be a tieing up loose ends minimalistic deal. We will pay the exit bill and give access to our air space, you will grant access to yours etc
WTO is a framework. Open airspace is a framework.
It's in nobodies interest to see a closure of airspace (that would cut both ways if ours closed to you) etc only a stark raving lunatic actually thinks that will happen.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why you're being so spectacularly thick these days. It says in the article that a few business leaders have warned of increased food costs and decreased availability & choice in the event of a no deal Brexit. A No Deal Brexit is one of the possible outcomes of the negotiations. This outcome has a non-zero likelihood of occurring. One of your ministers put the likelihood at 60% at the moment, but even if it's lower the risk of such an outcome--or at least a scenario where trade in food etc. will not be covered by a deal--is sufficiently high that it must be given serious consideration. The comment you fixated on is based on the presumption that there will, in March next year, be a comprehensive deal, and it has little to do with the other comments.
The rest of your post is, frankly, bollocks. There are several problems with your attempt to dismiss the article by characterizing my use of it as a fallacious or problematic appeal to authority. If we accept that the business leaders in question are authorities of any sort, it is clear that you're dismissing at least two, while I am dismissing (from your perspective) only one. This is the first problem with your argument. The second problem is that this is not a fallacious appeal to authority. The business leaders cited in the article presumably have an understanding of their businesses and can report their assessments of the impact--on their respective businesses--of a particular set of changes to laws/regulations etc that directly affect their business; they are indeed authorities when it comes to their own businesses. Your fixation on Walker's statements, however, IS a fallacious appeal to authority, because Walker cannot speak authoritatively on the likely outcome of the negotiations, especially not on what the EU will or will not accept; he is not an authority on the Brexit negotiations or on the EU.
I understand how you may have been confused by the article. You don't read closely, and are easily confused by superficial similarities, and so you were clearly misled by the Times's foolish decision to sloppily present Walker's comment as a direct counterpoint to the comments from the other business leaders. But his comment is irrelevant to the impact of a no deal scenario on food prices and availability.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There only will be a deal if you are willing to sign on the dotted line under our proposal
Congratulations America
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rk-government/
No-deal Brexit disruption could turn the M20 into a giant lorry park, Government warns
Steven Swinford, deputy political editor
James Rothwell
17 AUGUST 2018 • 9:30PM
The M20 will be turned into a giant lorry park because of huge disruption to cross-channel trade caused by the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to official no deal plans unveiled next week.
The Telegraph understands that official plans for a no deal Brexit, which will be published next week, say that while the UK will "minimise" customs checks at British ports there is a "high likelihood" that there will be "disruption and delays" at European ports.
According to an industry source, the document states that in the event of a "no deal" Brexit Operation Brock - which will see half the M20 closed off for a 13-mile stretch- will form a "key part" of contingency plans.
One half of the motorway would be used as a lorry park for lorries queuing for Dover and Folkestone, with all traffic squeezed onto the other half.
The "technical notice" for the haulage industry suggests that British lorries could be banned from travelling to the European Union entirely, forcing haulage companies to resort to shipping freight in containers instead.
It also states that British drivers may have to apply for international driving permits after Brexit as the EU may no longer recognise UK licences.
It is one of 83 papers on no-deal Brexit over the next month, with the first tranche being published on Thursday next week.
The papers have led to accusations from Eurosceptics that they represent a "kamikaze" approach to Brexit and will only hand the EU a negotiating advantage.
However Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, believes that they are a "serious and sober" response to the risks posed by no deal.
The paper says that there is a likelihood that the EU will introduce "checks for customs, sanitary and possibly transport documentation" at ports on the continent.
It suggests that checks introduced in France will lead to potential tailbacks in the UK for goods waiting to leave the UK.
It also warns that British lorries will lose the right to "community licences" which are needed for journeys to the European Union.
Hauliers will instead be forced to rely on permits, which are subject to a strict quota and would not be enough to cover trade with the EU.
The documents says that the permits are "limited in number", which means that hauliers will have to "maximise the amount of goods they transport" on each journey.
It suggests that the industry should examine "different routes" or look at "different modes of transport" entirely, such as using shipping containers.
David Jones, a Eurosceptic Tory MP, warned that the no deal documents must not become an "exercise in gloom and doom".
"It risks allowing the EU to hone in on areas of weakness and exploit them. It risks giving succour to our opponents on the other side of the negotiating table."
Other no-deal papers likely to be published next week will be on farming, financial services and aviation.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's a relevant article in one of your major newspapers about your government's assessments of the impact of a no deal brexit. This is information that is relevant to British businesses and it should have been released weeks if not months ago. Instead, your government has been lying in response to questions from the industry. This is nearly as shameful as when your govt kept lying to the public and even to Parliament about the impact reports.
You grow more Trumpist for every day that passes, RB. It's sad and a little disturbing to see the extent to which you've begun to reinterpret reality and even the English language in order to sustain your delusions. Your fulsome embrace of lying as a legitimate method of governance shames you.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Project Fear isn’t going to save your sorry ass come Brexit Day Randy. I find it very funny though that your standard reaction to government information about Brexit is that they are a bunch of liars. You remember voting for them?
Congratulations America
More leaks from reliable sources:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You must understand that he's not calling the liars liars; he's dumping on the entire civil service. Not very different from Lewk & assorted MAGA nutjobs raving about Deep State conspiracies. In reality, civil servants are doing their jobs to the best of their ability by trying to inform the government (and, when permitted, the people) about the consequences of regulatory/legal/practical changes. It is shameful for liars, incompetents and their ignorant defenders to impugn the integrity of responsible & prudent civil servants in this manner.
It's also pretty fucking stupid.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The civil service aren't liars they are change-averse ("prudent") and incompetent soothsayers though. That's not new me saying that now I said it in the Referendum and I was right then and the civil service was massively wrong then. Not marginally wrong but completely wrong. And they've never acknowledged nor explained why they were so very wrong. Instead they're doubling down on the same mistakes they made then.
You're wrong in calling me a liar. Name one lie I've said. I may make different predictions to you or the civil service but that doesn't make me a liar.
Dude, those are the people who have to keep your government running. I dare say that they know a lot more about how a government actually works than you do (you demonstrated repeatedly that you know fuck-all).
They're not doomsayers, they're telling you: "These things will be a problem in case of No Deal." Also, we have explained repeatedly where your problems will come from. They did as well. How in the hell are you now LYING once again about "how nobody explained anything"? We all did. Several times.
You stupid motherfucker.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It's interesting how left-right disagreements here seamlessly morphed into nationalist-internationalist ones (with a few exceptions), just like they did in the outside world.
Hope is the denial of reality