No Deal and supply of medicines

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Re Gills comment. Ian Hislop says IMO after almost everything he says so it must work!

Well Jalima, it was Gill who saw it- and in the context of the really unpleasant comments made towards me recently- perhaps she was right to read it that way.

But I thank you for your apology and it is accepted.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I am patiently and politely waiting for an explanation Maw - and will keep reminding you until you do.

What did you 'hmm' mean in the above context?

It does not look good for an easy Brexit the EU don't seem to have moved one inch on the UK negotiating trade deals with third countries. Their problem is that if UK gets that concession other EU countries will want the same, they are 100% united on that.

There will not be trucks full of livestock stuck on the M26 because there will be an emergency priority system for those that have to travel. The same will have to happen in France, essential supplies like food and medicine will have to keep moving, it will be a state of emergency by any other name. For the rest including personal travel it could get very difficult, so I won't be booking a European holiday next summer.
Let's hope the extremists get put down.

Well, it was unintended and if Gill read it that way I am sorry. It was merely in response to your cows and sheep post and not meant as anything sinister.

As it has unintentionally caused offence I will ask for it to be deleted.

Well I can't deny I'm dreading the next few years. Lack of medicines and every thing else.
I just don't want to be constantly reminded about how awful it's going to be. Having it rammed down my throat.
So I'm making a vow not to read any more Brexit threads - I can't do anything about it except pray.

I think that's very wise Fennel.
Things are worrying enough without even more scare-mongering; I don't read the msm so best not to read Brexit threads either.

the EU don't seem to have moved one inch on the UK negotiating trade deals with third countries.

We can do what we like if we become a 'third country'. The 'problem'* arises with staying in the customs union. If we stay in the CU (to avoid the NI border problem) we won't be able to make our own trade deals.

Though why we are so desperate to do this when we already have advantageous deals negotiated through the EU (with several more in the pipeline) which will all have to be renegotiated in addition to any new ones we want to make, and we have very few trade negotiators because the EU has done all the negotiating for the last 40 years (albeit with Brits on the negotiating teams) and they take years to negotiate. AND, we'll be the weaker partner in most deals... so we'll be giving in. I bet even the EU takes us to the cleaners.... no sentimentality about 'ex-members' there...

Informative article which evolved from a twitter thread:

When we Brexit, we lose all our free trade deals. Right now, as an EU member, we share in trade deals with 78 countries (another 22 are pending). They cover 60.7% of our imports of goods, and 66.9% of our exports.
Plainly, losing them all could tear the guts out of the UK economy.
Overnight, we will be back at square one, having flushed away the results of half a century’s worth of trade negotiations. Now, a single trade deal can take years or even decades to agree, sign and ratify. We will be waving goodbye to 78 of them at once. Of course, any of them could in theory be replaced, but that takes time.

www.docdroid.net/m3YvOS5/brexit-truth-revised.pdf

I know it looks like scaremongering but we should look it squarely in the face and protest about it if it isn't what we wanted. Even if it's just signing a petition or emailing an MP.

MaizieD says. ‘ I know it looks like scaremongering’.......
Correction, it is scaremongering!
It’s exactly why this thread was started in the first place.

I totally understand how you feel Fennel - and I agree, it is very tempting- especially when you get those really nasty reactions on GN. Believe me, I know.

But as MaizieD says- we need to face reality and fight for a better outcome. There is perhaps still time - get involved and fight, for the sake of our granchildren. There is very little time but something can be done- if enough people get involved.

I totally and absolutely get it about Brexit fatigue and stress, but now is NOT the time to give up. There is no scare mongering - just facts about what can and will happen if we end up with no deal.

NO Lemon - it was to highlight the expert facts from the medical and pharmaceutical experts - NOT GN members 'opinion'.

Diana54, it will be very difficult to set up any priority system should there be problems at the ports following Brexit. The vast majority of HGV vehicles passing through channel ports are on Just in Time (JIT) delivery schedules with a large percentage of those carrying food products.

Any operation to prioritise vehicles would be a huge operation and who would judge which foodstuffs should have priority over another. Refrigerated trailers can run independently for approximately two days without refuelling dependent on weather conditions, age of trailer or condition of installation etc.

Livestock are normally slaughtered prior to transport through the ports as delays and weather conditions in normal conditions can cause severe distress and even death to animals within one or two hours of the vehicle being stationary. However, should there be disruption on the motorways or trunk roads due to delays at the ports, then livestock on internal UK journeys could be affected causing distress to those animals?

There is also be the problem of large manufacturers such as car assembly plants having their suppliers on JIT delivery schedules. In that, should a priority system for food be setup then all other freight would be subject to even longer delays. Those large assembly plants may well have to cease production with many thousands then finding themselves without work.

The RHA and the FTA have been raising the above Brexit problems along with many others for months with no response from this government as it argues and tears itself apart oblivious to all the siren calls around them.

Diana, who are the extremists that you want killed?
Your post at 19.31?

Grandad

" Livestock are normally slaughtered prior to transport through the ports as delays and weather conditions in normal conditions can cause severe distress and even death to animals within one or two hours of the vehicle being stationary. However, should there be disruption on the motorways or trunk roads due to delays at the ports, then livestock on internal UK journeys could be affected causing distress to those animals? "

I am not in a position to argue for or against your post but over the years many reports of ' bad practice ' within the Single Market/ Customs Union have been raised.

There was no evidence of cruelty as such in this programme but did you watch the BBC programme. ' THE DARK SIDE OF THE DAIRY ' ?

The programme was following livestock , calves , from Scotland travelling to Ireland and on to Spain and Italy for ' fattening ' and slaughter.

I believe it is still on I player to watch .
---
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45440534

" The area the cattle were taken to was in the heart of the "fattening" world.

It's where young cattle are brought to be fattened as quickly as possible before slaughter.

When I contact the hauliers, they don't want to be interviewed.

But they confirm that when the truck left Scotland, it was carrying calves.

They were dropped off somewhere in Northern Ireland to be shipped on to Spain.

The animals I saw from Cherbourg onwards were picked up in southern Ireland and taken to Italy - some for breeding, others for fattening and then slaughter."
--

One good thing came out of it although the Scottish government sanctions the transport of livestock , I believe perfe tly legally, this happened after the showing of the programme.

' P &O stops transporting calves following BBC investigation'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45487502

Pogs, I cannot speak for cruelty in livestock transport or what may be the illegal trade in animals. However, such livestock as fattened pigs, beef bullocks, lambs etc are slaughtered before long-distance movement.

Why would any commercial organisation risk injury to those table ready animals thereby making them possibly unfit for human consumption by transporting them live when their value can be assured transporting them as slaughtered, butchered, packed or hanging.

Certainly, I have always believed that livestock for fattening are normally bought and sold in countries and regions of origin.

Livestock transport is a costly road transport operation and as stated the most risky in terms of possible loss. Therefore, movement of live animals is I believe reduced to as low as possible.

Leaving the EU without a deal could have ‘catastrophic’ consequences for patients and the NHS, the BMA has warned.

A no-deal exit from the EU in March 2019 would have wide-ranging and dramatic implications for the entire health service, according to the BMA’s latest paper examining the potential effects of Brexit.

The report warns that crashing out without a deal would jeopardise everything from EU staff’s ability to work in the NHS, to the supply of medicines and the collapse of reciprocal health arrangements denying treatment to patients in the UK and in Europe.

It further accuses ministers of failing to give due consideration to medicine and health in Brexit negotiations, adding that the Government’s planning and contingency preparations for the health service have been ‘too little, too late’.

BMA council chair Chaand Nagpaul said that the association had made clear its opposition to Brexit and demands for the public to have the final say on any deal, at this year’s BMA annual representative meeting.

He added that doctors had a duty to highlight their concerns over what a no-deal Brexit might mean for their patients and for the NHS.

www.bma.org.uk/news/2018/august/no-deal-would-be-catastrophic

Grandad

"Pogs,
" However, such livestock as fattened pigs, beef bullocks, lambs etc are slaughtered before long-distance movement.

Why would any commercial organisation risk injury to those table ready animals thereby making them possibly unfit for human consumption by transporting them live when their value can be assured transporting them as slaughtered, butchered, packed or hanging."
----
You tell me!

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/animals-slaughter-exporting-uk-eu-farm-policy-ban-environment-animal-welfare-a8296806.html

UK set to ban exporting live animals for slaughter after announcing major review.

extracts :-

Latest figures from 2016 show that each year more than 4,000 sheep are transported to Europe for slaughter, making up the majority of livestock taken abroad.

After a 2012 incident in which 45 sheep died on a vehicle going through Ramsgate, the High Court ruled the port could not ban live animal exports on the grounds of freedom of movement within the EU and existing UK legislation.

But ministers say Brexit could now create the opportunity to go further, while a cross-party group of backbenchers are already attempting to push a law banning exports through parliament – it set for its second reading at the end of the month.

Dr Marc Cooper, head of the RSPCA’s farm animals department, said the charity had been calling for a ban on all live exports for decades, including on the transport of livestock for “production” or fattening.

Dr Marc Cooper, head of the RSPCA’s farm animals department, said the charity had been calling for a ban on all live exports for decades, including on the transport of livestock for “production” or fattening.

It’s unacceptable and completely unnecessary that live animal are exported and transported over long distances for slaughter or further fattening,” he said.

“We would like to see live exports from the UK banned and a maximum journey time of eight hours introduced.”

The EU reviewed its regulations in 2011 and found that while its measures had led to a positive impact, severe animal welfare problems persisted, with a lack of enforcement to blame.

An investigation by the BBC last year found widespread health issues among livestock being transported from the EU into Turkey, including respiratory problems, eye conditions and animals suffering from exhaustion or dehydration.

“It’s unacceptable and completely unnecessary that live animal are exported and transported over long distances for slaughter or further fattening,” he said.

“We would like to see live exports from the UK banned and a maximum journey time of eight hours introduced.”

The EU reviewed its regulations in 2011 and found that while its measures had led to a positive impact, severe animal welfare problems persisted, with a lack of enforcement to blame.

An investigation by the BBC last year found widespread health issues among livestock being transported from the EU into Turkey, including respiratory problems, eye conditions and animals suffering from exhaustion or dehydration."

“Animals should be transported on the hook, as meat, not on the hoof, as live animals.”
-

I have to own up I am not a vegetarian but there is a different story to be told re the transport of animals than the portrayal in your posts , e.g livestock ARE passing through many countries for slaughter or fattening, animals are not necessarily slaughtered before long distance movement.

Pogs Why would any commercial organisation risk injury to those table ready animals thereby making them possibly unfit for human consumption by transporting them live when their value can be assured transporting them as slaughtered, butchered, packed or hanging."
----
You tell me!

No...you tell me, as you started the detail in this matter.

4000 sheep transported live in Europe is a tiny percentage of the total transported for slaughter in Britain alone.

Now, perhaps we can return to medical transport after Brexit and the ineptitude of this government in regard to the whole Brexit debacle.

Grandad

Oh dear.

No animals to be eaten should be transported there whilst alive....none! It’s shocking and yet another thing that being in the EU we have no control over.

Varian in your BMA report you say that ‘the association had made clear it’s opposition to Brexit’.......that says it all, they are doing all they can to stop it, but sorry BMA you will have to adapt.

Further to that, since leaving the EU is a big political decision, no large organisation should try and change that decision.Yes, the BMA should be able to air their views to government, in fact it’s their duty to, but not to declare their opposition to the decision.

Lemon 'but sorry BMA you will have to adapt.'

sorry but this time, I'll just have to say it - the above comment shows that you clearly do not have the tiniest clue as to what you are talking about.

How can the BMA make any difference to the 'catastrophic differences' - which, none of them are of their doing and which they cannot influence in any way whatsoever.

And when the time comes, that Brexit grinds the NHS to a halt, with a big help from the Conservative party - people will be screaming 'but why didn't tell us - it was your responsibility and duty to do so'. The BMA is not opposed to Brexit as a basic idea or principle, but because it will cause extremely severe consequences for the NHS.

How can a discussion take place when such comments are made 'but sorry BMA you will have to adapt.' - is just beyond the beyond.