In what has to be one of the most unusual Brexit stories you are likely to come across, councils in south Essex announced last month they would be stockpiling fuel and were planning to use bicycles to get around in the event of post-Brexit chaos on the road network.
With all the excitement of the Tour de France we momentarily (happily) forgot about the madness of our exit from the European Union and this story managed to fly right under the radar.
On July 11, as Dylan Teuns was storming up La Planche de Belles Filles on stage 6 of the Tour, Southend Council announced they had spent £2,950 on a 5,000-litre fuel storage container as part of their contingency planning for when the UK leaves the European Union according to Your Thurrock.
They also confirmed they have plans in place to use the council’s existing supply of bicycles to allow emergency workers to reach people in need in the event that roads become overloaded and congested.
Freedom of information findings also revealed that Thurrock Council has spent £8,049 to build up their own stock of bicycles during the 2018-19 financial year.
The expenditure went on ten electric bicycles, helmets, locks, hi-vis vests and jackets.
Two councils – Thurrock and Southend – have revealed that they are stockpiling fuel and planning to issue bicycles to workers to enable them to get around in the event of post-Brexit chaos on the road network. https://t.co/HOIeEj5tqJ
— Jon Owen (@anotherJon) August 9, 2019
Their existing stock included four bicycles, four electric bicycles and one folding bicycle.
Southend Council leader, Councillor Ian Gilbert, said: “We are always reviewing, planning and building upon our established resilience and emergency plans.
“We therefore already have resources in place should Brexit create any disruption, so we can continue to deliver ‘business as usual’ for our core services.
“This is particularly important for council services such as social care, as social workers and care teams will still need to attend home visits to our most vulnerable residents for example.
“We already have a fleet of electric and standard bicycles and up to four electric cars for staff to use to attend meetings and travel around the borough on council business in a more environmentally friendly way.
“These also form part of our contingency arrangements and would be used in an emergency situation if needed.”
With local authorities across the country struggling to cope with the increasing pressures of adult social care, perhaps this idea could actually be worth implementing regardless of Brexit fuelled chaos?
58 thoughts on “Brexit means Brexit…and more bicycles…maybe”
It had never entered my mind
It had never entered my mind that post brexit Britian could plunge into a Mad Max style dystopian future until the then brexit secratary David Davies decided to start talking about it.
Unfortunately the bicycle is probably not the solution to this as the roving gangs of War Boys can easily defeat the humble pushbike in their armoured death bringing machines.
Now the zombie apocolypse, slightly different matter, the bicycle could be a viable means of transportation when all the fuel is gone, provided they are the slow moving, shambolic zombies of George A. Romero’s Day/Night of the Dead rather than those quick witted, fast running ones from Danny Boyle’s 28 Days later.
ktache wrote:
Well it’s frequently been pointed out that the motorised vehicles in The Walking Dead should have become completely unusable a few seasons ago, as the ‘gasoline’ in them would all have turned to jelly. Apparently the additives in them would slow that process, but it would only have been a question of a few years. So the gang – and their various human enemies – should all have resorted to bicycles long ago.
If I’d have been writing for a zombie show, I’d have opened an episode with a scene where survivors are trudging up a hill, and suddenly hear a strange rattling sound. To then be confronted with a peleton of zombies on bikes (a zeleton?) free-wheeling wildly down the hill at them…while on fire. Trying to explain how that came about would constiute the rest of the episode. It would probably involve Boris Johnson in some capacity.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
That’s at least 3 more terrible seasons of the walking dead you’ve now inspired if the writers are reading this! The series is now so bad I can actually see this happening.
Rick_Rude wrote:
They’ve definitely jumped the shark with The Walking Dead. They p*ssed me off by dragging out the war with Negan for two series.
I’m currently getting near the end of the comics – I think issue 193 is the very last one, ever.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I stopped watching quite a while ago. It was OK, had some very good stuff (effects, acting, and the occasional effective storyline or set-peice) but also a lot of flaws (mainly illogical plots and inconsistent characterisation).
I gather George Romero and others have disparaged it as ‘a soap opera with zombies’, but I don’t see that as a bad thing – kind of like Eastenders but more cheery and not as unrelentingly bleak and depressing.
I presume the original outbreak somehow involved Iain Duncan Smith or ‘Failing Grayling’ being put in charge of some science or medical project.
Zeleton. Nice!
Zeleton. Nice!
If Brexit has become nothing
If Brexit has become nothing but a damage limitation exercise involving spending £billions in contingency planning…
…then wtf are we still going ahead with it?
Mungecrundle wrote:
The only reason I’ve seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave. They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.
The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
burtthebike wrote:
The only reason I’ve seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave. They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.
The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.— Mungecrundle
The timing of the Brexit vote just after the Panama Papers scandal makes this the most plausible explanation.
hawkinspeter wrote:
A report from several years ago exposes the whole financial, corrupt ponzy scheme that is the UK https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-a-mafia-expert-tells-us-britain-is-the-most-corrupt-country-in-the-world-its-time-to-start-a7057686.html?fbclid=IwAR11ncxe5WnQ_Nv1jnRVsJi_im6mfe6Uo7gfyCMggkxvSiGP7PDzCK3IWaQ
hawkinspeter wrote:
Double, sorry. I think the weather is so foul, lots of cyclists are keeping the servers busy.
burtthebike wrote:
The only reason I’ve seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave. They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.
The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.— Mungecrundle
Good lord! You mean Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his nanny, and Dulwich educated ex City financier Nigel Farage (who’s still drawing his MEP salary from an organisation he despises) aren’t really men of the people with the interests of the common folk at heart? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
brooksby wrote:
At least millionaire Aaron Banks didn’t have any agenda in co-founding Leave.EU or “gifting” money to Farage.
Yes. The liars who promised
Yes. The liars who promised millions of spare cash for the NHS, and free unicorns for all, are now spending taxpayers’ money on preparations for an entirely self-inflicted catastrophe.
Some of these charlatans are going to end up in prison.
The reason we are heading,
The reason we are heading, seemingly inevitably now, for a no-deal Brexit is because Remain voting MPs rejected the negotiated deal.
Any damage caused by no-deal can be blamed squarely on those who rejected the deal.
Rich_cb wrote:
It wasn’t a negotiated deal, it was a withdrawal agreement that begins the rest of the dealings.
Even Boris and JRM rejected it (along with all the DUP) so don’t go blaming remain voters for it. (admittedly they did finally and reluctantly swing behind it when it sited their own political agenda).
The reason we’re in this almighty fucking mess is because 17 million people were fooled into believing the lies, spin, deceit and manipulation. And now the media are busy spinning the line that it’s all the fault of the EU / remoaners / non-believers / the rest of the world.
crazy-legs wrote:
In this context the withdrawal agreement is the ‘deal’.
It’s unbelievable that years after the result so many Remain voters can’t accept that decision and continue to cling desperately to the idea that people were fooled/tricked etc.
The consequences of no-deal will be the fault of those who rejected the ‘deal’.
Nobody else.
The reason we are heading,
The reason we are heading, seemingly inevitably now, for a no-deal Brexit is because Remain voting MPs rejected the negotiated deal.
Any damage caused by no-deal can be blamed squarely on those who rejected the deal.
You are either mistaken or deliberately not telling the truth. The deal was rejected by the extreme Brexiters of the ERG and the DUP. They voted against it. Rees-Mogg. Arlene Foster.
No deal can be blamed squarely on the Brexiters who voted against a deal – the same people who, in the Referendum campaign in 2016, said there was no chance of leaving the single market, and a deal would be easy.
Unfortunately, those who promoted Brexit are charlatans, liars and extremists. You cannot trust them. That they have got so far is down to the gullible, and those who want to be deceived.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Were they the only members of parliament to reject the deal?
I said that No-deal would be blamed on all those who rejected a deal, Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
The only difference being that the Brexiteers you mentioned rejected the deal to facilitate no deal.
The Remainers rejected the deal to facilitate remain.
I though Remainers were meant to be the intelligent ones?
I said that No-deal would be
I said that No-deal would be blamed on all those who rejected a deal, Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
No you didn’t. Look at what you wrote. I’m afraid that is a lie.
The reason we are heading, seemingly inevitably now, for a no-deal Brexit is because Remain voting MPs rejected the negotiated deal.
But it seems that facts are more fluid and less important than ideology for Brexiters and Trumpists.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I never understand people who partially quote someone in a thread where the full quote is easily viewed.
Here’s the bit you omitted.
Any damage caused by no-deal can be blamed squarely on those who rejected the deal.
Notice the use of the word blame in that sentence.
Did you see the word blame in the partial quote you used?
Quote:
There’s an awful lot of stuff that Leave votors haven’t understood!
Still, don’t worry – you can’t be as bad as Dominic Raab, our former genius Brexit Secretary in charge of these high level deals and agreements – who “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of the English Channel as a trade gateway to the continent.
Or David Davis (another Brexit Secretary – gosh we do get through them quite quickly don’t we?!) who didn’t understand that deals might not be easy.
So not understanding partial quotes is quite minor really. You’ll get over it.
crazy-legs wrote:
Insinuates leave voters are stupid.
Misspells voters.
Rich_cb wrote:
There’s an awful lot of stuff that Leave votors haven’t understood!
Still, don’t worry – you can’t be as bad as Dominic Raab, our former genius Brexit Secretary in charge of these high level deals and agreements – who “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of the English Channel as a trade gateway to the continent.
Or David Davis (another Brexit Secretary – gosh we do get through them quite quickly don’t we?!) who didn’t understand that deals might not be easy.
So not understanding partial quotes is quite minor really. You’ll get over it.
— Rich_cb Insinuates leave voters are stupid. Misspells voters.— crazy-legs
The Kippers have just elected a new leader – his name is Dick Braine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49307101
crazy-legs wrote:
Not forgetting the Northern Ireland secretary who hadn’t ‘realised’ that people in Northern Ireland tend to vote along sectarian lines in elections. I was going to ask ‘Where the hell do they find them?’ but the answer is usually either Eton or crawling out from under a stone like KPMG.
So are the Essex bicycles for
So are the Essex bicycles for the purpose of weaving in and out of columns stuck traffic (e.g. from the ports in that area) or to keep their staff moving after the fuel has run out?
I still hope that Brexit whatever form it takes will be an anti-climax, like the Millennium Bug turned out to be in 1999/2000. There were information campaigns around that too, I wonder what the content of this next one will be, a “Protect and Survive” for the 2020s?
The really concerning thing is that we don’t seem to know what the actual consequences are going to be. One silver lining is that where there’s a problem, Boris will chuck money at it. Earthquakes, pandemics, adverse weather you have to plan for and deal with – this is self-inflicted.
I always reckon it on a scale upwards of mildly irritating “darn, no asparagus”, bit of a problem “milk all sold out by lunch-time, more tomorrow” like on the bi-annual snow day, or whoops “no bread today and we don’t know when more is coming”. Will Brexit voters have or express any regrets if it comes to this?
I’ve heard the UK doesn’t make any loo roll. Ambulances are nearly all on Mercedes or Fiat bodies. Do we make any tyres in the UK these days? “Can’t get the parts, mate”, so maybe we’ll be like Cuba was for many years after the revolution.
my mother lives in a sheltered accommodation, she’s in a wheelchair and entirely reliant on carers for daily living, the cooks for a main meal, electricity to run the lift and energy to keep the place warm as winter sets in. She thinks Brexit is about the future and it doesn’t concern her. She lived through WW2. I pray that she’s right and I’ll look back on this post in 6 months and say “wow we were all getting all het up over nothing”. If any of those services are disrupted e.g. by fuel or food shortages, she has no resilience (12 hours, tops) and she won’t be fighting her way through a riot in Tescos either. There must 10,000s like her – the most vulnerable in society.
Stories of planning for food, medicines and fuel shortages are dribbling out. Ask a group of middle managers to do a risk assessment, you’ll get this sort of stuff. However, If it is known that the supply of these is going to be seriously affected, it’s plain irresponsible of any government to take Brexit any further, whatever the ideology. I’m getting a run of 250 jerseys made with “ THIS IS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR” across the chest and an EU flag on the back.
David9694 wrote:
Boris, among others, has trotted this one out occasionally. Apart from the obviously fallacious reasoning (‘nothing happened then, therefore nothing will happen now’), it entirely misrepresents the facts of the time. The Millenium bug was a real risk, avoided precisely because we planned for it and did something about it. I made quite a lot of money for two years out of it as a contract programmer. And the problems we were addressing were real.
Genuine question to people
Genuine question to people who think we’ll be without food and medicine after a few days outside the EU: who exactly do you think is going to close the ports and prevent goods reaching the shelves?
srchar wrote:
It’s jsut about everything backing up because it will take long to process everthing, hence the practise runs on the M20 allowing for delays https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45021133
(can’t see why inward would be any different).
Agreed. I worked at a Pharma
Agreed. I worked at a Pharma plant, and we had batches that couldn’t be used because they were 99 years out of date. Fortunately we had some experts help us install a new system in time. Rather than asking some Express readers what to do.
In this industry the post Bx rules are clear, and are available for all to read. It will significantly hurt supply chains and new medicine introduction for UK, and we are doing our best to mitigate the damage. However, it has already introduced major extra costs, and there are no upsides (unless you are in say, Netherlands, where the EU testing work goes to).
To Srchar’s question. All the
To Srchar’s question. All the lorries waiting to have their loads and documents checked will block the ports, since the laws that allowed them to move freely have been ripped up. It only takes extra delays measured in seconds per truck before the system will back up.
Imagine you are at a busy supermarket, and every customer has an item that won’t scan. That.
You might say – Why not just let them in without checking ? Well I would agree, that’s the whole point of freedom of movement for goods.
Drinfinity wrote:
We already import plenty of goods from outside the EU and process the customs paperwork so it’s hardly an insurmountable challenge to overcome.
Just an increase in capacity really.
Rich_cb wrote:
You don’t think moving to WTO rules and opting out of EU wide tradeing processes with our non EU importers is going to cause any short term issues then?
Mungecrundle wrote:
The only issue will be a capacity issue.
Non EU goods will still have to be checked and tariffs applied just as they are now.
Rich_cb wrote:
How much lorry freight at UK ports is carrying non-EU goods? Aren’t wagons from Turkey , or containers from China via Antwerp or Rotterdam checked at the border with the EU, where the goods effectively become EU goods which roll through the channel ports without further checks.
Doesn’t the same go for non EU goods arriving at Felixstowe or Immingham which may then travel onwards to Eire or France by truck? When checks are introduced for ALL goods crossing the channel ports (and Fishguard or Holyhead) , there will likely be gridlock on the M2 and A5 and beyond.
pockstone wrote:
You’re correct that currently many imports destined for the EU arrive in the UK first and vice versa.
Once there are border checks between the UK and EU we’ll see a change to shipping to a port in the target market nullifying the ‘Rotterdam Effect’.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re correct that currently many imports destined for the EU arrive in the UK first and vice versa. Once there are border checks between the UK and EU we’ll see a change to shipping to a port in the target market nullifying the ‘Rotterdam Effect’.[/quote]
Cos there are loads of spare ports just sitting around in “target markets”, waiting for business to come their way…
The whole point of having massive centralised ports like Rotterdam, Felixstowe and so on is to facilitate easy movement of goods, the economies of scale of having everything on one massive container ship rather than multiple smaller ships heading off to who knows where, the proximity of things like oil refineries to the port.
It means all the staff and resources are in one place rather than spread around a country. and one of the major concerns is that while there is spare capacity at some ports (to shift stuff away form Dover for example) there is a shortage of staff with the relevant skills and experience to operate that additional traffic.
Maybe the unicorns can carry everything ashore.
crazy-legs wrote:
There are obviously no new ports with huge amounts of capacity and the ability to almost double in size if needed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Gateway
The UK is a huge market for imports, easily large enough for container ships to sail directly here.
Rich_cb wrote:
To Srchar’s question. All the lorries waiting to have their loads and documents checked will block the ports, since the laws that allowed them to move freely have been ripped up. It only takes extra delays measured in seconds per truck before the system will back up.
Imagine you are at a busy supermarket, and every customer has an item that won’t scan. That.
You might say – Why not just let them in without checking ? Well I would agree, that’s the whole point of freedom of movement for goods.
— Rich_cb We already import plenty of goods from outside the EU and process the customs paperwork so it’s hardly an insurmountable challenge to overcome. Just an increase in capacity really.— Drinfinity
A little over half is from within the EU, so you are talking more than a doubling of capacity. Which implies it’s not insurmountable but also far from trivial.
(That’s measured by value – come to think of it I wonder whether one has to consider the mass or volume involved – bulkier goods would imply more lorries parked up.)
In any case it’s still a cost. I am just not convinced all these multiple costs are really worth it. I have never loved the EU, but I’m just unconvinced that getting out offers benefits equal to all this pain and inconvenience.
Rich_cb wrote:
To Srchar’s question. All the lorries waiting to have their loads and documents checked will block the ports, since the laws that allowed them to move freely have been ripped up. It only takes extra delays measured in seconds per truck before the system will back up.
Imagine you are at a busy supermarket, and every customer has an item that won’t scan. That.
You might say – Why not just let them in without checking ? Well I would agree, that’s the whole point of freedom of movement for goods.
— Rich_cb We already import plenty of goods from outside the EU and process the customs paperwork so it’s hardly an insurmountable challenge to overcome. Just an increase in capacity really.— Drinfinity
That’s the point; there IS no spare capacity. You are talking about an exponential increase in customs processing that does not exist now. IT systems, staff, vets and technicians are inadequate to cope with this huge increase. In practical terms, we will have no choice but to simply wave the trucks through with no inspection. Funny way to ‘take back control’.
Eton Rifle wrote:
All of our ports are working at 100% capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?
Rich_cb wrote:
At Felixstowe port, there is a maximum number of movements which can be carrried out per hour, so unless you are suggesting that the port suddenly invest in more RTGs and cranes along a waterfront of fixed width, why do you think it can be accommodated ? There is also the need to increase staff, IT and buildings as a result.
On the other side, european ports were built expecting ships and freight to be delivered under a set of physical constraints and admin constraints, so that is a further complication.
hirsute wrote:
Let’s try again.
Drinfinity wrote:
That’s not an answer. If processing delays look likely to cause a backlog that will stop food reaching supermarket shelves, who in government will take the decision to carry on doing paperwork, rather than simply let the trucks roll through?
srchar wrote:
So the argument is that if the attempt to ‘take back control of our borders’ causes problems we’ll just completely abandon control of our borders? Why not stay where we are then?
I just resent all this economic cost and risk being forced on us because a couple of percent more people who voted wanted to leave, several years ago.
Also, the point for me is not whether people knew what they were voting for, but that they didn’t tell the rest of us what they were voting for at the time. Maybe those who voted leave were all willing to embrace ‘no deal’, but they didn’t actually say that at the time. It’s a bit late for some to now retrospectively claim that’s what they meant. They should have said so _then_.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
We’re talking about inbound goods here, not people. Trucks will roll through just as they do today; customs declarations can be submitted later.
This notion that EU based exporters will suddenly stop selling to us, that there will be huge queues of trucks awaiting documentation checks because the government prefers paperwork over produce and that the supermarket shelves will be empty is fantasy.
Outbound, granted, is a different story and depends entirely on what the EU decides to do. They can be as accommodating or as obstinate as they wish. You would hope it’s the former, given that there will be EU-based businesses reliant upon UK-based suppliers, and EU-owned businesses based in the UK that export to the EU.
srchar wrote:
Its not about preference, it’s about legal requirements.
Incoming there are are two simple choices:
1) Check everything as we do need with none EU goods right now.
2) Check nothing as we do for EU goods right now.
The fantasy is your idea that the UK can just do what it wants and will decide to just carry on as if nothing has changed. WTO rules don’t allow that. Goods must be treated the same. We could choose not to check anything, but do you think that’s a good idea?
Outgoing, the EU have the same options, plus their own legal requirements for goods from outside the EU being checked within 15km of the boaEder. It’s not about what the EU chose to do, but about their own internal laws and international law.
We are back again to the same issues as we had pre vote. Lots of pro brexit people, either through ignorance or malice, misrepresenting the situation, and when told the reality paint it as the EU being unreasonable. It’s not, it is international law.
Please do explain how how you think we could get round the existing EU and WTO laws within existing frameworks, without having new technology that doesn’t yet exist, expecting someone to brake the law or having an agreement with the EU (otherwise known as a deal…)
As it stands there is no realistic option but checks at the boarders. Checks that will lead to queues that will lead to shortages.
John Smith wrote:
This! Known as the “most favoured nation” rule. Applies to Boris’ myth that he can choose when and where to apply tariffs. He can’t. And it gets worse! As most of the trade agreements “we” currently have with non eu nations are actually eu trade agreements which won’t cover us after a no deal, then all our trade takes place under the lowest common denominator. ie we must treat all countries the same as we treat for example Venezuela, with whom we have no trade agreement.
John Smith wrote:
The head of the French channel ports begs to differ.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/11/no-deal-lorry-mayhem-dover-calais-cest-la-bullsh-replies-french/
Rich_cb wrote:
Yeah, well he’s wrong.
“Michael Lux, a former head of customs legislation and procedures at the European commission, said the UK would have to impose customs checks and tariffs on the northern side of the border, despite claims to the contrary by Brexiters.
Under WTO rules, the UK could opt for zero tariffs, but it would be obliged to offer this free-trade deal to every other country. This would mean cheap food and dairy products, which currently attract high tariffs, from countries such as Brazil or New Zealand, and might also lead to chlorinated chicken from the US ending up on British supermarket shelves.”
Or you could go to the wto site and read the source docs, instead of just quoting the Daily Brexitgraph.
Griff500 wrote:
Had enough of experts have we?
You don’t seem to understand how the WTO rules work.
You apply a tariff per product. So you could put a zero percent tariff on lemons and the maximum permissible tariff on lamb.
The draft tariffs have already been leaked so you could look at those if you were interested in how things are likely to pan out.
Rich_cb wrote:
Had enough of experts have we?
You don’t seem to understand how the WTO rules work.
You apply a tariff per product. So you could put a zero percent tariff on lemons and the maximum permissible tariff on lamb.
The draft tariffs have already been leaked so you could look at those if you were interested in how things are likely to pan out.— Griff500
Er, that’s a quote from the former head of eu customs legislation, an expert I believe, not from me, and not from a port manager, so maybe you should be telling him he doesn’t know how wto tariffs work. Read the wto rules ffs instead of Brexit press. All trade partners without a trade agreement need to be treated equally. Simple. As for leaking tariffs on lemons? Nothing to leak there. All countries without a trade agreement are treated equally as per wto rules. The tariffs are in the public domain as we already trade with some countries (including buying lemons) under wto rules. Nothing to leak! And therefore no tariffs to decide, by either the eu or UK, as with most products, we already have non trade agreement (no deal) tariffs set!
Griff500 wrote:
If you want to know if there will be queues at the ports I would suggest that the manager of said ports might be the person to ask.
I really don’t think you understand WTO tariffs at all.
The WTO set the maximum permissible tariff. Each country is free to apply any rate of tariff up to that maximum. The maximum rate of permissible tariff is different for every product.
The UK can therefore choose any rate of tariff it likes (up to the maximum) for every product we import. We do have to treat every country equally but there are loopholes to avoid that too.
The leaked tariff rates are therefore worth a look.
John Smith wrote:
Who in government is going to choose option 1 if it looks at all likely to cause lengthy delays at the border? Nobody.
HMRC has already confirmed that customs declarations can be made and import duty paid after goods have crossed the border. IIRC this is currently guaranteed for at least the first year.
Freight traffic can back up
Freight traffic can back up from the ports along the motorways, through the junctions and into the urban centres. Congestion sits balanced on a knife edge most of the time, one broken down vehicle or a small crash and it’s carmaggeddon out there, a badly parked delivery truck and see what that can cause. School holidays at the moment, but wait until they go back. Causes difficulty to emergency vehicles, carers, who are not allowed much time for travel anyway, fuel deliveries and supermarket distribution networks. Add into that a bit of panic buying, and the Just In Time consumerist society we have could start fraying around the edges.
I could never get over Egg from THIS life being the main hero in the Walking Dead. And Tanita Tikaram’s brother skinned up better in real life than he apparently did in the show.
Hasn’t this got to be good
Hasn’t this got to be good news? Local council acknowledging that bicycles are the best way to beat traffic congestion and gridlock….
LI’m finding the tax evasion
LI’m finding the tax evasion avoidance thing a bit too conspiratorial – the roots go back much further to Mrs Thatcher’s day in UK politics. The EU hasn’t covered itself in glory PR-wise down the years and has been an easy target in the newspapers. People are ready to believe things like the kipper ice pillow story.
The UK left sees a capitalist panjandrum, the right sees socialism on a grand and creeping scale.
I think in the world scheme of things we’re a titchy, insignificant island in need of friends.
A good question posed earlier that I’ve been wondering about is where do the people and the space you need to perform custom checks on EU goods appear from, and how quickly?
Northern Ireland seems to have gone out of the window since Boris came in.
What happens on the ground from 1 November if we have left without a deal? I think of Tom Hanks in Cast Away as the useless junk (to him alone on his island) washes-up on the shore. Will the lorry carrying the ingredients for my tea be let through, before they rot? What about the one with the spare part for my car so I can continue to go to work at the hospital (yes I can cycle but I get less keen on this as winter comes in) or the widget to fix the broken lift in my mother’s sheltered accommodation (she’s stuck without these things), or the vital spare doo-daah for her motorised wheelchair, or bed hoist?
There’s plenty of non-essentials in circulation – golf clubs to take a random example – that could stop for a while – but you must have to be able prioritise and everything is inter-linked and is probably important or vital to someone.
I suppose once the ‘Rotterdam
I suppose once the ‘Rotterdam effect’ is nullified, shippers are goimg to send two boats, one to the EU and one to the UK, with all the concommitant costs. The only positive result might be a decrease in the number of HGVs in Kent and Calais… in the long term. In the short term you won’t be able to move for them. Unless you’re a Southend Social worker.
Maybe Maidenhead and Windsor will start sending planning officers out on bikes to check that cafes are abiding by their conditions…or will that constitute an organised ride?