Brexit Watch

Whitesince63 wrote:Amazing. You two really do take the biscuit....

.....surely only when offered one at a Downing Street party?

No, you’re ignoring as usual, that it’s France and especially Germany, once again putting their own national interests above those of the EU. Where is the combined EU position on Russia? Why are Germany not issuing warnings against Russian aggression? You are so transparent Lusty, you continually ignore the fact that the whole EU project was devised to benefit Germany and France. Maybe instead of reading the left wing media like the Granuad and the Misor, you’d learn something to your advantage instead of wallowing in your complete negativity against anything critical of the EU. Like I said, wake up man and see what’s in front of you.

You’re bloody right I’m prejudicial about these two neighbours. Germany speaks for itself and whilst having worked for a major French manufacturer for 40 years I have the utmost respect for the French people individually, I have zero respect for the likes of Macron and his predecessors for their nepotistic attitude towards their position within the EU. Having bankrupted the Southern states, the pair now want to continue to ignore the potential and stated Russian threat to the former Eastern European states. It’s disgraceful but just another step to the disintegration of the EU in the near future.

Whitesince63 wrote: Where is the combined EU position on Russia? Why are Germany not issuing warnings against Russian aggression?

What is it you want exactly? I thought your complaint against the EU was interference in domestic policy - now you want a unified EU response to Russia? Frances' priorities are very different from Polands' - sovereignty is important here.

What do you mean, 'Germany speaks for itself'?

Whitesince63 wrote:No, you’re ignoring as usual, that it’s France and especially Germany, once again putting their own national interests above those of the EU. Where is the combined EU position on Russia?

Why are Germany not issuing warnings against Russian aggression?

You couldn't be more wrong mate:

"Following the German media over the last few days, one would be forgiven for thinking that its commentators have lost their minds. They seem hell-bent on waging war against Russia or the Soviet Union for the third time in just over a century, as if World War I and World War II had not brought enough suffering and destruction to Europe.

Der Spiegel appeared at the weekend with the editorial “Treat Putin as an adversary—not as a partner.” The news magazine calls on NATO to “finally deliver lethal weapons to Ukraine.” Americans and Europeans have “long tried to contain the Russian president through dialogue,” it says. “To no avail. It is time for a radical change of strategy: the West must raise the price of an invasion of Ukraine so high that it is too high even for Putin. And that is only possible by seeking confrontation—diplomatically, economically and indirectly also militarily.”

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung accused Russia of seeking “hegemony over all of Europe.” The newspaper compared Moscow’s “claim to power” with the policies of Hitler, who supported the 1936 fascist putsch in Spain and then smashed Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The answer of the FAZ is nuclear deterrence. The president of the nuclear power France, Emmanuel Macron, already offered the partners in the EU talks about a nuclear strategy in 2020, the newspaper notes. This offer is still “on the table.” It is associated with serious risks: “In the end, a conflict on Latvia’s eastern border could then lead to a strike against Paris.”
Therefore, according to the FAZ, “First of all, the conditions must be created so that all participants are willing to take this risk.” For this to happen, the unification of Europe must progress quickly."


From my perspective, I reckon that any Russian leader (Putin or otherwise) would see Ukraine joining NATO as a threat because Russian politics - like ours (and Hitler's for that matter) - are based on populist nationalism so Putin has at least to be seen to rattle his sabre.

But the CIA assertions about an invasion are about as credible as the "weapons of mass destruction" bullshit they concocted to drag the world into a war in Iraq.

And I don't recall you being so happy with that - perhaps because it was Tony Blair leading the ass licking and not Boris?

At last we agree on something Lusty. No way do I believe that Putin will attack Ukraine but there’s no question, whatever the German media write, that the German government are reluctant to criticise or make demands on Russia because they have almost completely tied themselves to their gas supplies. I also agree on Russia fearing Ukraine joining NATO. Clearly it would threaten the very stability of the Russian border. Once again, it’s the propaganda war here stating it’s all Putins fault when for me this show of strength is more a defensive position than an aggressive one. The Iraq situation was a disgrace and I’d have said exactly the same if it had been a Tory rather than Tony Bliar.

Whitesince63 wrote:At last we agree on something Lusty. No way do I believe that Putin will attack Ukraine but there’s no question, whatever the German media write, that the German government are reluctant to criticise or make demands on Russia because they have almost completely tied themselves to their gas supplies. I also agree on Russia fearing Ukraine joining NATO. Clearly it would threaten the very stability of the Russian border. Once again, it’s the propaganda war here stating it’s all Putins fault when for me this show of strength is more a defensive position than an aggressive one. The Iraq situation was a disgrace and I’d have said exactly the same if it had been a Tory rather than Tony Bliar.

Five % of our gas usually comes from Russia but to ease the current shortage we have upped that considerably with sea tankers, and if Russia cuts supplies to the EU it will also affect us as Norwegian prices will rise in the face of increased demand so we're not immune from the fallout by any means.

Yes it is a propaganda war and one that Blojo will hammer home in an attempt to divert attention from his personal situation and the governments mishandling of the economy, notably Sunak's borrowing and uncontrolled spending. I only hope he stops short of putting more British lives and livelihoods at risk - but I don't think he cares.

wanderlust wrote:
Five % of our gas usually comes from Russia but to ease the current shortage we have upped that considerably with sea tankers, and if Russia cuts supplies to the EU it will also affect us as Norwegian prices will rise in the face of increased demand so we're not immune from the fallout by any means.

Yes it is a propaganda war and one that Blojo will hammer home in an attempt to divert attention from his personal situation and the governments mishandling of the economy, notably Sunak's borrowing and uncontrolled spending. I only hope he stops short of putting more British lives and livelihoods at risk - but I don't think he cares.

I’m not talking about gas from Russia Lusty, we could easily replace that from the US or Qatar but Germany couldn’t. Besides that we have more than enough gas, oil  and coal to be totally self sufficient and in fact a supplier rather than buyer but unfortunately, successive governments, especially this one, have followed the green route. I’ve no problem looking to renewables over time but this stupid rush to net zero is madness when the main contaminators completely ignore a green policy. I can only hope there’s enough pressure put on Boris, or whoever else is in charge, to get real and cut back until not just the generation of wind power is sufficient but more importantly the storage is there, which at the moment it’s just not.

It seems that the French state -owned energy company that is building the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk has today been given £100 million by Kwasi Kwarteng.

Good to see that the British taxpayer is making such a magnanimous gesture to support the French government n'est pas? But we'll be giving them a helluva lot more in the future:

Controversially, the Tories procured the nuclear plant using the regulated asset base (RAB) model - which basically means that the risk is transferred from the developers to consumers as it allows the developers to profit via customer bills in perpetuity and they can charge whatever they can get away with for the life of the plant. The French will own the nuclear plant when it's finished.

Currently the UK has 15 nuclear plants (providing 21% of our electricity) but they are all old and half of them will have to be closed down within the next 3 years.
Only one is expected to last until 2035.

We need to either build a load more nuclear power plants or find alternative ways of generating electricity VERY quickly - and that's just to plug the gaps as the current ones go offline.

And if the Tories keep building them using the RAB model ....

Mind you, the reason that the government handed over our money is that the RAB model depends on private investors making up the balance of costs and the fact of the matter is that they can't find enough investors - even though these projects are a licence to print money. In recent years both Toshiba and Hitachi have pulled out of British nuclear plant projects that they had started.

It seems the government have no answers for the looming energy crisis and are unwilling to make the necessary direct investment to retain control of our own resources.
They are banking on the missold concept that foreigners will be queuing up to invest in Britain - which simply isn't true. There are no investors so we need to own the problem - in every sense.

You’ll get no argument from me on the madness of this Lusty. Our energy policy generally is just a complete shambles, almost entirely down to the mad rush towards renewables. As I’ve said before, there is a need to move this way but for practical reasons, not the grandstanding of Johnson and his misses. I’m hoping that given his precarious position, if he does survive, that it will only be if he agrees to see sense and cut back on his ridiculous green agenda. If I’d wanted that I’d have voted Green and I most certainly did not. If Johnson and his supporters wish to go that way, let them put it into a manifesto before the next election, though I suppose that being the honest and honourable way to do it would be a step too far for BoJo though? 🥴

Whitesince63 wrote:You’ll get no argument from me on the madness of this Lusty. Our energy policy generally is just a complete shambles, almost entirely down to the mad rush towards renewables. As I’ve said before, there is a need to move this way but for practical reasons, not the grandstanding of Johnson and his misses. I’m hoping that given his precarious position, if he does survive, that it will only be if he agrees to see sense and cut back on his ridiculous green agenda. If I’d wanted that I’d have voted Green and I most certainly did not. If Johnson and his supporters wish to go that way, let them put it into a manifesto before the next election, though I suppose that being the honest and honourable way to do it would be a step too far for BoJo though? 🥴

The problem with nuclear is that we have to manage the waste for hundreds of years after it is no longer productive and the more we build, the more we kick the cost down the road. Have the government contracted the French, Japanese etc to ensure our safety for the next 300 years? I doubt it.

With Sizewell C costing >£20 billion just to build, we have to go down the renewables route and if successive governments had invested anything like the money thrown at carbon and nuclear fuels in the past we'd already be self-sufficient.
Wind power helps but the initial investment numbers make nuclear attractive in the short term - as nobody wants to consider the long term real cost.
For example Sheringham Shoal * - a modern offshore wind turbine field cost £1.8 billion to build - but you'd need 25 Sheringham Shoals to match the output of Sizewell C so the initial outlay would be >double - but would be cheaper in the long term.

We could get 30GW (five times Sizewell) from tidal power - one thing we do have plenty of is tides, currents and big coastline.

Problem is short-termism in general.

And the specific problem with this government is that in order to plug the gaps they are going for the cheapest option and putting our safety and power dependency into foreign hands.

* Sheringham Shoal is owned by Scira which is a spinoff of Statoil - the Norwegian Oil Company.

Notable that the fossil fuel giants snapped up and shelved the vast majority of renewables innovation over the last 50 years to a) stifle the competition and b) future proof themselves so they could change direction when the time was right.

Had they not done so, renewable energy would be far more advanced and efficient by now.

Agree on the nuclear option Lusty, the cleaning up and danger of dealing with waste is a major concern for me. I’m not disputing what you say on renewables and the investment in it but the U.K. isn’t alone in that. Nobody has seriously invested big in any area at the expense of fossil fuels. The problem is that attempting now to move us at pace in a complete about turn to satisfy the Green lobby trying to scare everybody into believing the worlds about to end is just madness. Like you I’d love to see us invest over the long term in tidal power, where as you say, we have it all around our coastline and it’s guaranteed to happen 365 days a year unlike wind and solar. Sadly the eco maniacs don’t want that, they want it yesterday and even if you gave them yesterday they’d want it last week. You just can’t please them. 

For me we need to increase the use of gas and oil for now, which is both cheap and plentiful if we produce it ourselves. With what we have around these islands we should be more than self sufficient, especially if we implement the fracking potential. Until there is suitable storage capacity for wind power there’s no way we should expand it, concentrating instead on the waves and tides around our islands. It’s not too late and hopefully if nothing else comes out of Partygate, it will lead to a whole new discussion on energy supply and security. Actually I think this is something we’d both agree on other than perhaps how we get there?

The looming crisis is for electricity rather than combustibles and UK gas, coal and oil power stations have been in decline - closure or conversion - for years so we no longer have the capacity there - and in 3 years time we'll lose 10% of our current requirement through the closure of half of our nuclear plants.
Some of the old coal power stations have been converted to biomass - maybe there's some wriggle room there, but overall gas and oil aren't anywhere near the answer.

Ideally we'll invest heavily in renewables that we own.

I really don't understand what the government's "Brexit Freedom" bill is about - perhaps you might be able to explain it to me White?

What I don't get is that the bill is designed to cut "red tape". So far Brexit has created a mountain of new red tape as regards travel, holidays, residence, importing from and exporting to Europe. So to offset this massive increase in red tape there must be a bigger mountain of the stuff that has to do with Europe (otherwise we could have cut it when we were members) that we can cut without negatively affecting our trade.

Problem is, I can't work out what it is. Can't be standards or worker's rights or health and safety as that would affect our ability to export - and Brits would have accept lower standards - or is it?

I think where I struggle is that most EU legislation relates to consumer protection, worker's rights and financial security so if we replace them with our own versions that's not cutting anything and if we remove them altogether Brits are no longer protected.

So what exactly is this red tape that the government wants to cut? Examples appreciated as I just don't get it.

I don’t know either Lusty but there is bound to be a lot of regulations that we can remove without affecting standards of the things you mention. In terms of just electrical goods, there are limits on power for vacuum cleaners for example which penalise countries like the U.K. who generally have more carpets than other states. The size and shape of fruit and veg is another. There are anticipated to be a mountain of regulations that we don’t need if we don’t export. We used to have our own British Standard and I see no problem in returning to those for businesses who have no intention of exporting yet still have to comply with the EU.

I think like a lot of other elements of Brexit, the government have done little yet of what they promised, mainly I’d say because of Covid but they now need to get on with it and show there are real benefits. I think now the Covid issue is hopefully resolved, the government can get on with delivering these otherwise they will certainly not be forgiven at the next election. That’s the only thing that will save Boris too.

Whitesince63 wrote:I don’t know either Lusty but there is bound to be a lot of regulations that we can remove without affecting standards of the things you mention. In terms of just electrical goods, there are limits on power for vacuum cleaners for example which penalise countries like the U.K. who generally have more carpets than other states. The size and shape of fruit and veg is another. There are anticipated to be a mountain of regulations that we don’t need if we don’t export. We used to have our own British Standard and I see no problem in returning to those for businesses who have no intention of exporting yet still have to comply with the EU.

I think like a lot of other elements of Brexit, the government have done little yet of what they promised, mainly I’d say because of Covid but they now need to get on with it and show there are real benefits. I think now the Covid issue is hopefully resolved, the government can get on with delivering these otherwise they will certainly not be forgiven at the next election. That’s the only thing that will save Boris too.

If this is about the power of vacuum cleaners and the size and shape of fruit and veg I'm guessing we're all going to be paying for the Tory grandees' sex lives

wanderlust wrote:

If this is about the power of vacuum cleaners and the size and shape of fruit and veg I'm guessing we're all going to be paying for the Tory grandees' sex lives

You asked for some examples. We both agreed we don’t know all the areas to revise but both of these items are important if we are to manufacture and produce more products here. You’re so tiresome Lusty, always trying to make everything negative. You should bugger off and live in the EU if you love it so much and it’s so bad here.

Whitesince63 wrote:

You asked for some examples. We both agreed we don’t know all the areas to revise but both of these items are important if we are to manufacture and produce more products here. You’re so tiresome Lusty, always trying to make everything negative. You should bugger off and live in the EU if you love it so much and it’s so bad here.

It was obviously a joke my friend. Like the dyslexic bloke from Barnsley who was walking around with a catflap on his head.

Anyhoo I don't think living in the EU is an option now thanks to...well you know.

wanderlust wrote:
It was obviously a joke my friend. Like the dyslexic bloke from Barnsley who was walking around with a catflap on his head.

Anyhoo I don't think living in the EU is an option now thanks to...well you know.

I know that Lusty, so was mine. I suppose fruit and vacs seem unimportant on the face of it but I think the main point is that since over 75% of our businesses have no dealings with the EU, it makes sense to remove any specific legislation that negatively affects them. If we are to obtain the full benefits of Brexit, Boris has to start actually delivering on the promises he made to us. It’s actions not words now and if he does survive Partygate for the moment, he’s got to start being a Conservative because he’s outdo8ngbNew Zlabour at the moment.

Are there any examples of red tape we’re going to remove which will actually benefit us though? I can’t even remember them naming any in the build up to the referendum. Apart from the morons (Dominic Raab) who believe the human rights act is holding us back.

I think the bigger concern is the move to replace EU regulations with unchallengeable Diktat as flagged up in this article.

It is another ominous step away from democracy and towards totalitarianism.