Likely consequenses of brexit

Where do they grow bananas and citrus fruit in large quantities in the U.K.?

varian
I find it amusing listening to BBC and other information media and then browse Gransnet, Twitter and such. The Remainers are convinced that the BBC is totally biased towards Brexit and the Brexiteers are totally convinced the BBC is biased towards remain.
So many have selective hearing.
If a businessman who has traded internationally and within the EU for many refutes Jon Thompson, he has as much right to be heard and his reasoning understood as Jon Thompson...or is that not the remainer way?

Welshwife are these grown in the EU?
You partially prove my point that we can source our food from anywhere.
And, with global warming we will be sending Banana boats to Bermuda soon. My lime tree is thriving too

We were importing bananas and citrus fruit way before the EU was even dreamed of.

They grow bananas in Iceland, incidentally.

MaizieD
^should buy British and resolve all of these issues.

I'm sure our trading partners would love that^

But we won't have any trading partners according to the 'doom-mongers'

Citrus fruits are and some southerly places have banana trees but I think they are mainly grown in any quantity in the Caribbean.

It is no good just revisiting the fact that we bought things before joining the EU as the pattern of World Trade has gradually changed over the years.

If a businessman who has traded internationally and within the EU for many refutes Jon Thompson, he has as much right to be heard and his reasoning understood as Jon Thompson...or is that not the remainer way?

One person giving his personal experience is not data. Personal experience varies widely. That's why a very large sample is required to give a better general picture of how a process works. You say you've been around academics, Joelsnan so I assumed that you know how it works.

The article explains how Thomson obtained his data. If you want to argue with his conclusions (supported by an academic, I note) on the basis on one person's experience you are free to do so. But you can't expect other people to draw the same conclusions or to trust anecdote over data.

MaizieD
surely business data cannot be dismissd as anecdotal evidence. On another thread this guy would be regarded as an 'expert' being a sucessful long serving international tradesman, but obviously not here. Incidentally he was not the only one...but the only one I remember

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44229606

Anna Soubry's speech today was very brave - wow.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/commons-told-brexiteers-now-claiming-job-losses-will-be-worth-it-1-5609784

Anna Soubry has become an unlikely hero for me since the Leave vote was made. She has faced unpleasant personal attacks yet remained strong and articulate in her opposition to the growing shambles.
I watched the news this evening and for the first time since the last election, I seriously considered the possibility Theresa May is reaching the end of her time as PM.

surely business data cannot be dismissd as anecdotal evidence

It wasn't business data, joelsnan. It was anecdotal experience. But as I didn't hear the interview I have no idea about who he was, what his experience was and what his bias was. So I go with the HMRC data until it is proven wrong.

If you don't like an 'expert' a Remainer quotes you are free to produce a counter-expert. But unless you can give some detail other than 'he said it was wrong' we have nothing on which to judge the extent of their expertise or the correctness of what they said.

Joelsnan, in regard to your post @ 18:32 today (16/07/18) as you state I have never been adverse to any change in workplace strategy or method as my occupation in industrial safety necessitates encompassing both. However, you ask how many heavy truck loads can be carried in a cargo aircraft, then that would have to be in answered in regard to the volume, bulk and weight of each individual consignment.

However, air cargo is widely used for perishable cargo coming from beyond Europe which has made Heathrow the second largest port in the United Kingdom in recent years. That stated, the vast majority of perishable goods arriving in the UK is from EU countries and transported continuously on a single heavy road vehicle from source to destination without any delay through borders or ports at present.

In the above, the handling of products is reduced to the minimum possible while the vehicle can also be kept continuously moving by changing the driver at scheduled points on the journey if necessary. In the foregoing, the road, transport option can be as quick as air transport even for consignments from places such as southern Spain or eastern Europe.

Road transport also has the advantage of increased security over other options as the cargo is under the control of one person throughout the journey with no others being involved in the consignment until it reaches a distribution centre or producer production facility.

In regard to non-perishable cargo from outside the European Union, then ship container transport is the low cost preferred option for almost all consignments. However, even with that preference little stock is held on products these days as we all have become aware of when ordering furniture etc. In that, they always tell us it will be available for delivery in six weeks as it has to be transported from China.

The above makes for a comprehensive distribution pattern for the vast majority of consignments transported to and from the EU and beyond for Britons businesses both large and small at present. However, should Britain leave the European Union without a customs agreement then much of that scheduled JIT distribution system and pattern would be destroyed and having to be replaced by large stock holding in many products with many extra heavy vehicles having to be brought onto Britains already overcrowded roads. All that will encompass much higher cost to all industries, and that cost will have to fall on Britains already hard-pressed consumers.

We must put our differences aside for it is not today we are deciding upon , but our children, grandchildren and future generations. Forget Party politics, forget the extreme dogma, let’s be sensible and decide do we keep what we know and try to improve it or move into the unknown ?
We are talking about the future and those generations not yet born, do you believe we should deprive future generations of being part of the eu, simply because of prejudices? Rather than base our decision on a sound business plan and detailed impact assessment on the affect
and risks of Brexit. Why not concentrate on using our energy to improve the eu from within rather than criticise from outside.

Hear, hear - also because if the EU does collapse, what is likely to ensue does not bear thining about.

So perhaps for another discussion. What do Brexiteers believe would happen to the 27 countries of the EU if the alliance collapses, and everyone is left to fend for themselves in very harsh economic conditions. and left out of major deals with USA, Russia and perhaps China? If each and everyone makes own rules on safety of goods, agriculture, animal welfare and transport, utilities (remember most of our are now owned by EU and other countries), air safety, nuclear safety, without a strong NATO, without extradiction of major criminals and terrorists, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The floor is all yours as I'd be very interested to know how you see it pan out (personally I am quite terrified)

Please do not reply here - started a separate conversation, thanks.

Realgrandad
Most Brexiteers made their decisions based on what sort of a future they want for those who follow.
It is inevitable that the EU will eventually implode, history shows all empires eventually fail. Most Brexiteers want UK to form strong external ties before this happens to buffer the effects on the economy.
When the EU fails there will be a scramble for trade deals, hopefully UK will be through that. Plus we would not be drawn into potential conflict as the organisation unravels.
There is bubbling dissatisfaction already. The organisation is effectively bankrupt. People need to plan for the future rather than hang on to false utopian ideas.

Realgrandad. By the way, NATO has nothing to do with
EU, it is an international defence organisation, not all of EU countries are members.

I don’t think an historian would describe the EU as an Empire, it certainly doesn’t fit that description. Did the British Empire ( which really was one) - implode? No it evolved into something else- weaker and of much less global importance. Hence forming different alliances with our nearest neighbours makes sense. Strong external ties should include our nearest neighbours if we care anything for our carbon footprint. The EU will certainly evolve and change as will the U.K. which will become ever weaker if we continue along the path of self destruction with a weak and hapless government.

Joelsnan - ok- let's agree on that, you are probably right.

But what then ... how do you see Europe evolve after the collapse of the EU. Please do not reply here, but on the other thread dedicated to that question alone. Thanks.

Will our grandchildren be safe in that kind of Europe?

crystaltipps
Empire or not the EU will break up, how this evolves is debatable, whether its a group of alliances based on location or manufacturing/financial affiliations it will happen. Undoubtedly trade would continue with Europe but this may be on a country to country basis or an alliance akin to the original common market principals. It would be better to have forged strong external links in preparation for this thus avoiding the hardest effects of the fallout.
If UK was astute enough it could offer an alternative 'common market' solution to those countries within the EU unhappy with its current and proposed federal format.

NATO might well be an international defence organisation but it is largely funded by the US and Trump is threatening to withdraw from it; encouraged no doubt by his best mate Putin.

This is not the time to be cheering on the breakup of the EU. But Putin would be delighted to know that European people think it's a good idea as it would foil any chance of a European defensive alliance.

I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories but this is pretty chilling

Start

In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin calls for the influence of the United States and Atlanticism to lose its influence in Eurasia and for Russia to rebuild its influence through annexations and alliances.[2]

The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[9]

In Europe:

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow–Berlin axis".

France should be encouraged to form a "Franco–German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".

The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.

Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".

Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.

Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.

Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.

Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "Orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".

Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.

End
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

Jura2
Sorry, only saw your posting after i had clicked 'post'

Tory MPs have “privately” said that the loss of “hundreds of thousands” of jobs because of Brexit will be worth it to regain the country’s sovereignty, Anna Soubry has said. Addressing the House of Commons, the MP for Broxtowe delivered a scathing verdict on Theresa May’s Brexit plans, saying that without frictionless trade there would be significant job losses. ...

Ms Soubry said the government was in danger of “not just losing the plot” but also “losing a considerable amount of support. If we do not do that [deliver frictionless trade] thousands of jobs will go and honourable members sitting on these benches in private conversations know that to be the case,” she said.

“And what they have said in those private conversations is that the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it to regain our country’s sovereignty. ...And what they have said in those private conversations is that the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it to regain our country’s sovereignty...Nobody voted to be poorer and nobody voted leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth will take their job away from them."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anna-soubry-brexit-private-conversation-job-losses-thousands-a8450551.html