Jump to content

UK Politics - Wanted: 50,000 Lorry Drivers. Long hours, Crap Conditions, All The Schadenfreude You Can Eat


Spockydog
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Ah. So the politicians on the Brexit side just lied for votes, but perhaps that was okay, because we know politicians lie? I remember a staggering amount of money that was going to be immediately freed up to give to the NHS once Brexit happened. Surely at least that one happened?

Listen, Brexit will turn out to be good actually in some vague non-measurable way. Eventually. You just have to have proper faith. But if it doesn’t it was still worth it because something something soverignty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I remember a staggering amount of money that was going to be immediately freed up to give to the NHS once Brexit happened. Surely at least that one happened?

Certainly, a staggering amount of money has been spaffed up the wall by giving it to chums of the government.

The Good Law Project estimates that around £17bn has been handed to private health companies since Covid. Despite this, private hospitals have treated an average of eight (that's 8) Covid patients per day. Across the entire nation.

Much of this £17bn additional spending has gone to Tory donors, or friends of Minister's wives, and the odd pub landlord here and there.

Over £5bn remains unaccounted for. Nobody, except the Tories, knows where the money went.

Boris Johnson has repeatedly lied about this, claiming that every single penny of public money has been accounted for.

Well, let's see about that, shall we? The Good Law Project isn't going away, and as much as Bozo and his bunch of clowns would like this swept under the carpet, it won't be.

He will not be able to bluster and bullshit his way around a High Court judge.

Of course, there are people amongst us who will handwave this away in the name of tribalism, or simply because they refuse to own the fact that they voted for the most corrupt and incompetent government this country has ever seen.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick fact checking for people not familiar with UK politics

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

we managed to get our Covid vaccination started while the EU was going round and round in circles because we were able to act unilaterally

The UK starting vaccination first was nothing to do with it leaving the EU. It was still in the EU at the time and could have acted just the same if it had not been leaving.

 

34 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well the government has put in a hell of a lot more than that into healthcare recently so I’m not sure it matters. 

Extra funding of the NHS has been mostly smoke and mirrors (for example Johnson's lies about "40 new hospitals"). The government has now actually returned to subtly attacking it instead, complaining that doctors are not seeing people face to face (there are no longer enough GPs to go round) and that waiting lists are still way too long (not enough hospital resources to bring them down, especially with them having been stretched to the limit in the last 18 months).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Some quick fact checking for people not familiar with UK politics

The UK starting vaccination first was nothing to do with it leaving the EU. It was still in the EU at the time and could have acted just the same if it had not been leaving.

 

Extra funding of the NHS has been mostly smoke and mirrors (for example Johnson's lies about "40 new hospitals"). The government has now actually returned to subtly attacking it instead, complaining that doctors are not seeing people face to face (there are no longer enough GPs to go round) and that waiting lists are still way too long (not enough hospital resources to bring them down, especially with them having been stretched to the limit in the last 18 months).

The vaccine thing is oft repeated but it’s not really true. Like a lot of what of what the EU says, just because you ‘can’ do something, it really doesn’t mean you can. The idea that the UK would actually have left the EU procurement programme had Brexit not have happened is fanciful at best. 
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inews.co.uk/opinion/eu-uk-vaccine-supply-row-astrazeneca-brexit-849033/amp

Quote

A difficult truth for us Remainers is that the United Kingdom would not have been able to roll out coronavirus vaccines at a greater speed than the European Union had we stayed in the bloc. The MHRA, our regulatory body, was able to approve not one but two vaccines before the European Union’s regulator, the EMA, and we are now feeling the benefits.

Along with a faster approval process, we have a more heavily centralised healthcare system, and as a result we have vaccinated many more people than any other European country.

It’s true that the EU’s treaties hand member-states an opt-out on public health matters during emergencies like the Covid-19 pandemic, but when the UK was a member of the EU, we were also the host of the EMA. Therefore, it would not have been diplomatically possible for the UK to opt out of the EMA’s process: if you are the host of a big institution, you can hardly declare that you think it is unfit for purpose. In addition, it may well have been logistically impossible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The vaccine thing is oft repeated but it’s not really true. Like a lot of what of what the EU says, just because you ‘can’ do something, it really doesn’t mean you can. The idea that the UK would actually have left the EU procurement programme had Brexit not have happened is fanciful at best. 
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inews.co.uk/opinion/eu-uk-vaccine-supply-row-astrazeneca-brexit-849033/amp

 

And I thought Hungry and Slovakia where part of the EU? they certainly did there own deals.

 

and as for us approving it faster,  maybe that has something to do with most of the experts and infrastructure was previously based in the UK.  A lot of those experts probably stayed in the UK and just worked for the UK directly.  The EU needed to train newer people in those jobs.  this could have made the EU approval faster if we had stayed in.

 

Also note although to start with we where ahead of the EU,  we are behind them now.  so yeah Big win going solo here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons we got the vaccine so fast is that AstraZeneca jumped on the problem immediately, partnering with Cambridge to start work on a vaccine the second they got the sequenced virus almost fresh off the plane from Wuhan. That's because AstraZeneca is headquartered in Britain, as it was before and after Brexit, and Britain has a tremendous infrastructure for vaccine development. That's one of the reasons EMA was headquartered here.

If we were still in the EU, AstraZeneca would have still done that and when they proposed to the government funding for the vaccine, I see zero reason for the government to have said no even if we were in the EU. Under the EMA structure, the EU would have likely gotten a heads-up on what was going on in any case. So us being in the EU would have probably benefited Europe a bit more with vaccine development.

Interestingly, reports in that the EU is going to make a big shift on the Northern Ireland protocol. They will slash checks at the border by 50% and invite representatives from Northern Ireland to discussions on how a practical border arrangement can be put into place, with special focus on how to remove points of tension (i.e. stopping customs officers being threatened at the border and in the ports). This is a pretty huge concession by the EU and there seems to be a distinct implication that Britain can take this and champion it as a major Brexit victory. If Britain holds out for more - such as removing the ECJ as the final arbitrator - then the EU may be minded to withdraw single market access altogether from Northern Ireland, which would necessitate the imposition of a hard border around Northern Ireland, which would cause a shitstorm of enormous proportions.

One thing I haven't seen is the UK not nominating an alternate body to oversee arbitration if they feel the ECJ is unacceptable. One feels the WTO might suffice, if it wasn't for the fact that any body including the WTO is likely to simply side with the EU in any case.

It is interesting seeing how this is being framed in the British press, with most pointing out reasonably that if you have two equal bodies in negotiation, only one of the two bodies' legal arms having final say over points of dispute is indeed illogical and unfair. However, the reality of the situation is that Britain, as the considerably smaller and junior partner in the arrangement, is petitioning for access to the much larger body's market, in which case that body's legal arm checking the situation makes much more sense.

Edited by Werthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Priti Patel thinks it's okay for refugees to be drowned instead of being allowed to reach our shores in small boats.

Border Patrol have been training for a month, trying to work out the best way to push overcrowded dinghies back to France. They have been reportedly been using jetskis and other methods.

I'm pretty sure the training has seen some boats capsized, because she now wants to add this provision to her already disgusting (and probably illegal) Nationality and Borders Bill:

“A relevant officer is not liable in any criminal or civil proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of functions under this part of this schedule if the court is satisfied that (a) the act was done in good faith, and (b) there were reasonable grounds for doing it.”

It is unclear how much protection this would offer Border Patrol officers in the event of them drowning a bunch of families. I guess we'll find out, because when this cruel and barbaric process is implemented, people are going to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

If we were still in the EU, AstraZeneca would have still done that and when they proposed to the government funding for the vaccine, I see zero reason for the government to have said no even if we were in the EU. Under the EMA structure, the EU would have likely gotten a heads-up on what was going on in any case. So us being in the EU would have probably benefited Europe a bit more with vaccine development.

If we were still in the EU we would have been part of the procurement programme and we wouldn't have gotten the AZ vaccines before the EU. How can we all forget the mighty hoo haa the EU kicked up with AZ because the UK had got in ahead of them in the queue. Maybe you did. Plus it wasn't just AZ we got earlier.

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Interestingly, reports in that the EU is going to make a big shift on the Northern Ireland protocol. They will slash checks at the border by 50% and invite representatives from Northern Ireland to discussions on how a practical border arrangement can be put into place, with special focus on how to remove points of tension (i.e. stopping customs officers being threatened at the border and in the ports). This is a pretty huge concession by the EU and there seems to be a distinct implication that Britain can take this and champion it as a major Brexit victory. If Britain holds out for more - such as removing the ECJ as the final arbitrator - then the EU may be minded to withdraw single market access altogether from Northern Ireland, which would necessitate the imposition of a hard border around Northern Ireland, which would cause a shitstorm of enormous proportions.

I think they are slashing checks by more than 50%, which is a good offer, though its worth noting one of the big problems here has been the disparity between checks in either direction, with the EU taking an over judicious level of checking on goods, which was deemed not to be in the spirit of the agreement by the UK. So them, backtracking on this is a positive, even if it is one more in another list of the many things they have said in the past was simply not possible to do, which they have managed to make possible (almost as if they make the rules up when it suits them?)
 

58 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

It is unclear how much protection this would offer Border Patrol officers in the event of them drowning a bunch of families. I guess we'll find out, because when this cruel and barbaric process is implemented, people are going to die.

Honestly why isn't more ire thrown the way of the illegal people smugglers, who take vulnerable people's cash to throw them into dangerous situations. And more sympathy for people who have attempted to claim asylum in the country the legal way, whose path is being blocked by those who want to jump the queue and get in illegally.

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 

Honestly why isn't more ire thrown the way of the illegal people smugglers, who take vulnerable people's cash to throw them into dangerous situations. And more sympathy for people who have attempted to claim asylum in the country the legal way, whose path is being blocked by those who want to jump the queue and get in illegally.

I tend to hold home secretary's to a higher standard than people smugglers.

And it's not either or with legal/illegal asylum seekers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly why isn't more ire thrown the way of the illegal people smugglers, who take vulnerable people's cash to throw them into dangerous situations. And more sympathy for people who have attempted to claim asylum in the country the legal way, whose path is being blocked by those who want to jump the queue and get in illegally.

Claiming asylum is legal regardless of how you arrive in the country, although I imagine that’s one of the things Patel wants to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can catch the people smugglers who are profiting off people's misery and desperation, then sure throw the book at them. But drowning said desperate people and washing their blood off your hands isn't really doing much harm to those people smugglers.

UK apparently shortlisting a few sites for a future nuclear fusion plant. Getting a bit ahead of themselves I think given

 

 

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2021 at 10:07 AM, Heartofice said:

The simple answer is that the benefits of leaving the EU are long term, and anyone expecting overnight changes would be disappointed. 
 

Not being part of the EU, and therefore national law having primacy rather than the other way round ( have a look at the EUs unintentionally threatening post to Poland if anyone is under any doubts about who is in charge), not being part of an ever close union with a centralised , less democratic and opaque form of governance are all huge benefits.

We’ve already conducted a ton of trade deals globally and are in talks with a lot more, including a potential trans Pacific partnership.. it’s almost like it’s much easier to do trade deals when you aren’t part of some constantly bickering multinational groups who has to halt everything on the back on what some Flemish farmers think. 
 

Even then, in the short term we managed to get our Covid vaccination started while the EU was going round and round in circles because we were able to act unilaterally.. who then got so worked up and tried to deflect blame that they went after AZ and tried to pull out Article 16.

Anyway, the point is, of course there will be short term pain from leaving an institution that has grown roots into so much of the way it’s members are run, it would mad to think it would all go smoothly from day one, especially when actually our own government has so many incompetent people running it. But actually in terms of the project fear projections, almost non of them have come to pass.
Despite what some of the hyperbolic members of the board will tell you, we are not living in the end times, everything is basically the same. Even where there were issues such as with HGV drivers, Brexit is only one of a number of factors in the equation, but because it’s not convenient to see the big picture, that gets swept over.

So, essentially, everything will be fine because it’s other folks being hurt and not you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Claiming asylum is legal regardless of how you arrive in the country, although I imagine that’s one of the things Patel wants to change.

This is something Patel appears to have taken from the U.S. playbook on committing asylum atrocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I see Priti Patel thinks it's okay for refugees to be drowned instead of being allowed to reach our shores in small boats.

Border Patrol have been training for a month, trying to work out the best way to push overcrowded dinghies back to France. They have been reportedly been using jetskis and other methods.

I'm pretty sure the training has seen some boats capsized, because she now wants to add this provision to her already disgusting (and probably illegal) Nationality and Borders Bill:

“A relevant officer is not liable in any criminal or civil proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of functions under this part of this schedule if the court is satisfied that (a) the act was done in good faith, and (b) there were reasonable grounds for doing it.”

It is unclear how much protection this would offer Border Patrol officers in the event of them drowning a bunch of families. I guess we'll find out, because when this cruel and barbaric process is implemented, people are going to die.

Given our experience here in the U.S., this kind of cover will allow the worst actors to get away with just about anything.

Border Patrol shoots and kills Mexican citizens, on Mexican soil, for throwing rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Given our experience here in the U.S., this kind of cover will allow the worst actors to get away with just about anything.

Border Patrol shoots and kills Mexican citizens, on Mexican soil, for throwing rocks.

Yeah, pretty sure she's looking across the Atlantic for inspiration.

She truly is a dreadful excuse for a human being. You'd think that given the fact her own parents arrived in this country as refugees, she'd have a little more empathy.

Ever since Labour's Jacqui Smith, our Home Secretaries have been getting worse and worse, ever more authoritarian and evil. But this? This is something else entirely.

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...