The difficulty with the EU began when it became evident that it was not a project to form a successful trading block but rather a political project which required political and fiscal unification. The Euro was part of that project. It is evident that significant cracks are now appearing in the infrastructure. I don’t think it will collapse but rather be reformed as a northern grouping of countries around Germany and France. The recent response of the EU leaders is more likely to lead to a hard Brexit and increase the general feeling of antagonism towards the EU by the UK. May is only being sustained by the Tory party until April next year at the latest. I don’t necessarily feel sorry for her since she is also an ambitious politician and has made a complete mess of just about everything she has done recently.
I would imagine that it is the view held by some remainers that not getting a deal means we will have no trade whatsoever, anywhere.
I find the “wartime conditions” sort of response similar to george osborne’s a vote to leave would immediately cause massive job losses and instant recession. Something that turned out to be nonsense.
We’ve discussed this before. It comes directly from the chairman of one of the top 5 supermarkets.
Something that turned out to be nonsense.
Of course it is.
It comes directly from the chairman of one of the top 5 supermarkets.
That makes it copper-bottomed fact then 
The average FTSE100 guy would rent his grandma to a whorehouse for a 5% hike in his stock value. I did also ask for the precise mechanism, Timothy. Did this guy tell you how this would come about? Did he give you a printout of his supply “partners” with attached signed statements that they would not sell to a post-brexit uk customer? How would they get that sort of trading policy past their shareholders?
I do realise France has nukes but, short of that, I fail to see the mechanism for shortages of anything whatsoever.
As an outsider, I always found it strange that the UK government, following the Brexit vote, didn’t decide to have a further vote to clarify what type of Brexit the people wanted.
The most fundamental rule of any negociation, is to know what outcome you want, what you’re willing to compromise on, and at what point a deal is of no use to you and you’re better off walking away. But the UK government doesn’t seem to know what sort of Brexit the people want. They know from the referendum that the people want a Brexit, but because they don’t know what type of Brexit, it’s left up to politicians to bring their own agenda and say “My idea is what the people meant when they voted for Brexit”.
If the UK government went back to the people with a referendum on some general concepts eg (inside single market & customs union, inside customs union only, outside both but cooperation on certain issues, no deal on anything), it would have been clear to the UK government what they were trying to achieve. Obviously the government couldn’t be tied to one concept, but they could have had the public rate the different options from most desirable to least. (Yes this would have been an unusual type of referendum, but it’s an unusual type of situation!)
This would mean that there was less room for political infighting (the public have spoken and clariried what they want) but the government still wouldn’t have their hands tied, because you can’t expect to get your most desired option in any negociation.
With the government having a clear purpose going into the negociations, and the politicans put back into their boxes (because the public had clarified exactly what they wanted) it would probably be easier for the UK to achieve its desired result.
To me it looks like that no matter what May manages to achieve, every side of the argument will say she failed to secure a good deal. She could be allowed to write the agreement single handedly herself, and she would still be critised from many quarters for doing a bad deal!
Firstly, he is a deeply honourable man, and falls way outside your perception of the average FTSE100 guy. I have known him for nearly 50 years and he has never done anything that was not decent and in the public good.
He did give me a fairly detailed description yes. It concerns the logistics of the supply chain. Essentially, everything is set up at the moment on the basis of single-crew HGVs being able to travel the length and breadth of Europe and deliver “just in time” to distribution centres which are “just the right size” and use a network of distributors to get the food to the supermarket shelves.
On March 30th, in a hard Brexit, the vehicles will not be able to enter the country without border checks, and potentially border levies. Because the ports are not set up for those controls, there will be delays, and those delays are likely to take the drivers of the vehicles outside their duty time limits, so they will have to be double crewed. That will not only put the transport cost up, but begs the question of where those second drivers are to be found.
Given those difficulties and extra costs, European suppliers may simply baulk at supplying the UK…that we don’t know.
But either way, the UK supermarkets will be looking for suppliers outside Europe – typically Africa, Latin America and Asia. Transport costs will be higher, but more importantly the infrastructure is not there to support the supply chain.
The discussion went on and on, but it was all about short term supply chain logistics, not about long term prosperity.
He probably spoke to me for about an hour about this, and also covered pharma. His arguments were very cogent, and quite unemotional and unbiased; h was really just talking about a business problem. And he knows that all the supermarkets, not only Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda, Morrisons and Waitrose, but also Aldi and Lidl, are in the same position. He has spoken to his opposite numbers at each of them.
I suppose the question is this: if I want to form an opinion about the food supply chain in the months after a hard Brexit, am I best advised by the politically neutral chairman of a major supermarket chain or by brexiteer pilots?
But none of this speaks to the long term. After all, rationing ended in 1954 and then we famously “never had it so good.” My concerns are for the summer of 2019 and whether any form of stable government and social cohesion survives it.
On March 30th, in a hard Brexit, the vehicles will not be able to enter the country without border checks, and potentially border levies.
Import duties are in UK’s control and why would the UK screw itself?
am I best advised by the politically neutral chairman of a major supermarket chain
He can’t be in a big business and be politically neutral. That would be a breach of his duty which is primarily to his shareholders. He has to do whatever is best for his company’s share price – within certain ethical boundaries.
or by brexiteer pilots?
or by people who live in the UK and thus believe in the UK?
I’ve been in business 40 years and have always found it awfully hard to stop people trying to sell me stuff.
A blockade of the Channel Tunnel would cause major disruption, but who exactly would want that (nobody selling stuff to the UK, obviously) and more to the point who would order it? Would France obey an order from Brussels to shut down the tunnel? I can’t see that at all. Macron doesn’t have the political power to do it by himself and there would be zero votes in it. The historically proven way to blockade the tunnel would be by upsetting French farmers (etc) but again I fail to see why they would care.
I don’t think that anyone, least of all my friend, is talking of blockades. It is a whole lot less dramatic than that. We don’t have, and won’t have for some time, the infrastructure to deal with the new reality. In the meantime, while the food supply industry reorganises its logistics, we will have price increases and shortages, possibly accompanied by rationing, which may well lead to civil unrest.
After all, the Poll Tax riots were only about money and justice. This time it will be about food in stomachs.
I really, really hope that he is wrong. I hope that there will be a deal that is acceptable to all, but I just can’t see where it is coming from.
On the point of the Europeans behaving badly I am not sure how comfortable I am with this argument.
I am inclined to feel that we decided to leave. As with any negotiation I suspect they are entitled to take their line, and we ours. That might not involve a compromise, although I accept when both parties have something to gain, a compromise is usually best. However, I think it is difficult to critise the other party if their comprise happens to be different from ours. I do think it is unforgiveable when two parties are disengenious during the negotiations. From my limited understanding of the negotiations I have to say it is us that have been far from clear throughout, and them that have been very clear on where their lines were drawn. We may not agree with how they conduct their business (hence why we are leaving) but that is another matter, and not a reason for expecting them to agree our points of compromise.
I also find it odd that so many people seem reluctant to have a rerun, usually on the grounds that it would be undemocratic, and often coming up with the well rehearsed mantra – how many times do you want to ask the question. I think that misses the point. I think the point is that a lot of people voted for a hard Brexit, and a lot voted for a compromise Brexit, and of course a lot voted to remain. The remain vote was clear cut. However the leave vote was not, because a hard Brexit and a compromise Brexit are two very different things. Of course I accept all the Brexiters may be happy with a hard Brexit if there is no other alternative -BUT that is not the equestion that was asked and nor do I think was what they expected. Why would you not want that point clarrified? If everyone is now happy with a hard Brexit – then all well and good, if that is the only alternative on the table.
So no deal it is then, the circle cannot be squared, that’s the message I get from Mrs May’s speech today. I have to say that many of the posts here on both sides of the debate have been very astute. Much of what has been written by Dublin Pilot and Fuji-Abound I agree with 100%. But then I would think that wouldn’t I? After all I don’t live in the UK and rarely read UK newspapers or watch the BBC(no access, not out of choice).
Having said all that like many on here I cannot see food shortages, it would be political suicide and can be avoided by no incoming border controls on food products. Also if British people were persuaded to take on low skilled jobs in the agricultural industry there should be no problem at all. In my opinion British farmers and fishermen are quite capable of feeding the country now and for many years in the future with the right support. But it might be a little more expensive and people may need to change their diets a little. I realise that this doesn’t align with Timothy’s friend’s opinion but he is talking business whereas Brexit is all about politics.
