|
Aug 2019
2:57pm, 20 Aug 2019
15,013 posts
|
Chrisull
It doesn't matter if there are going to be no shortages, people I know are already stockpiling medicines. And we know from the fuel crisis under Blair, if people stockpile at the same time, it causes an artificial shortage...
The problem is partly now that there is an anticipated change, and therefore behaviour is modified accordingly. It's a bit like your best mate telling you that bank X is running out of money when it isn't. So you tell your other mates, and you go out and remove your savings and then the bank does start running out of money, because it can't give everybody their money back at once... It is about trust.
Consider on Twitter, one story of foreign travel:
"A colleague of his was due to fly to Rome on 30th Oct with 3 friends, one of whom is a long term UK resident, but a German passport holder. Their airline contacted the German national and advised her not to fly, due to no-deal uncertainty."
Planes won't fall out of the sky, but it's already screwing up people's arrangements, which in turn will affect the economy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy now, you don't need project Fear, people will do it "just in case". Which is why no deal is a very bad idea. It will lead to a decade long decline/stagnation.
|
|
Aug 2019
2:58pm, 20 Aug 2019
15,014 posts
|
Chrisull
To continue the airline story: "The airline said they couldn’t guarantee the German national would be allowed back into the country, so their advice to her was not to go. The four of them cancelled their trip and were given a refund."
|
|
Aug 2019
2:59pm, 20 Aug 2019
32,226 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
jda, you know I'm a Remainer, but seriously, if there is a will then individual examples can always be fixed, surely? For instance, point to point emergency medical supply flights could be put on for high priority drugs. Limited, pre-agreed content, so no additional border checks required. Or dedicated border checks, if you will.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:00pm, 20 Aug 2019
15,015 posts
|
Chrisull
It doesn't matter that they probably WILL be let into the country, it's the chance it won't happen. It's like stampedes , mass panics. You really, really don't want to be causing one. It's no good blaming others, this is human nature.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:05pm, 20 Aug 2019
15,949 posts
|
Stander
Don't be so bloody sensible Happy G. We don't need any of that in here.
Cos that just stops all the gloom-mongers having their fun.
And surely nobody, anywhere, would ever think to prioritise life saving or and high emergency products or services when instead they could leave (say) that kidney waiting at the border whilst some transplant patient slowly dies.
And before you consider that last example harsh or unfeeling, my late wife donated and transformed the lives of three people forever. So don't even think of going there.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:09pm, 20 Aug 2019
5,004 posts
|
jda
Maybe, HG, but the idea that we should impose such conditions on ourselves that we have to rely on emergency medical aid drops...is that what Stander is advocating? I'd just like some clarity. TBH I'd have more respect for him if he would come out and say yeah, maybe 500 deaths, that's just a blip compared to natural death rates, no big deal, it's a price well worth paying for all that sovereignty. Rather than just mindless denial.
If the principle is that we all voted for it and therefore it has to happen irrespective of what "it" turns out to be, then why bother with all the denial about how bad it's likely to be? With such a mindset it doesn't matter how bad "it" is if we all voted for it, surely? We can just happily look forward to it, rather than pretending it isn't happening.
|
|
Aug 2019
3:14pm, 20 Aug 2019
8,341 posts
|
larkim
There is a point at which a change just necessitates change to avoid disaster.
There is the option of no change (which prevents having even to think about it) or take on the change (and then you have to plot a way through).
Surely all of us accept that, with the right plans and contingencies in place, it is possible to be a major country in Europe and NOT be in the EU without deaths and tragedies all round?
The issue which the no deal proponents have to address is "Having got to this stage of brinkmanship where contigency plans and revised processes are clearly not yet in place, and are unlikely to be robustly in place in 10 weeks time, are you happy that even a very short term blip in the normal supply of goods and services, and movements of people, is the best way forward?"
I don't want to put words into your mouth Stander, but I expect even the most ardent Brexit supporter would want the exit to be more orderly than it seems to be at the moment (and you can of course quite rightly blame the Remain activities for helping to create this situation)?
|
|
Aug 2019
3:23pm, 20 Aug 2019
12,600 posts
|
Ultracat
Might be better to maintain the status quo then I can stop worrying if I can get my medicines on time and my future daughter in law will have no problems working and living in the UK
|
|
Aug 2019
3:31pm, 20 Aug 2019
18,787 posts
|
DeeGee
There are major countries in Europe which thrive perfectly well outside the EU, so it is entirely possible. However, those countries *do* have some kind of deal with the EU. Norway and Iceland are in the EEA, and Switzerland have a series of bilateral agreements.
In fact, I'm looking down a list now and am hard pressed to find any nation on the European continent that isn't some kind of batshit rogue state that the EU doesn't have some sort of agreements with.
(And yes, the answer appears to be Russia and Belarus, but of course, they're founder members of a more eastward-looking bloc so probably don't have much need for a trade deal with Malta. Also, they have all the hydrocarbons.)
|
|
Aug 2019
3:32pm, 20 Aug 2019
18,788 posts
|
DeeGee
...whereas we've run out of cod.
|
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024