This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
I don't see how the government could whip for Sir Graham Brady's amendment either in theory or in practice. How can you sanction an MP who voted for the deal and who voted against an amendment that sabotages the deal that the government negotiated?
I don't see the problem. It's an application of the general Brexit principle; don't think, vote.
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
I don't see how the government could whip for Sir Graham Brady's amendment either in theory or in practice. How can you sanction an MP who voted for the deal and who voted against an amendment that sabotages the deal that the government negotiated?
Would be fun to see Hammond and Rudd voting for Sir Graham's amendment if it's government whipped...
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
I don't see how the government could whip for Sir Graham Brady's amendment either in theory or in practice. How can you sanction an MP who voted for the deal and who voted against an amendment that sabotages the deal that the government negotiated?
Would be fun to see Hammond and Rudd voting for Sir Graham's amendment if it's government whipped...
You rather illustrate the point. How could Theresa May sack either when they are voting to implement the actions of the executive?
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
I don't see how the government could whip for Sir Graham Brady's amendment either in theory or in practice. How can you sanction an MP who voted for the deal and who voted against an amendment that sabotages the deal that the government negotiated?
Would be fun to see Hammond and Rudd voting for Sir Graham's amendment if it's government whipped...
You rather illustrate the point. How could Theresa May sack either when they are voting to implement the actions of the executive?
Events have rather overtaken that - her previous policy was voted down by a huge margin. Time for a new government policy.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
I don't see how the government could whip for Sir Graham Brady's amendment either in theory or in practice. How can you sanction an MP who voted for the deal and who voted against an amendment that sabotages the deal that the government negotiated?
I agree Alastair - it would be strange but this whole process is ripping up the rule book
So, a big beautiful trade deal between the EU and Japan has been finalized. Took 5 years and everyone's a winner.
Just think, once we have got our independence back - very soon now god willing - we will be able to get in on the act and negotiate a trade deal with both Japan AND the EU.
Proper sovereign stuff! I for one can barely wait.
If the government accepts a proposed amendment, does it still need to be voted on individually, or does it simply form part of the Bill that's voted on at the end of the process?
My understanding was the former latter, any Erskine May fans around?
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
I always find that people don’t appreciate the value of switching. If the cost of potatoes goes up we will likely eat more rice. I for one don’t need to stockpile. We have so much food in our cupboards and freezer we could live for weeks without noticing. I get it from my mum who could live for months from the stuff she has!
Mr. Richard, is permanently handing over sovereign powers to an organisation we voted to leave your idea of respecting democracy?
I share your lack of faith in Fox. That doesn't mean we should aspire to ignore the referendum and permanently hand over authority over our nation to the EU, having just voted to leave it.
I'm afraid you're just blathering MD whereas I'm looking at things in a real world perspective.
Give us some names of people you think could conduct successful trade negotiations.
Because if you can't then you're willing to accept worse trade deals as a symbol of national virility.
And nothing is 'permanent' in this country's relationship with the EU.
Anyone.
In the real world Australia and many other nations have successfully struck trade deals. When it comes to negotiating deals we will be the worlds 5th largest economy after the US, China, Japan and EU itself. The idea we will be incapable of conducting successful trade negotiations is insane.
So, a big beautiful trade deal between the EU and Japan has been finalized. Took 5 years and everyone's a winner.
Just think, once we have got our independence back - very soon now god willing - we will be able to get in on the act and negotiate a trade deal with both Japan AND the EU.
Proper sovereign stuff! I for one can barely wait.
It's fine. We still get default access to MyFirstTradeDeal (or whatever it's called) and Liam's negotiation with Ghana, according to The Express, is soon to bear fruit.
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
Oh Big_G, I'm afraid you've given away the negotiating position now. The EU might be reading PB.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
I always find that people don’t appreciate the value of switching. If the cost of potatoes goes up we will likely eat more rice. I for one don’t need to stockpile. We have so much food in our cupboards and freezer we could live for weeks without noticing. I get it from my mum who could live for months from the stuff she has!
Freezers will be useless without Euro electricity. It will all thaw into a gloop of rancid poison.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
That's terribly sanguine and, I'd suggest, showing a misunderstanding of herd behaviour. Look at food shopping habit around Christmas (when shops are shut for 24 hours, if at all). Any advice to the effect of "there's no need to panic" will likely have the opposite effect.
I’ve already set the traps on my estate, and have built a smokehouse to preserve meats caught. I’ve never tasted smoked fox but I’ll give anything a go! I’ve also heard you can milk cats so I’ll be alright for my cornflakes.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
I always find that people don’t appreciate the value of switching. If the cost of potatoes goes up we will likely eat more rice. I for one don’t need to stockpile. We have so much food in our cupboards and freezer we could live for weeks without noticing. I get it from my mum who could live for months from the stuff she has!
Freezers will be useless without Euro electricity. It will all thaw into a gloop of rancid poison.
I sense that those ridiculing the possible economic turmoil from a No Deal are simultaneously desparately hoping it does not get put to the test.
However don't despair if it does happen i spotted yet another in the ever expanding Leaver Book of Excuses earlier on - if the food shelves are empty it won't be because there is actually a shortage of food will only be because stupid people panicked and stockpiled because of "Project Fear"!
If the leavers had spent as much time and ingenuity on coming up with a Brexit that works as they have on the excuses for why it isn't we might be a little further ahead.
"Patisserie Valerie, which opened its first café in Soho in central London in 1926, called in the administrators. “This is a company that may have been built on sand all along and no one got wind of it,” said Gavin Pearson, a forensic accountant at Quantuma.
Unlike many of its rivals in the casual dining business, Patisserie Valerie was reporting a rise in sales each year and an ever-growing pile of cash."
There’s surely going to be a massive lawsuit coming down the line between the shareholders and the auditors here, it’s impossible that it was just one or two dodgy accountants. IIRC Luke Johnson wrote an eight figure cheque to keep them going when the problems first came to light. He’s a nice guy, but as one of very few people to have made serious money in the restaurant business he’s not going to suffer fools gladly.
My flat in Soho was twenty yards from the original Patisserie Valerie on Old Compton Street It had eight to ten seater tables with a large bowl of croissants in the centre. You shared tables and helped yourself to the croissants while the long serving Spanish waitress brought your coffee at her own pace..
It was always full of film people and it was much the best and most famous coffee bar in town. It was the place for early morning meetings and a place to read your paper, It sold pastries at the front of the shop but the tables were coffee and croissants only. It later opened an upstairs doing English breakfasts but it was the dark wood lined interior with a wall sized Lautrec that made it the first port of call even for out of towners.
I can only imagine one of my fellow early morning croissant eaters saw the potential in the brand and decided to run with it. If it's true that he's a Brexiteer it's ironic. It was the most cosmopolitan cafe in the most cosmopolitan district in London. Perhaps going bust is Soho's revenge?
I remember going to the original cafe in those days. Perhaps we unknowingly shared a table one morning, eh Roger?
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
The smart supermarkets with all their big data analysis will have enough supplies in for panic buying. They will then ensure that the day before Brexit day they have the warehouses full and the store rooms in their supermarkets full. Brexit day plus one then all the supermarkets will have full supplies and the newspapers will all be "What was the Fuss about?"
6 months down the road may be a slightly different story.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normc and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
Which is why all the talk of food shortages is dangerous.
People are free to pick up an extra can of soup or beans if they wish, but politicians and journalists need to think very carefully before going on in public about these things.
As someone (sorry can't remember who) mentioned on the here the other day, we now live in an age of social media, and widespread panic could be a problem even if there are no actual shortages.
Sorry to be a bore, but the problem is that you simply don't know how bad the "actual shortages" will be.
If we knew there wouldn't be any "actual shortages", it would indeed be best to keep quiet about the subject.
If we knew there would be serious "actual shortages" then it would be irresponsible _not_ to encourage people to build up their own stocks of food and essentials.
It's a bit of an Alice in Wonderland world where we are collectively taking a leap in the dark and exposing our population to an unknown risk, and the criticism is directed at the people talking about the risk rather than the people causing the risk!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
That's terribly sanguine and, I'd suggest, showing a misunderstanding of herd behaviour. Look at food shopping habit around Christmas (when shops are shut for 24 hours, if at all). Any advice to the effect of "there's no need to panic" will likely have the opposite effect.
Mr. kinabalu, does Japan have to put its armed forces into the EU Army? Does it have to be subject to EU legislation for entirely domestic matters?
Democratic consent of the people and the capacity for a nation to govern itself are not small things of no consequence.
Japan does not, and 'democracy' (the what and the why and the how) is indeed an important thing.
On trade deals, as in many aspects of life, there is a value in fending for oneself rather than relying on others. OK, so it might take many years of effort and focus to end up with a set of trade deals that are not as good as those we had to start with but we will have done them ourselves.
As analogy, how much more satisfying to ego and soul to put in decades of hard graft to buy a flat in Croydon, rather than get given a semi in Dulwich by your parents for your 25th.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Just delurking to say congratulations. I wish the three of you health, wealth and happiness.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Not like she's ever lied about anything in the past...
No Brexit is better than No Deal.
The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.
The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.
It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”
The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.
There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.
Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule:
Off topic, some pb'ers may like to know my wife has given birth to a beautiful baby girl. 7lb 15Oz.
Amazing how everything pales into insignificance next to that. We are very happy.
Congratulations to you both! Sorry to report that I've found my girls more trouble than the boy...
Take it they've got to, or possibly past, their teenage years.
Nope, the boy's 8 and the girls are 5 & 2... it's more a middle-child thing, to be honest! And of course they're no trouble at all really - it's all relative.
Mr. kinabalu, in your example the gift of a nice place to live would come with a fee, and the rights of your parents to set house rules. It also remains to be seen whether living without those constraints would enable you to acquire a better home and actually be able to live how one wants to.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
Why are you confident that there won't be shortages of raw foodstuffs? I would have thought that it was virtually certain that there will be, if there is extensive disruption to the Calais/Dover route caused by crashing out with no deal. For example, we import around 400,000 metric tonnes of tomatoes (UK production is only a fifth of that, and of course is concentrated in t he summer months). It's products like that - with limited shelf life, which can't be stockpiled, and which are bulky and imported in very large quantities from the EU - which are the most likely to be hit.
PS: Congratulations on the birth of Elizabeth, BTW!
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Just delurking to say congratulations. I wish the three of you health, wealth and happiness.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Good choice. Presumably her middle name is Vesper?
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
Many congrats Casino - as you say, it puts everything else into perspective. Best wishes to all three of you!
This morning Johnson has decided that the deal is fine if the backstop is negotiated away.
Graham Brady on Sky has just said a codicil to the agreement on the backstop would be acceptable, which does away with opening the WDA
TM is reported as telling her cabinet she will not allow a no deal and I do not find it at all surprising she would give private assurances to cabinet ministers for something she will not allow, but at this time in the negotiations it would be an abject surrender of her negotiating position with the EU and the remain lobby
Of course, Bercow may not call Sir Graham Brady's amendment but doing so would see turmoil on the conservative benches at the perceived injustice and would probably make Bercow's position untenable
Interesting times - maybe keep cool and carry on is best at present
Oh Big_G, I'm afraid you've given away the negotiating position now. The EU might be reading PB.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
It's fine. We still get default access to MyFirstTradeDeal (or whatever it's called) and Liam's negotiation with Ghana, according to The Express, is soon to bear fruit.
Ghana, yes indeed, and that one can presumably be rolled out very quickly across the rest of the commonwealth. That's 53 nations - 53! - that due to a strong common bond forged out of a love of cricket and affection for Blighty and the Queen will soon become a formidable new trading bloc centred around all things British.
There are only 27 nations in the EU single market. Literally half the size.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
I'm going to assume that's tongue in cheek, as selling food shortages as an advantage of Brexit would be, well, batshit insane.
no its simply pointing out that lack of calories will not be a problem.
If you're fat. Think or poor Mr Dancer, with the physique of a racing snake. He'll be found slumped over his trebuchet, half eaten by the neighbourhood cats.
On trade deals, as in many aspects of life, there is a value in fending for oneself rather than relying on others. OK, so it might take many years of effort and focus to end up with a set of trade deals that are not as good as those we had to start with but we will have done them ourselves.
I can buy a toaster in Tescos for a few quid. It is made thanks to the expertise of others. Alternatively I can spend thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours building my own, less efficient version
The reason we are were we are is because we cooperate and specialise. I am amazed by this attitude, which seems more prevalent on the right, that we must be self-reliant and depend on others less and do more stuff for ourselves.
Sometimes I wish they would live by that attitude. The internet would quieten down for a bit whilst they start mining the ores needed to build their own silicon chip furnaces to allow construction of computers to allow them to access the internet.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
If everyone ate 80% of what they do now, we'd be a fitter and healthier nation, not starving and rioting.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis isbit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is producof UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
The most likely scenario is that if people continue to shop normally there won't be shortages, but if people start panic buying then the shelves could empty very quickly - so the advise needs to be to continue shopping normally rather than to panic and start hoarding.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
Yes, I understand that you don't think there will be any "real" shortages, and I understand that other people think the same.
What I don't understand is what the basis isbit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
Okay, numbers.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is producof UK food consumption is exported.
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
If we can only cover 80% of consumption, there will be rioting, looting and widespread malnutrition.
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
widespread malnutrition
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
1. There will be much more to come out. The story so far doesn’t quite make sense to me. Made up refurbishment invoices suggests someone was creaming off money or possible money laundering style activities. That is not the sort of stuff you do to make something look more profitable than it is but it may be if you’re trying to hide unprofitability. But if so, how often can you do it? Stores don’t get refurbished every week.
2. You cannot manage by looking at one or two sources of information - your accounts or spreadsheets. You need to visit shops and compare with your rivals and with what is happening in the market and the economy generally. You need to sense check and look at what is often hiding in plain sight in front of you. This is something that people at the top of organisations, often very clever people are often very bad at doing. Asking basic, obvious questions is rarer than it should be.
3. If things are going well, that is what you planned for and expected, it is very easy to see only what confirms what you want to be true and ignore the rest. Lots of people had an interest in Valerie doing welll and congratulating themselves for being part of a seeming success story. That can make it very difficult for people to admit to problems or for potential whistleblowers to speak up. Or for others to respond to concerns eg the questions HMRC raised about forged documents.
4. Auditors are not investigators. They check things. They don’t ask questions or look for oddities. Companies often assume auditors are the same as investigators and can do the same job. They aren’t and can’t.
5. The human element - what went wrong was down to individuals. At the heart of this story will be people who did the wrong thing and others who failed to do the right thing and others who did not understand or manage effectively the people they hired and employed so that a number of people ending up behaving badly and others stood by and let them get away with it.
Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
It will seem more like the end of the world for Tiffany in Hartlepool that the all-you-can-eat buffet is closed and that the offie has run out of Lambrini.
Well anyone who followed me into £/$ when I recommended it over the holiday period should be sitting very happily right now with a very blue position.
I'm taking a bit of profit as tomorrow could lead to some volatility, but I still reckon that in any scenario other than no deal, £/$ at 1.316 still offers considerable upside.
On trade deals, as in many aspects of life, there is a value in fending for oneself rather than relying on others. OK, so it might take many years of effort and focus to end up with a set of trade deals that are not as good as those we had to start with but we will have done them ourselves.
I can buy a toaster in Tescos for a few quid. It is made thanks to the expertise of others. Alternatively I can spend thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours building my own, less efficient version
The reason we are were we are is because we cooperate and specialise. I am amazed by this attitude, which seems more prevalent on the right, that we must be self-reliant and depend on others less and do more stuff for ourselves.
Sometimes I wish they would live by that attitude. The internet would quieten down for a bit whilst they start mining the ores needed to build their own silicon chip furnaces to allow construction of computers to allow them to access the internet.
Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
It will seem more like the end of the world for Tiffany in Hartlepool that the all-you-can-eat buffet is closed and that the offie has run out of Lambrini.
Lambrini is made in Britain. It's a downmarket babycham.
Anything could be a problem if there is panic buying.
I'm not sure people are going to be buying panic buying frozen peas when they don't have room in their freezers....because it's full of fish fingers.
And why bother filling up your house with all manner of stuff, when someone else will be doing it for you - then having it (admitedly, at a mark-up) at every car-boot in the land?
I haven't panic bought a single extra thing, because I think it's bollocks.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
Why are you confident that there won't be shortages of raw foodstuffs? I would have thought that it was virtually certain that there will be, if there is extensive disruption to the Calais/Dover route caused by crashing out with no deal. For example, we import around 400,000 metric tonnes of tomatoes (UK production is only a fifth of that, and of course is concentrated in t he summer months). It's products like that - with limited shelf life, which can't be stockpiled, and which are bulky and imported in very large quantities from the EU - which are the most likely to be hit.
PS: Congratulations on the birth of Elizabeth, BTW!
Similarly, onions - a significant proportion of which come from Holland, I understand.
Comments
It's an application of the general Brexit principle; don't think, vote.
Of course, if there's a genuine risk of widespread food shortages then that's a different scenario that IMO is unlikely - but governments and supermarkets need to be able to plan without the fact of their planning being used to cause further panic.
No Deal will certainly cause economic and financial challenges but shortages of raw foodstuffs and medicine isn't one of them. It's possible that niche fresh European products, like mozzarella, spike in price which im sure will keep Twitter in righteous fury for weeks.
Amazing how everything pales into insignificance next to that. We are very happy.
Just think, once we have got our independence back - very soon now god willing - we will be able to get in on the act and negotiate a trade deal with both Japan AND the EU.
Proper sovereign stuff! I for one can barely wait.
My understanding was the former latter, any Erskine May fans around?
Will be watching out for the 3.30am posts....
Democratic consent of the people and the capacity for a nation to govern itself are not small things of no consequence.
In the real world Australia and many other nations have successfully struck trade deals. When it comes to negotiating deals we will be the worlds 5th largest economy after the US, China, Japan and EU itself. The idea we will be incapable of conducting successful trade negotiations is insane.
What I don't understand is what the basis is for that belief. I just don't see much point in repeated assertions about these things, unless they're accompanied by some kind of reasoning or evidence to back them up.
To be honest, on a site about betting, I'd expect something a bit less blunt than "I don't think there will be a problem". Something more along the lines of looking at probabilities and consequences.
just dont call her theresa
I read that Denmark is planning to build a wall with Germany to stop wild boar rampaging across the border bringing disease etc.
Are they planning to make Germany pay for the wall?
However don't despair if it does happen i spotted yet another in the ever expanding Leaver Book of Excuses earlier on - if the food shelves are empty it won't be because there is actually a shortage of food will only be because stupid people panicked and stockpiled because of "Project Fear"!
If the leavers had spent as much time and ingenuity on coming up with a Brexit that works as they have on the excuses for why it isn't we might be a little further ahead.
That we have reached this point just illustrates how keen some people are to drive without insurance.
May I suggest the name of a Phoenician princess: Europa?
6 months down the road may be a slightly different story.
Her name is Elizabeth, one of the few we both loved and as ardent monarchists and huge fans of HMQ we could think of no better and it suits her perfectly.
ONS 2017 - 50% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. 30% is imported from the EU and 20% imported from the RoW. 10% of the value of UK food consumption is exported.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply
So, if trade in food with the EU stops completely, and we stop exporting, we can cover 80% of current domestic demand without any other changes.
That's not going to lead to general shortages, as opposed to on specific lines - unless people start panicking.
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love hate you...
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1089622973168922626
On trade deals, as in many aspects of life, there is a value in fending for oneself rather than relying on others. OK, so it might take many years of effort and focus to end up with a set of trade deals that are not as good as those we had to start with but we will have done them ourselves.
As analogy, how much more satisfying to ego and soul to put in decades of hard graft to buy a flat in Croydon, rather than get given a semi in Dulwich by your parents for your 25th.
Congratulations.
So, why the need to continually up the ante?
Congratulations on your baby girl.
Mr. kinabalu, in your example the gift of a nice place to live would come with a fee, and the rights of your parents to set house rules. It also remains to be seen whether living without those constraints would enable you to acquire a better home and actually be able to live how one wants to.
PS: Congratulations on the birth of Elizabeth, BTW!
Now, I don't think it will come to that (it's just not going to happen), but your answer shows a complete lack of understanding of how quickly food gets turned over in a supermarket.
Best wishes to all three of you!
Now you can every waking hour for the rest of your life worrying about her. It just seems to be part of the parenting deal
were one of the fattest nations anywhere, HMG WANTS us to eat less.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/cut-down-on-your-calories/
https://twitter.com/CharlieCooper8/status/1089841446872670209
There are only 27 nations in the EU single market. Literally half the size.
#britishcentury
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/30/the-weight-of-brexit-leave-vote-is-higher-in-areas-of-higher-obesity/
http://www.thomasthwaites.com/the-toaster-project/
The reason we are were we are is because we cooperate and specialise. I am amazed by this attitude, which seems more prevalent on the right, that we must be self-reliant and depend on others less and do more stuff for ourselves.
Sometimes I wish they would live by that attitude. The internet would quieten down for a bit whilst they start mining the ores needed to build their own silicon chip furnaces to allow construction of computers to allow them to access the internet.
The problems will come from people panicking rather than trusting the supply chains to sort themselves out.
Of course if half the EU food arrived, then we'd be on 95% even before the supermarkets go shopping in the rest of the world.
There's plenty of risks associated with Brexit, but food shortages really isn't one of them. Maybe it might seem like the end of the world for Tarquin in Hoxton that he can't get avocados for a week or two, but it really isn't.
mind you in that photo you posted the other day your suit was looking a bit tight
could be some up side for you too
Seems Norway or even remain are now looking much more likely. For me if that is the choice we just remain, but how we get there I do not know
https://www.halfordsautocentres.com/advice/car-repairs-advice/how-to-tell-if-your-turbo-is-blown
Mr. Sandpit, I'd probably be dead
It's not even as though impiety has made a feast of me...
1. There will be much more to come out. The story so far doesn’t quite make sense to me. Made up refurbishment invoices suggests someone was creaming off money or possible money laundering style activities. That is not the sort of stuff you do to make something look more profitable than it is but it may be if you’re trying to hide unprofitability. But if so, how often can you do it? Stores don’t get refurbished every week.
2. You cannot manage by looking at one or two sources of information - your accounts or spreadsheets. You need to visit shops and compare with your rivals and with what is happening in the market and the economy generally. You need to sense check and look at what is often hiding in plain sight in front of you. This is something that people at the top of organisations, often very clever people are often very bad at doing. Asking basic, obvious questions is rarer than it should be.
3. If things are going well, that is what you planned for and expected, it is very easy to see only what confirms what you want to be true and ignore the rest. Lots of people had an interest in Valerie doing welll and congratulating themselves for being part of a seeming success story. That can make it very difficult for people to admit to problems or for potential whistleblowers to speak up. Or for others to respond to concerns eg the questions HMRC raised about forged documents.
4. Auditors are not investigators. They check things. They don’t ask questions or look for oddities. Companies often assume auditors are the same as investigators and can do the same job. They aren’t and can’t.
5. The human element - what went wrong was down to individuals. At the heart of this story will be people who did the wrong thing and others who failed to do the right thing and others who did not understand or manage effectively the people they hired and employed so that a number of people ending up behaving badly and others stood by and let them get away with it.
If people did what was good for them we would have no alcoholics, smokers or drug-addicts.
It will seem more like the end of the world for Tiffany in Hartlepool that the all-you-can-eat buffet is closed and that the offie has run out of Lambrini.
I'm taking a bit of profit as tomorrow could lead to some volatility, but I still reckon that in any scenario other than no deal, £/$ at 1.316 still offers considerable upside.