back to article 2 weeks till Brexit and Defra, at the very least, looks set to be caught with its IT pants down

The UK government has moved so slowly to prepare for a no-deal Brexit that backup plans for IT systems will be burdensome and more error-prone, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) have warned. The committee has hounded government departments about their plans for the UK's exit from the European Union without a deal for …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What happens to all our farmers? The way I understand the current system is that the government (via the EU) subsidise farmers. What happens when that disappears? They won't be able to compete with EU farmers (if we are still importing that is) so do they just stop producing or up the prices?

    It's a complete and utter mess.

    1. katrinab Silver badge

      Nobody knows. There's also the issue of what happens to import tax on food. Do we charge WTO rates on everything, good news for farmers, not so good for shoppers. Or do we unilaterally remove the tax in which case we have to do it for food from anywhere in the world. Lots of cheap hormone-fed chlorinated chicken in the shops, not very good for farmers.

      1. alain williams Silver badge

        Effects of food import tax

        good news for farmers, not so good for shoppers

        But:

        * UK farmers will become richer and thus pay more taxes, so the rest of us will need to pay less tax to 'balance the books'.

        * Import tax also means less tax needed.

        So at first glance it is good for tax payers, but the benefit will be felt most by the richer who will gain most by any tax cuts (assuming that this happens). Alternatively UK government could spend the extra tax receipts on helping the less well off - cushion them from price hikes.

        But: it is all too complicated, and exposed to political whimsy, for anyone to predict with any accuracy.

        1. MonkeyBob

          Re: Effects of food import tax

          "Alternatively UK government could spend the extra tax receipts on helping the less well off"

          Hahahahahahaha, do pull the other one. This will never happen with a Tory Government in power*

          Where power is buying DUP votes with taxpayer money.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Effects of food import tax

          >good news for farmers, not so good for shoppers

          Although they are going to be rather busy.

          With no foreign workers allowed, the cast of Ambridge are going to be pulling a lot of all-nighters to do the actual work in the fields

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Effects of food import tax

            "With no foreign workers allowed"

            It's comments like these that thwart the process...

            There will be plenty of them, no one is going to come and get them (The police is too busy chasing down Facebook commenters). By the time they start being asked for papers processes will be put in place like every other country in the World. Canada actually workers from Mexico to pick crops every year with minimal bureaucracy involved.

            1. LDS Silver badge

              Re: Effects of food import tax

              Did Canada make a referendum to exit the NAFTA agreement, and stop those pesky foreigners entering the country and straling jobs from locals? What if after entering and their papers expire, they attempt to stay?

            2. Version 1.0 Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: Effects of food import tax

              "With no foreign workers allowed" ... but we'll still be letting Irish workers in ... OK, with the planned ERG Hard Brexit probably not, so we'll have to rely on the DUP, the Welsh, and the Scots to fill in the worker requirements. It's BRexit not UKexit isn't it. If I had written an essay 40 years ago in my school English Class that told the Conservative/DUP/ERG Brexit tale as fiction, then I would have expected to get a -F grade - Plot? ... none, Brains? ... none, etc etc. UK politics passed the pitiful stage a while back.

              I was going to check the "Joke" icon for this post but given the current politics I'm heading for a beer, I'll feel much better.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Effects of food import tax

                Dude, speaking as an Irish worker, we might take your job, we might take your bosses job but we're not going to take the Polish builders job or the Romanian potato pickers jobs anymore, those days are gone and we thank the EU and it's development funds that they are. Now it's our turn to pay to improve conditions in those countries so their kids have better opportunities. Good luck down on the farm.

                1. Peter2 Silver badge

                  Re: Effects of food import tax

                  Dude, speaking as an Irish worker, we might take your job, we might take your bosses job but we're not going to take the Romanian potato pickers jobs anymore,

                  The fact that in the 21st century that we are actually importing workers to pick things by hand is indicitive of a really, really serious problem as regards informed discussion of issues.

                  Nobody would even consider importing an army of foreign workers to harvest corn with a sickle- even heritiage museaums in the UK use steam engines for ploughing, threshing etc, the first combine harvester was introduced in 1835 and nobody alive has seen this done by hand. The idea would be completely laughable, and anybody advocating doing this would be openly mocked as a luddite for wanting to turn back the clock 200 years.

                  Yet people reading the newspapers think and really beleive that it's a remotely sensible idea to import tens of thousands of very low skilled people to pick potatos by hand instead of just using a potato harvester to do the job.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdF-HvletU

                  Picking potatos/fruit by hand is equally as absurd as cutting corn by hand, yet this is not seriously challanged anywhere. How good a job is your newspaper of choice doing on educating you on the issues involved?

                  1. katrinab Silver badge

                    Re: Effects of food import tax

                    Picking fruit without damaging it is way more difficult. I think the technology required to do that is about 10 years away.

                    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                      Re: Effects of food import tax

                      "Picking fruit without damaging it is way more difficult. I think the technology required to do that is about 10 years away."

                      Yay! Fusion powered flying fruit pickers!!!

                    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                      Re: Effects of food import tax

                      >Picking fruit without damaging it is way more difficult. I think the technology required to do that is about 10 years away.

                      Although ironically Brexit is providing a big stimulus to R&D in this area. Robot carrot pickers in Yorkshire

                      (sadly an American news source so no Wallace and Gromit puns)

                    3. Peter2 Silver badge

                      Re: Effects of food import tax

                      Picking fruit without damaging it is way more difficult. I think the technology required to do that is about 10 years away.

                      You think the technology is ten years away? It was thirty years ago. Ten years ago this was winning awards:-

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iXJFDoKEvI

                      You can look at a wide range of mechanisation equipment on their website:-

                      http://www.oxbocorp.com/

                      How is that ten years away?

                      The reason Europe has to put large tariffs on to protect our farmers is that the rest of the world is using this stuff, and the EU tarrifs exist to protect the people picking by hand. This is Luddite territory, and absurdly indefensible in the 21st century. While I don't want to see British farmers go out of business and am reasonably happy to pay to maintain British farming I do expect that farming to be done on a modern commercial basis and not as a quasi heritage industry.

                      1. Roland6 Silver badge

                        Re: Effects of food import tax

                        >The reason Europe has to put large tariffs on to protect our farmers is that the rest of the world is using this stuff, and the EU tarrifs exist to protect the people picking by hand. This is Luddite territory, and absurdly indefensible in the 21st century. While I don't want to see British farmers go out of business and am reasonably happy to pay to maintain British farming I do expect that farming to be done on a modern commercial basis and not as a quasi heritage industry.

                        It is only luddite territory if farmers don't use the extra income to purchase the necessary equipment. Remember this equipment doesn't come cheap and its cost has to be found out of income, or are you suggesting that you want cheap food but are happy to pay big subsidies via your tax - ie. pretty much the current situation.

                        Lowering the prices too quickly, only results in farmers using the cheap option and getting in "cheap" migrant labour...

                        But, then Britain has been a bit of a technology luddite. Back in the 80's we talked and demonstrated CIM, yet the vast majority of British manufacturing was so far behind the curve that the implementation of some simple and basic MRP gave impressive results.

                        1. Peter2 Silver badge

                          Re: Effects of food import tax

                          It is only luddite territory if farmers don't use the extra income to purchase the necessary equipment. Remember this equipment doesn't come cheap and its cost has to be found out of income, or are you suggesting that you want cheap food but are happy to pay big subsidies via your tax - ie. pretty much the current situation.

                          And yet, farmers aren't purchasing this equipment and as noted hardly anybody has heard about it, because newspapers no longer concern themselves with reporting and simple reasoning like "well, what does the rest of the world do?" followed by a google search.

                          Instead the newspapers are just saying that we need to import fruit pickers because British workers who have done their GCSE's, then their A levels before the first possible opportunity to leave the education system are overqualified to pick fruit in a field, and get paid more via the benefit system for sitting at home watching TV. Hence a need to import unskilled and uneducated labour who will work for the minimum wage. (often minus "accommodation" costs for a berth in a caravan, which is a quasi legal way of paying less than the minimum wage).

                          The other option of course is importing automation equipment, and then creating semi-skilled & skilled jobs in the operation of that equipment, and the maintenance and servicing of it which British workers do want to do.

                          The latter might need a few things to help it get started (government loans or grants to buy the equipment?) but why is this not being discussed in the media? It's like there is a conspiracy of silence over this issue but it seems pretty simple.

                          1. Roland6 Silver badge

                            Re: Effects of food import tax

                            >And yet, farmers aren't purchasing this equipment

                            Not objecting to your observation (and frustration), as I noted the UK was and continues to be a bit of a technology luddite...

                            I think it has something to do with UK management/establishment group think... Brexit (regardless of what finally happens) might be the beginning of the end of the well-entrenched Conservative establishment...

                            >Instead the newspapers are just saying that we need to import fruit pickers because British workers who have done their GCSE's...

                            Yes, one of the blatant contradiction in Brexit, large numbers in farming areas voted for Brexit as they wanted less immigration, ie. East Europeans, yet, don't want to do the work themselves...

                            Personally, I would like a post-Brexit government to actually deliver on the "will of the people" and massively reduce immigration, now that would be a wake up call to some groups of ardent Brexiteers...

                            >The other option of course is importing automation equipment

                            Err why? :)

                            A couple of examples:

                            SFM Technology Ltd

                            Uni of Lincoln Robotics Research

                            If anything the UK needs to impose import tariff on farm automation equipment; something it can do today albeit with the approval of the EU (although it can use the national security waiver like Trump does as such equipment can be regarded as being essential to the nation's food supply), which given the purpose of the tariff would be to protect R&D and manufacturing jobs within the UK/EU, is likely to be rubberstamped.

                            >The latter might need a few things to help it get started .. but why is this not being discussed in the media? It's like there is a conspiracy of silence over this issue but it seems pretty simple.

                            Suggest you take a look at Australia; they have a similar problem. Conservaitve's claim labour costs there are too high and thus by implication they need to be reduced. However, there 'traditional management' businesses don't see that the real problem is productivity and that even with zero labour costs they still won't be competitive with foreign businesses who have invested in automation and other productivity enhancements.

                            Whilst M.Thatcher's policy decisions did kill a business I help found in the 80's (ho hum...) her government's CIM initiative was trying to do the right thing and give British manufacturing a kick up the backside with £incentives to change. I've not seen a subsequent government with half the talent...

                      2. Andy Lawton

                        Re: Effects of food import tax

                        Large tariffs? Where do you get that from. You need to do more reading Here's a start: https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1009929991214305280

              2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

                Re: Effects of food import tax

                Leaving the EU won't restrict Irish access. We already have a freedom-of-movement agreement with Ireland that is stronger than the EU one, and is unaffected by us leaving.

                Hell, you can be unemployed, move to Ireland, and claim benefits just like an Irish citizen can here..Howver, post brexit, you'll eventually need an Irish driving license to continue to drive.

                If anyone thought this agreement was one-sided, it will be now... Poor Ireland!

                https://www.dfa.ie/brexit/getting-ireland-brexit-ready/brexit-and-you/common-travel-area/

                https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/1a1e1d-living-and-working/

            3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

              Re: minimal bureaucracy involved

              WTflyingF!

              We were promised that immigrants would have to fill in a 54 page form. The plan was that there would be no funding for anyone to actually read the filled out forms - presumably because they would all have to be destroyed because of GDPR. The precise reason one bunch of people voted Brexit was to keep the bloody foreigners out by imposing infuriating levels of brain-dead bureaucracy.

              Where is the Brexit we were promised?

              (Edit: found it - it got a new paint-job)

              1. Ken 16 Silver badge

                Re: minimal bureaucracy involved

                The form is online if you have the right kind of phone, it's not available until after Brexit so no-one can guess what information they'll need and it probably won't cope with the traffic. Poisson d'Avril!

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Effects of food import tax

            "With no foreign workers allowed"

            I think my neighbour would be delighted if he were able to afford to pay any worker, foreign or not. It's just him, his wife and the quad bike in all weathers to manage a few hundred ewes due to lamb any day now. Much the same applies to all the other local farmers.

          3. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: Effects of food import tax

            "With no foreign workers allowed"

            Not sure who you've been listening to, but the Tories and leading Brexiteers aren't saying or doing anything to crack down on non-EU workers, in fact the exact opposite and will almost certainly turn a blind eye to any EU workers either currently in the country or who turn up looking for work.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Effects of food import tax

              "Not sure who you've been listening to, but the Tories and leading Brexiteers aren't saying or doing anything to crack down on non-EU workers, in fact the exact opposite and will almost certainly turn a blind eye to any EU workers either currently in the country or who turn up looking for work."

              India has already stated that any trade negotiations will require better access for them to the UK employment market. I bet that will come as a shock to those Brexiteers who voted based on their "fears" of immigrants.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Effects of food import tax

                >India has already stated...

                And the US have also already stated as part of their trade negotiations they will be wanting a big chunk of our sovereignty... Haven't seen any (Conservative) Brexiteer complaining, so expect if the UK does leave the EU, the Conservatives to simply sign on the line...

              2. unimaginative
                Happy

                Re: Effects of food import tax

                India wants access for skilled workers. Big difference - most Brexiters (including both the Leave campaign and UKIP) support a points based system which would let in skilled workers. The objection is to unskilled immgrants.

        3. LDS Silver badge

          "UK farmers will become richer"

          Depends on many factors - i.e. is what they need to run their business all UK made? What about goods UK can't produce because of its latitude? Hoping in climate changes, next?

          Still many agricultural products import from non-EU sources at even lower prices, which will put more pressure on local farmers if competing ones, and will probably follow less strict safety policies - although Briton will be happy that bananas and cucumbers can have any shape and size.

          However, richer farmers will soon ask to pay *less* taxes - and any Tory government will say "YES!" - while Corbyn will promise to turn them into kholkozs and will lose any election. Poor people will be encouraged to migrate to EU, or the (ex) colonies...

          Import taxes will be paid by customers - so it's just shifting taxes, not reducing them - especially on goods which don't have local competition and people still want. But after Brexit the London area will become a tax and financial haven, and people there will be still far richer than the rest of the country, so they'll keep on buying whatever they like.

          1. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: "UK farmers will become richer"

            >although Briton will be happy that bananas and cucumbers can have any shape and size.

            I think the local Waitrose is already preparing for this with their 'wonky' vegetables range. This weekend we had a basket of wonky mushrooms - couldn't find a single wonky one...

        4. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Effects of food import tax

          Given the boss of the NFU said no deal was the stuff of nightmares, and it looks like we're on the way to no deal, doubt they're thinking they're going to get rich.

          "I make no apology for saying that leaving the EU without a deal would be a catastrophe for British farming."

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Effects of food import tax

            MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242.

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Effects of food import tax

            "Given the boss of the NFU said no deal was the stuff of nightmares,"

            In the run up to the referendum, when people were being interviewed on our local TV news on how they might vote, pretty much every farmer said they were planning on voting for Brexit because of all the EU red tape and the "unfair" Common Agricultural Policy.. Since then, almost every farmer asked about Brexit and it's implications are pretty much saying "we're doomed, all doooooomed!".

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Effects of food import tax

              Dear downvoter. Are you calling me a liar? Did you watch the same news programs I saw? Do you even know which channel I was referring to?

      2. unimaginative
        Happy

        Import duty is not a problem

        There is no such thing as WTO rates. We only have to charge the same duty on all imports from all countries that we do not have trade deals with.

        So what we do is:

        1. We reduce duty on things we do not produce (or do not produce in significant quantity). These are sometimes very high (or combined with limitations on the quantity imported) because they are produced by other EU countries. Oranges are a good example.

        2. We keep, or even raise duties on anything we net export - e.g. lamb

        3. Where we produce a significant amount but are a net importer we set the import duties to the difference between world market prices and current internal prices, minimising the change.

        The net impact on the cost of living will be small.

        We can apply the same principles to non-food, or reduce VAT to compensate for higher import duties. There will be no loss of govt revenue because of the increased revenue from import duties. I doubt it as the govt (like the EU) love their regressive tax.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          "We keep, or even raise duties on anything we net export - e.g. lamb"

          Do you believe EU or other countries won't raise their duties on UK exports, whenever needed?

          EU always had strong protections for its agricultural market (if they are good or not is another issue) - once UK is out and without a deal, it will have to face that - and countries like France are not easy to deal with - especially if they see they can have advantages.

          The very idea that UK alone could always decide and set whatever it likes was what brought to Brexit, and blocked any sensible deal until now.

          Keep on...

          1. EvilDrSmith

            Re: "We keep, or even raise duties on anything we net export - e.g. lamb"

            >Do you believe EU or other countries won't raise their duties on UK exports, whenever needed?

            In the event that the UK is outside the Customs Union and there is no free trade agreement to take it's place, the EU will treat the UK just like any other third party nation under the rules of the WTO.

            So they will immediately place their standard (existing) tariffs and other restrictions on UK exports to the EU, bringing UK exports to the EU in line with other third-party nations.

            They will not thereafter "raise their duties on UK exports whenever needed", since that would put them in breach of the WTO rules, unless it was an across the board raising of tariffs affecting all other nations, not just the UK (which, of course, they might do as part of a more global assessment of trade).

            Similarly for all other countries that are members of the WTO (which is most of them).

            1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Unhappy

              "bringing UK exports to the EU in line with other third-party nations."

              Funny, I read that as "Other third world nations."

              Better hope I'm wrong, eh?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >>What happens to all our farmers?

      They mostly voted Brexit. So **** 'em.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Evidence?

    3. macjules Silver badge

      Are you at all surprised? DEFRA was once known as Department for the Extermination of Farmers, their Relatives and their Animals, given that they made so many farmers commit suicide from the complete ineptitude of the bureaucracy - the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak ("what's a vaccine?") was a classic example of DEFRA.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "Are you at all surprised? "

        You do realize that DEFRA is a British government department?

        It's an internal British issue that they can't organize a p**s up at a brewery.

        That has f**k all to do with Europe.

        EU money was in DEFRA bank accounts for months before farmers got their payments.

        Again. F**k all to do with Europe. Entirely an internal UK issue.

        Which successive UK governments has completely failed to deal with.

        1. H in The Hague

          Re: "Are you at all surprised? "

          "It's an internal British issue that they can't organize a p**s up at a brewery. That has f**k all to do with Europe."

          One of my friends has a fair-sized farm. He explained that apart from generally being pro-European he was definitely voting Remain because, as far as farming was concerned, he had a lot more trust in the folk in Brussels than in Whitehall. And given DEFRA's widely published incompetence, also mentioned by other commentards, that seems a sensible assessment.

  2. katrinab Silver badge
    Flame

    How the **** are you supposed to "prepare for Brexit", when, with 17 days to go, nobody has the slightest clue what to prepare for.

    I like to criticise government IT contractors as much as anyone else here, but even the most perfect IT developers imaginable can't get the system ready without knowing what it is supposed to do.

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      You beat me to it ...

      people keep on asking me if I think that Brexit will be a good idea. I always say ''I don't know as I don't know what the UK relationship with the EU will be after Brexit.''

      Remember: all the brouhaha is about the *exit deal*, getting on to three years post referendum and they have hardly talked about what the post Brexit relationship will be. So how can anybody pass opinion on something that, for now, is a vague wish list ?

      Refusing to talk about the new relationship until after exit strikes me as stupidity in the extreme; or perhaps political game playing.

      1. zebthecat

        Re: You beat me to it ...

        That hasn't been done as there is no way that Theresa May could have found a policy that would not have broken the Conservative parliamentary party as demonstrated by her failure even get them to agree to the withdrawal agreement. The ERG did have a go but even they could not find a policy that they could agree on among themselves.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: You beat me to it ...

          I think that's the new democracy:

          Each MP gets their own policy.

          1. fajensen Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: You beat me to it ...

            They should have a long table with medieval weapons to go with that idea. Once we skip the initial discussions, it is clear that winning policies are best represented by the guy without a war-hammer embedded in his face. People would even pay to view warlimatary proceedings on live TV.

      2. tip pc Bronze badge

        Re: You beat me to it ...

        The EU specifically mandated they won’t discuss post Brexit details until the Brexit deal or no deal is sorted.

        It’s not just TM, but the EU leadership too who are at fault on this.

        The main aim of the EU is to prevent other nations wanting to leave.

        1. Ken 16 Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: You beat me to it ...

          Yeah, but that was going to be the easiest deal in history, you can't blame the EU for expecting it would have been sealed by now and the EU are doing nothing to stop the UK Government from defining what kind of future relationship they want to have; close coupled, loosely coupled, actively hostile etc.

        2. LDS Silver badge

          "It’s not just TM, but the EU leadership too who are at fault on this"

          How could you discuss the post-Brexit details if UK has no clue about the Brexit ones??? How could you plan i.e. customs details when you don't know if UK will be in a custom union or not,what EU policies are followed and which not, if people have freedom of movement or not, etc. etc.

          Read art. 50, plaese:

          "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"

          The exit arrangement and future relations are strictly tied. Evidently EU is not laying down a red carpet, why should it? No one is prevented to leave - just showing it's clearly impossible to have EU benefits outside the EU (or at least EEA).

          If someone in UK believed in flying pigs riding barrels of beer, is not because of EU...

        3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: You beat me to it ...

          The EU specifically mandated they won’t discuss post Brexit details until the Brexit deal or no deal is sorted.

          Yes, but it also does make sense and something the UK agreed to. The negotiations for the time afterwards could easily take ten years. Probably longer if the current situation is anything to go by.

          The whole thing is evidence of failure across the political spectrum but it is obviously no coincidence that the two largest political parties have essentially been kidnapped by their extremes. May or Corbyn as the leader of the country? What a fucking awful choice!

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Unhappy

            "May or Corbyn as the leader of the country? What a fucking awful choice!"

            Yes.

            Fact is neither of them was the first choice by anyone in their own parties.

            Corbyn looks a bit more like a human being and a man of principle.

            Too bad his principles are wrong.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "May or Corbyn as the leader of the country? What a fucking awful choice!"

              Yes, a belief in the - now defunct - Soviet approach and a belief in pandering to terrorist organisations.

              A the commenter above says, hell of a choice. Damned either way.

        4. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Re: You beat me to it ...

          "The main aim of the EU is to prevent other nations wanting to leave." - I'm amazed that, give our behavior, they haven't kicked us out already. The UK is acting like a weasel in the EU's underwear.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: You beat me to it ...

            @Version 1.0

            "I'm amazed that, give our behavior, they haven't kicked us out already."

            Yes its strange isnt it. Not only do they not kick us out but they beg us not to leave and constant efforts to get us to scrap the referendum result. Its almost like the EU want to keep us in or something. Maybe its the money, financial centre, legal structure, military capacity they require for their wet dreams, our reputation, intelligence capabilities, etc?

            Although credit to them the EU seems to have realised they need access to the london financial markets so probably wont stop its businesses from accessing what they need. I did wonder if they would inflict such self harm. Like they did during the recession.

        5. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          @tip pc

          One bunch of voters chose Brexit so that "we" would be in control instead of the EU. I am not convinced everyone involved is using the same definition of "we" but putting that to on side this fiasco is evidence that whoever "we" are, "we" should not be in control of anything.

          I would happily kick all the Brexits out of the EU - if only we could find anywhere that would take them.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: @tip pc

            I am not convinced everyone involved is using the same definition of "we"

            May for one seems to assume it's everyone in the country irrespective of how they voted or indeed, how they would vote if they were asked now. ERG seem to have no doubts about the latter - they most certainly do not want another referendum.

            As to definitions of "control"...

          2. Ken 16 Silver badge
            Headmaster

            Re: @tip pc

            I see you're using Brexit as a noun "kick all the Brexits" or presumably, "stop acting the Brexit" whereas I've always used it as a verb "bend him over and give him a right Brexiting".

            Can El Reg provide a style guide?

          3. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: @tip pc

            @Flocke Kroes

            "I would happily kick all the Brexits out of the EU - if only we could find anywhere that would take them."

            Of course you would. Not like you would want to go to your beloved EU without the opt outs. A project so wonderful even remainers dont want to join it (except 1 remainer I have seen on here and I can at least respect his commitment to the project and remove the opt outs including the Euro).

            1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

              Re: @codejunky

              My preference is to be an EU citizen in the UK. If that becomes impossible then the opt-outs are not a problem for me.

              What benefits to you expect from Brexit? Please please tell me there is one that you are certain will actually happen.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: @codejunky

                @Flocke Kroes

                "My preference is to be an EU citizen in the UK. If that becomes impossible then the opt-outs are not a problem for me."

                Cool. So no need to kick out brexiters, you can go to the EU and everything is fine. Awesome.

                "What benefits to you expect from Brexit?"

                There are a number of benefits I have discussed many times. The benefits I usually discuss are of the following- economic, democratic, economy, trade, sovereignty. Happy to discuss if you like? Pick one.

                (FYI I did not downvote your post)

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @codejunky

                  Go on then I'll bite. How is destryoying theocuntry by crashing out of EU on the back of an illegally-funded, gerrymandered advisory vote benefiting our 'democracy'?

                  1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                    Unhappy

                    "on the back of an illegally-funded, gerrymandered advisory vote "

                    You forgot the targeted lying campaign driven by stolen personal data.

                    Dominic Cummings still refusing to appear before a Parliamentary Committee*

                    *After all "Taking back control" was just a slogan. He appears to have nothing but contempt for the process of actual democracy. If it gets the result he wanted who cared if any (of what the Leave campaign put out) was true? Sound like someone who can get high marks in the PCL-R ?.

                    1. Roland6 Silver badge

                      Re: "on the back of an illegally-funded, gerrymandered advisory vote "

                      >Dominic Cummings still refusing to appear before a Parliamentary Committee*

                      And Tim Dawson is keeping a very low profile, in contrast to his high profile facebook campaign...

                      We shouldn't also forget that it is the Conservative party who have todate refused enact a 2009 law clamping down on offshore donations to UK political parties; could this be due to it being bankrolled by tax haven resident individuals and shell companies...

                2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                  Re: @codejunky

                  There are a number of benefits I have discussed many times.

                  There is a lot of waffle you've spouted a number of times, which has either been thoroughly debunked, or shown to be illusory. I've yet to see a solid example of a benefit of brexit, backed up with actual evidence, from you, or from anyone else for that matter.

                  Since you're so confident that you have demonstrated this 'a number of times', please be so kind as to provide some links to those posts.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: @codejunky

                    @Loyal Commenter

                    "There is a lot of waffle you've spouted a number of times, which has either been thoroughly debunked, or shown to be illusory"

                    Now that I would love to see proof of.

                    "I've yet to see a solid example of a benefit of brexit, backed up with actual evidence, from you, or from anyone else for that matter."

                    Thats ok your first reply to my first comment was so barely related to my comment I had to ask you to go back and try again.

                    "Since you're so confident that you have demonstrated this 'a number of times', please be so kind as to provide some links to those posts."

                    Because you struggle looking at my msg history? Or because of the long words? Feel free to pick one and we can discuss if you like?

                3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

                  Re: @codejunky

                  economic: see trade

                  democratic: Bremain we have MEPs to represent our interests. Brexit we don't. I have written to MPs and MEPs. Either way it takes time. They divert to the member of their party responsible for what you are complaining about who gives you the standard fobbing off. You reply with evidence debunking the fobbing off and get an equally useless reply. Next you send a copy of the correspondence to your representative. My MP ignores me but my MEP votes against the most damaging directives I understand well enough to explain. I get more democracy from the EU.

                  economy: see economic

                  trade: Bremain we have the negotiation power of the whole EU. Brexit we have the twits who could not negotiate an exit agreement with the EU that anybody is happy with.

                  sovereignty: This is a real problem for me. I want to keep power away from UK MPs and their partisan politics. The EU is more diverse so has to understand compromise. This avoids the extremes of any particular party.

                  By all means link to any of your previous posts that explain why Brexit provides an advantage with evidence that the UK government can deliver that advantage without incurring some greater cost.

                  (I reserve down votes for trolls and the irredeemably stupid or rude. Not for people trying to have a rational discussion even if we disagree on almost everything.)

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: @codejunky

                    @Flocke Kroes

                    "democratic"

                    Kudo's writing to your MP and MEP. Sorry one is useless but your lucky both arnt, they are both politicians. The difference being the MP has a little more power and responsibility than the MEP (local voting). MEP's being a few politicians into a larger group of the parasites. Democratically we voted for the tories and previously labour. We dont have to be happy with losing but we get a vote to choose our leadership, not something the EU allows. But you will sit under the heel of the EU bureaucrat. Who the hell would put an idiot like Junker as a president?

                    "trade"

                    No you do not have the negotiating power of the EU, the EU negotiates and you take what your given and like it. You want a trade deal? No, you have no power, no authority, no right. Only the EU can negotiate and they are slow and protectionist. Most of the tariff fears remainers have for UK to EU are founded in the EU being a protectionist block which makes it anti trade.

                    "sovereignty"

                    You want to vote to neuter the people you vote in power to do the things you want. The idea the EU moderates is amusing because they are in fear of an extremist takeover (far right often spouted but far left just as dangerous) which would make the EU extremist and dictating law over local government. On the plus side I do appreciate you understanding the EU takes sovereignty, that is often a sticking point.

                    "(I reserve down votes for trolls and the irredeemably stupid or rude. Not for people trying to have a rational discussion even if we disagree on almost everything.)"

                    "By all means link to any of your previous posts"

                    I have a long post history but I always start with the same offer (I actually copy and pasted from the last time I offered but I dont think it was taken up).

                    To be honest is is nice to have a rational discussion even with disagreement. There are a couple I can on here do that with.

                    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

                      Re: @codejunky

                      "we get a vote to choose our leadership, not something the EU allows"

                      If the EU do not allow it, how do "we" get a vote for our leadership? I am not convinced "we" get to vote for our leadership. I did not choose May, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, ...

                      Yes I massively want to neuter all politicians. I do not vote for them to do things I want. I vote for a hung parliament in the hope it will stop them doing a few of the things I do not want.

                      Yes you do have a long post history. I read the first page of 60. Lots of opinions. No evidence to support them. You are still welcome to link to a specific post that provides evidence to support your opinion that brexit will lead to any of: a stronger economy, more representative democracy, the economy again, lower prices when Brits buy and higher profits when Brits sell or that concentrating power in UK MPs will lead to anything constructive. No-one will ever bother to search through all 60 pages hunting for something they believe is not there.

                      1. codejunky Silver badge

                        Re: @codejunky

                        @Flocke Kroes

                        "If the EU do not allow it, how do "we" get a vote for our leadership?"

                        We dont. We didnt vote for any EU president as far as I am aware, nor did the other member country populations. We vote our own governments however.

                        "I did not choose May, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, ..."

                        Did you vote? If you did you took a step far larger than you are allowed in the EU. Did you choose Junker or any of the others?

                        "Yes I massively want to neuter all politicians. I do not vote for them to do things I want. I vote for a hung parliament in the hope it will stop them doing a few of the things I do not want."

                        All politicians? So if you dont want politicians consolidating power and doing what they want then surely you want to localise power and make them electable? Or do you see the EU as so big and gummed up that it cant do much? Not saying thats a bad or wrong view, they cant seem to do anything important so the EU is in multiple crises, but they do manage to interfere on small matters they shouldnt be bothering with.

                        "Yes you do have a long post history. I read the first page of 60"

                        Now you see why someone wanting me to go through my history to provide a point they often dont care about is a waste of my time. If they care they can look.

                        "brexit will lead to any of: a stronger economy, more representative democracy, the economy again, lower prices when Brits buy and higher profits when Brits sell or that concentrating power in UK MPs will lead to anything constructive"

                        Most of that depends on the actions of the gov. They can do things that economically work or not. A good example is the last recession where the US and UK reacted to it and the EU didnt. The UK and US left the recession and carried on, the EU nearly landed in deflation and had a serious panic. Even now the EU is years behind the global recovery and the EZ (EU proper) looks to be failing again even after economies and countries were sacrificed to save the Euro.

                        The certainty is that concentrating power in the EU has not been a good thing nor constructive, instead demonstrably destructive to economies and moderate politics. On known information food should be cheaper on leaving due to the protectionism of the EU and by removing the EU above our government we will already gain in democratic terms (unless the gov does something antidemocratic. E.g. abandon what people have voted for).

                        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

                          Re: @codejunky

                          Cameron resigned and I had no chance to vote for who would replaced him. Thatcher was kicked out and I had no chance vote for who would replace her. The parties pick their leaders, not you or me. That is equally true for the UK and the EU. Your claim that we cannot pick our leader because of the EU is rubbish. We cannot pick our leaders directly in either case and after Brexit we will have even fewer votes.

                          Yes all politicians. I want to minimise the power of every single one of them until they start to demonstrate a detectable level of competence.

                          I did care. I did look. You have convinced me you have never provided evidence to support your opinions.

                          "Most of that depends on the actions of the gov." The UK government has tirelessly demonstrated incompetence for years before the referendum and you handed them a mandate to renegotiate the biggest trade deal ever anyway. It sounds like you are expecting Brexit to be a complete fuck up and you are preparing to blame the government for the consequences of your voting decision.

                          Lets try for some of the "destructive" things from the EU. The first three to come to mind were: guaranty on electronics increased to two years. Standardising mobile phone power connectors so power bricks do not become obsolete when you get a new phone and food standards. There is bad as well as good - the European Patent Office for a start but even that is better that the UK Intellectual Property Office.

                          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                            Unhappy

                            " I did look. You have convinced me you..never provided evidence to support your opinions."

                            I've realized degrees come in 2 kinds.

                            "Opinon" degrees, where you pick up marks for writing apparently logical and plausible essays.

                            "Fact" degrees where you have to study something.

                            Now opinion degrees don't require (in any real sense) a need for an absolute, verifiable truth, but fact degrees do. Something will either work, or it won't. Something either is, or is not true.

                            AFAIK the vast, overwhelming majority of politicians have opinion degrees like History (Rees Mogg), Gove (English) and Johnson (Classics).

                            IOW degrees in producing bu***hit.

                            1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                              Re: " I did look. You have convinced me you..never provided evidence to support your opinions."

                              Don't forget PPE degrees - politics and economics (which is essentially politics with a bit of maths thrown in); degrees in formalised opinions without any solid facts behind them. But they come from Oxford, so must be just as good as a science degree from Oxford.

                              1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                                Unhappy

                                Don't forget PPE degrees

                                I have no trouble at all putting that under the "Opinion" degree heading.

                                The name alone is virtually a compendium in applied bu***hitting.

                          2. codejunky Silver badge

                            Re: @codejunky

                            @Flocke Kroes

                            "The parties pick their leaders, not you or me"

                            And you vote for the party based on their manifesto. You vote for the leadership.

                            "That is equally true for the UK and the EU"

                            Except we dont. We vote for an MEP. The whole leadership structure deciding the direction of the EU is picked after that by the chosen few, not by the population. We have no say over the EU. And now in trying to leave, which is the populations result, we hit block after block against leaving.

                            "Your claim that we cannot pick our leader because of the EU is rubbish"

                            And factual. We do not get to vote for the direction of the EU.

                            "Yes all politicians. I want to minimise the power of every single one of them until they start to demonstrate a detectable level of competence."

                            I can understand that. But moving politics further from the population only removes the population from the decision making in politics. Its bad enough with Westminster.

                            "You have convinced me you have never provided evidence to support your opinions."

                            And that is your opinion. Off the top of my head I had a few remainers who actually thought the banana law was a lie and didnt exist! I absolutely linked to the law for them. I remember at one point linking to Mervyn King proving Mark Carney to be a lier. There was the problem of explaining to some people that WTO tariffs were maximums I believe I linked. So on.

                            "The UK government has tirelessly demonstrated incompetence for years before the referendum and you handed them a mandate to renegotiate the biggest trade deal ever anyway"

                            Yes. One of those incompetents being Blair who sold out this country to the EU quite happily. Hell we nearly had the Euro because of him! Can you imagine the position the country would be in right now with that plague? I am happy to accept our gov to be incompetent, because there is no good argument that an incompetent government above that will improve the situation. And the EU has tirelessly demonstrated incompetence placing it in multiple self inflicted crises.

                            "It sounds like you are expecting Brexit to be a complete fuck up and you are preparing to blame the government for the consequences of your voting decision."

                            I wont be surprised if they fuck it up. Actually right now I hope they fuck up because to them hard brexit is a fuckup. Being trapped in the EU is long term ongoing damage. This gov is either staffed by remainers (now they want to vote away no-deal ha!) or so incompetent they look like remainers. Yes I want them to fuck up, it will provide the best result even if they dont mean to. And being out allows us to vote for improvement while remaining guarantees we are tied to the EU.

                            "Lets try for some of the "destructive" things from the EU."

                            They are in multiple self inflicted crises. they are a global economic threat and were so even when China was being accused of being.

                          3. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            @Flocke

                            Whilst it obviously has "European" in it's title, the EPO isn't a EU body and Brexit won't affect our membership of it.

                      2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                        Re: @codejunky

                        Yes you do have a long post history. I read the first page of 60. Lots of opinions. No evidence to support them.

                        You won't find anything else, whenever asked to provide actual facts to back up his opinions, his response is always, "I have done so before", and yet he is always unable to give a single example of having done so. The closes he gets to 'evidence' is linking to articles about what Patrick Minford says on obscure right-wing websites you've never heard of (or the Telegraph, which is pretty much the same but not obscure). Of course, the argument that someone else shares your opinion is no argument at all, esepcially without any actual facts to back it up. He'll attempt to discredit anyone who points out the myriad flaws in the things he says, but never ever come up with any facts to support his position.

              2. Martin
                Happy

                Re: @codejunky

                What benefits to you expect from Brexit? Please please tell me there is one that you are certain will actually happen.

                1) Blue passports.

                2) Take Back Control.

                3) Errrr.......

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: @codejunky

                  @Martin

                  "1) Blue passports."

                  I love this argument. It takes some knuckle-dragging (not saying you are doing it) to suggest brexit is cutting us off from the world while crying blue passports which will be made abroad. Although I am sure some people will be upset they are not made in britain by british firms (same protectionist logic as a lot of EU guff).

                  "2) Take Back Control."

                  This is almost like saying freedom or liberty. Damn right take back control, be free from those who would take that away from us. It is a shame that some people see this as a bad thing and look to the centralised control of olden days and empires. Hell the EU model was based on the old protectionist blocks of a world passed by. It is good for us to return to the modern world and not tie ourselves to a slow moving sinking ship.

                  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                    Re: @codejunky

                    "Damn right take back control"

                    And probably give most of it to the US.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @codejunky

                      @Doctor Syntax

                      "And probably give most of it to the US."

                      Why is it leave voters being called racists and xenophobes etc when remainers are so afraid of the outside world? China ahh! US ahh! I had one comment ages ago that the whole world would gang up on poor little UK. Why do remainers fear foreigners so?

                  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                    Unhappy

                    "Take Back Contro"l It is a shame that some people see this as a bad thing

                    No they do not.

                    They think of it as a lie kwitters talk.

                    What happened when the HoC expressed the desire to scrutinize Brexit?

                    Boris Johnson basically saying MYOB wasn't it?

                    Kwitters talk a lot about "taking back control," but they mean "By us," not actual democracy.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: "Take Back Contro"l It is a shame that some people see this as a bad thing

                      @John Smith 19

                      "They think of it as a lie kwitters talk."

                      And yet is it a fact that cannot actually be disputed. If we leave the EU we are taking back control over our country to be run here not by the EU. There isnt even a sensible argument (so far) against that being a fact, instead the argument is for the EU as a moderating force.

                      "Kwitters talk a lot about "taking back control," but they mean "By us," not actual democracy."

                      3 votes to change our relationship with the EU, 2 votes for leave. The single party for absolutely disregarding the result almost wiped out. Just because its not the result you want does not mean it is not democracy.

                      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                        Unhappy

                        And yet is it a fact that cannot actually be disputed.

                        I've found pretty much everything you post can be disputed.

                        "Taking back control" implies

                        A) That somehow the UK lost control in the first place.

                        B) That it will have absolute control over its borders.

                        A has been shown to be a partial truth at best and B is nonsense for any country that does not want to be looked at as untrustworthy in international relations as say North Korea. Border control requires the co-operation of the people on the other side of any border you have. Hence no one has "Absolute" control of their border.

                        Like most kwitters you seem to be ignorant of the implications of international law (the clue is in the name) and what happens if you just ignore your obligations.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: And yet is it a fact that cannot actually be disputed.

                          @John Smith 19

                          "I've found pretty much everything you post can be disputed."

                          Oh wow you really are trying to dispute that by leaving the EU we regain control over our country. Its a bold effort, not founded with reality but bold.

                          ""Taking back control" implies

                          A) That somehow the UK lost control in the first place.

                          B) That it will have absolute control over its borders."

                          A) or gave such control to the EU. If we have not lost control then we can make our own trade agreements while in the EU. Except we cant. We can ignore EU laws domestically! Nope we cant. And so on.

                          B) Duh.

                          "A has been shown to be a partial truth at best"

                          How partial is a binary value? Is this a microsoft boolean with 3 possibilities (true false error)?

                          "B is nonsense for any country"

                          Where the hell do you live to be this wrong? Syria?

                          "Border control requires the co-operation of the people on the other side of any border you have. Hence no one has "Absolute" control of their border."

                          Erm, no. Not even close. If you want to migrate legally you follow the procedures of the destination. If you want to illegally migrate then no rules apply anyway which leads to policy decisions of fortifying borders or rescue operations over bodies of water. But border control is a real thing. There is a whole world of countries out there so feel free to go look it up.

                          "Hence no one has "Absolute" control of their border."

                          So reductio ad absurdum proves you right? No, just makes you look like an idiot. Who defines the rules for our border policy? The fact that we will have additional control over legal migration by leaving the EU and that the EU defines our border policy explains why you picked up the goal posts and ran.

                          "Like most kwitters you seem to be ignorant of the implications of international law (the clue is in the name) and what happens if you just ignore your obligations."

                          And now where the hell are you going, come back with the goal posts, try to keep your comments somewhat relevant and look at the real world.

                2. Ken 16 Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: @codejunky

                  Also, Croatia already has blue EU passports. Back when the format of the EU passport was standardised, the committee working on it produced a demo version in burgundy and said something along the lines of "of course you can have any colour you want" to which the overwhelming response was a lack of fucks given and to avoid having to set up a committee to decide what colour to have or put it to public vote (with an overwhelming preference for polka dots) pretty much every country said, just leave it, no-one will ever care.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: @codejunky

                    @Ken 16

                    "put it to public vote (with an overwhelming preference for polka dots) pretty much every country said, just leave it, no-one will ever care."

                    That is a perfectly sensible assumption until remain needed something they could complain about. I am hoping you too dont care (nor I) about the colour of the passport, yet it seems to be brought up as some kind of problem by people arguing for remain. I dont get it.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: @codejunky

                      Yeah, you clearly don't get it.

                      The blue passports thing was announced by the then immigration minister (Brandon Lewis) as a means of showing the British people that things would be different after brexit. This example of "taking back control" fell a little flat when it was discovered that a) the EU don't actually care what colour our passports are - they could have been blue all along, and b) that a French firm was to be given the contract for printing the passports after brexit.

                      Remainers also don't generally give a hoot what colour their passports are, but but they're not going to pass up such a ripe opportunity to take the piss.

          4. Loatesy

            Re: @tip pc

            "I would happily kick all the Brexits out of the EU - if only we could find anywhere that would take them."

            Britain. Britain will take us, which is rather the point, don't you think?

            1. Roland6 Silver badge

              Re: @tip pc

              >Britain will take us, which is rather the point, don't you think?

              But will you want to stay in a "clock's turned back Britain"?

              Given the damage being done to the UK economy and reputation is orders of magnitude greater than that done by the Cambridge Five and others of their ilk, people may not be favourable to those who caused the mess...

              Remember the rabble-rousers who survived tended to be the ones who got out of town, fast...

        6. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: You beat me to it ...

          "The EU specifically mandated they won’t discuss post Brexit details until the Brexit deal or no deal is sorted."

          However, right up front the EU did ask the UK to bring to the table its thoughts on the future relationship it wanted - which it did - remember those Brexit briefing papers - basically the UK wanted all the benefits of membership , but without freedom of movement and actually being in the EU club...

    2. unimaginative
      FAIL

      They should have assumed no deal

      They should have prepared for the scenario that is hardest for the systems to cope with - no deal. Systems that could cope with no deal would have coped with a deal, but no vice-versa.

      The problem is that they complacently assumed there would be a deal. Its a reflection of the governments wider mistake, assuming that the negotiations would be cooperative and reasonable rather than adversarial.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        Re: They should have assumed no deal

        A system designed for a no-deal or not is probably far more expensive than one designed around a specif deal.

        UK is in full "Titanic" mode, and the iceberg is approaching....

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: They should have assumed no deal

          UK is in full "Titanic" mode, and the iceberg is approaching...

          And it isn't beautiful?

          1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

            Re: They should have assumed no deal

            UK is in full "Titanic" mode, and the iceberg is approaching...

            And it isn't beautiful?

            At least it comes with a decent soundtrack

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: They should have assumed no deal

              A decent soundtrack? You mean this one?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: They should have assumed no deal

        Well the UK has done its best to make the whole thing adversarial and despite everything the other EU members are still trying to help us out.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: They should have assumed no deal

        "They should have prepared for the scenario that is hardest for the systems to cope with - no deal."

        Different scenarios may have mutually incompatible requirements.

    3. IanRS

      Since when has not knowing the correct requirements been an impediment to a government IT project? Make some requirements up, have it developed, then ask the users what it should be doing and pay lots more later to get it to do what should have been specified originally. Standard procedure.

  3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    The PAC needs teeth. How about them signing off each Department's top few tiers' annual reports?

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      ...or better yet, signing off on the Honours list based on performance.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Very optimistic

    Will Defra even have the opportunity to get it's pants back up before removing them again?

    It hasn't exactly coped well with any IT projects in the last 20 years has it?

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: Very optimistic

      Defra hasn't coped with anything new ever, in any if its incarnations. I have a few farming friends and their lives no matter what they farm are always at odds with a ministry who will listen to anyone as long as it's not a farmer.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Very optimistic

      "It hasn't exactly coped well with any IT projects in the last 20 years has it?"

      Risky and rushed only half applies. Nobody has ever accused them of rushing in the past.

  5. Blofeld's Cat
    Facepalm

    "... the Whitehall machinery must reflect on the activity of recent months and years and use what it has learned to drive real improvements."

    I believe that is what is known as an "oink-flap" scenario.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      known as an "oink-flap" scenario

      ie - about as likely as rocking horses pooping in the woods.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        rocking horses pooping in the woods

        I thought that's what pine cones were.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fast forward 3 months from now. Either things will start working out or things will go to hell

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm sure ever thing is going to plan. Wait Thier is no plans? Buys gold, stun guns and pepper spray. Wait pepper spray and stun guns are illegal in the UK ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      so is eating human flesh at the moment, as the guy above said, give it 3 months and see what happens.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        so is eating human flesh at the moment

        You might think so, but it's only the obtaining of that flesh that is (usually) illegal. There is actually no law against cannibalism in the UK.

        1. Rich 11 Silver badge

          Phew, that's a relief. I'd hate to break the law when avoiding starvation.

        2. Ken 16 Silver badge

          I will refrain from asking why you know this and how you found out.

          1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Oddly enough, it was from Arya Stark's brother. Well, the brother of the actress who plays her (Maisie Williams) anyway.

            If that raises more questions than it answers, so be it.

            I believe the reason it was never criminalised was because of things that happen at sea...

            1. Teiwaz Silver badge

              still no sign of land.....

              I believe the reason it was never criminalised was because of things that happen at sea...

              Lifeboat sketch

            2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              >I believe the reason it was never criminalised was because of things that happen at sea...

              There are lots of things that happen at sea that were criminalised

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                I believe it was decriminalised in 1967 though...

        3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "There is actually no law against cannibalism in the UK."

          Nor (according to the RSPCA web site) is it illegal to either advertise dog meat for human consumption, or to wear clothing made from dog leather*

          Obviously you will have to convince Environmental Health it''s safe for human consumption (like ice cream made from human milk) and of course convincing people that steak of "Mans best friend" is socially acceptable, or Fido burgers are no harmful than any other meat to be found in such things.

          *Not even puppies, darling.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: "There is actually no law against cannibalism in the UK."

            You might need a letter from the vet stating what antibiotics it had been given.

            A neighbor had to give their horse some pills but first had to declare that the animal wouldn't eventually be used for human consumption.

            ps. When adopting bunny rabbits from the SPCA don't ask "how much per pound?"

            1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
              Unhappy

              "You might need a letter from the vet stating what antibiotics it had been given."

              I've heard that about horses.

              In fact IIRC the use of antibiotic that's pretty harmful for humans in the UK is the only real reason dobbin burgers are dangerous.

              Unless they're poorly cooked of course.

              But that's pretty mush the same for any meat sold in the UK.

  8. codejunky Silver badge

    Ha

    "The UK government has moved so slowly to prepare for a no-deal Brexit"

    Oh the shock. Oh the surprise. And of course this is somehow going to be the fault of those who voted out instead of those in government determined to remain. No deal being off the table except of course no deal being the legal default. Of course if they were committed to brexit these problems would have been dealt with.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ha

      Arch-Brexiteer complains about possibly getting the blame for the shitstorm they help to stir.

      Irony. Overload.

      1. EvilDrSmith

        Re: Ha

        A very quick internet search brought up a Guardian article from 18 October 2017, referring to the Prime Minster's claim that No deal is better than a bad deal.

        It would be reasonable to expect therefore that the government has been making no deal preparations for at least 17 months.

        Instead, it seems that they started about 5 months ago.

        Lack of no deal preparation = fault of government (Prime Minister) seems a fair assessment.

    2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Ha

      Oh look, heres @Codejunky to tell us all how swimmingly well Brexit is going, and how his One True Brexit™ is the only One True Brexit™ and everyone who voted out did so for the same reasons as him, and how it is Everyone Else's Fault™ that his flying unicorn won't start.

      Yawn.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ha

        1st rule of being a Brexiteer: It's always someone else's fault!

      2. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Ha

        @Loyal Commenter

        "Oh look, heres @Codejunky to tell us all how swimmingly well Brexit is going"

        I can only guess you didnt read my comment? Or that it was too complicated? Come back when you get there, keep trying it will be worth it.

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: Ha

          Yes dearie, I did read your comment. You basically implied that the government are trying to thwart brexit. The same government that is responsible for brexit in the first place. Nice doublethink there Orwell.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Ha

            @Loyal Commenter

            "Yes dearie, I did read your comment"

            Congrats on actually responding to my comment this time, gold star.

            "You basically implied that the government are trying to thwart brexit"

            First line of the article- "The UK government has moved so slowly to prepare for a no-deal Brexit" as I quoted, I assume you spotted that too? This is an a 2 year negotiation where this party handed in the art50 (as you say they are responsible) and yet during the referendum the one man able to prepare anything (Cameron) refused to and ran when he didnt get the result he wanted. Now we have a remain campaigner May refusing no deal as a possibility (although it is the legal default) and not prepared for it.

            Which part are you not clear about? That the remain gov wants to remain? Or that the remain gov are not really remainers but they act and speak just like them?

            "The same government that is responsible for brexit in the first place"

            That is where we got lucky. Labour promised such a choice because the country wanted out, but of course they never delivered (knowing the result). The coalition was a good excuse for Cameron to break his cast iron guarantee of a choice and in his expectation to fail to get a majority made the promise a second time. Oops. He then delivered a disgusting propaganda campaign including the Treasury directly threatening the population if we didnt vote their way. Basically they fucked up and he ran away. So we have May who campaigned for remain and refusing to accept brexit but stymied by Gina Miller who tried to screw leave but in the end it screwed remain. Because if parliament cant agree to a course of action the legal default is hard brexit.

            "Nice doublethink there Orwell."

            So far very straightforward, clear and honest to the facts. If you manage to read this correctly I would be interested to see if and how you think it is doublethink.

            1. Teiwaz Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              Thwart brexit? The current government???

              I don't even think it's about Brexit anymore.

              The entire exercise is all about Mays legacy as a PM in or putting Thatcher in shadow 'the ladies not for turning' sort of mindset.

              May wasn't really a remainer, the result was after all a surprise to most, and she expected to be on the winning side by staying with remain as being on the losing side is never conducive to being invited to a cabinet post.

              The whole position that the government is thwarting is just a comfy sand lined hole to bury your head in over the embarasing government ineptitude and general lack of vision or ability by all major parties.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Ha

                @Teiwaz

                "The entire exercise is all about Mays legacy as a PM in or putting Thatcher in shadow 'the ladies not for turning' sort of mindset."

                Very possible. I wouldnt be shocked.

                "May wasn't really a remainer, the result was after all a surprise to most, and she expected to be on the winning side by staying with remain as being on the losing side is never conducive to being invited to a cabinet post."

                Ok. But then why is she so slow to accept hard brexit is the default legal position, the only option we can unilaterally implement and the guaranteed version of brexit? If she is for brexit her desperate attempts to make a deal, overrule any brexit negotiations and make a deal which would trap us in the EU dont make sense. If she is for remain it does make sense.

                "The whole position that the government is thwarting is just a comfy sand lined hole to bury your head in over the embarasing government ineptitude and general lack of vision or ability by all major parties."

                I dont need to bury my head, I am quite happy with the idea that the government is incompetently acting like a bunch of remainers but since they are acting like remainers I thought that might be an insult. As the government are walking like a duck, quacking like a duck and acting like a duck I gave them the benefit of the doubt of being a duck. Otherwise they are so incompetent they look like remainers (not an insult, if they are trying to be leavers incompetence would look like remain).

                There was only one party who had leave planned. Farages UKIP. You might be on to something about incompetence of government though. Since labour at least our gov has looked weak and incompetent as remainers and now if they are leavers they are still incompetent.

                1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                  Re: Ha

                  "Let's leave the EU" is not a plan.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: Ha

                    @Dan 55

                    "Let's remain in the EU" is not a plan.

                  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                    Unhappy

                    ""Let's leave the EU" is not a plan."

                    No.

                    But it was about all the different Leave sub-tribes could actually agree on.

                    Kwitters voted for a blank sheet of paper (liberally dipped in AggregateIQ bu***hit).

                    That paper has now been filled in, and been rejected by Parliament.

                    Twice.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Ha

                  The only thing I'd trust Farage and UKIP to plan is a trip to the pub. They seem good at that.

                  May is acting out of self-preservation, and (secondarily) preservation of her party. The good of the country comes a distant third, if at all.

                  According to all indicators a no deal brexit is absolutely unacceptable to most members of parliament. May advocating for such would mean gaining the loyalty of the ERG, but would lose the support of practically everyone else in the conservative party. On the flip side, ruling it out would mean losing the support of the ERG forever. Either option would fatally compromise her already tenuous grasp of power. That's why it's going to be a free vote this evening.

                  "hard brexit is the default legal position, the only option we can unilaterally implement and the guaranteed version of brexit"

                  Very true. Just as cutting your own bollocks off is the only way to unilaterally guarantee that you'll never have to father children.

              2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                Unhappy

                "May wasn't really a remainer,"

                TBH I'm not really sure she's anything.

                She seems to have just done whatever her advisors have told throughout her career.

                Famously following her snap election which would "Destroy the Labor party for a generation" (despite being completely unnecessary for Brexit).And thereby making Arlene Foster her new BFF.

                Yeay for that.

                I suppose she's a real role model for what someone with ASD could achieve. Yeay for that as well.

            2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              Which part are you not clear about? That the remain gov wants to remain?

              If the government wanted to remain:

              1) They would not have invoked A50.

              2) It would not have been necessary to bring a case to court to ensure that parliament had a say before they invoke A50.

              3) They would have unilaterally revoked A50 as soon as it became clear that it was possible to do so.

              If you believe that May was ever a remainer, consider the fat that a long time before the whole brexit shitstorm, she was banging on about getting out of the ECHR (because she doesn't like those pesky hu8mans having rights). The only way this would be possible would be to leave the EU, as being a signatory to the ECHR is a precondition to being an EU member.

              You might think the current government are remainers, I think it's safe to say that the evidence does not point that way, and pretty much everyone else does not agree with you.

              The only people responsible for the mess we are in at the moment are those reposnbile for the enactment of Article 50. Those people, and those that led them to that point, are the ones to blame. Not remainers, not the EU, not the vast majority of scientists, economists, business leaders, EU citizens, etc. etc.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Ha

                @Loyal Commenter

                "1) They would not have invoked A50."

                After promising to invoke the result the remainer PM put his tail between his legs and ran. After considerable wait after that point A50 finally got invoked with the support of a referendum and GE. The gov didnt want to, the population really did (and almost completely wiped out the only remain party).

                "2) It would not have been necessary to bring a case to court to ensure that parliament had a say before they invoke A50."

                Wasnt that the Gina Miller fiasco? A solid remainer who last I heard was trying to make it legal for the EU to unilaterally withdraw A50 (surely this cant be right but in the mind of a nutter maybe it is).

                "3) They would have unilaterally revoked A50 as soon as it became clear that it was possible to do so."

                Which really would finish the party, likely cause unrest and the EU would almost certainly abuse us for the fun of it for getting this far. Assuming such a revocation would be accepted.

                "You might think the current government are remainers, I think it's safe to say that the evidence does not point that way, and pretty much everyone else does not agree with you."

                This is where you seem to have a completely different world to the one we are in. A deal considered worse than remain or leave is on the table because remain would be devastating and leave is not what the gov want. The brexit crowd basically had to resign their positions because leave is not the governments desire.

                "The only people responsible for the mess we are in at the moment are those reposnbile for the enactment of Article 50."

                So you dont blame the gov who refused to prepare for it? They wernt caught out by surprise, they actively refused to prepare for it (again even read the first line of this article). If this gov wanted leave it would have been a 5 minute discussion solved and wrapped up beautifully. There would be no uncertainty nor question of leaving. A deal trapping us in the EU would not be possible to consider. The blame is square on the gov for failing to seriously pursue brexit. Its not like they have tried or prepared or made much of an effort for brexit.

                1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  Re: Ha

                  "Wasnt that the Gina Miller fiasco?"

                  Let's consider this scenario. No case was put forward at the time and HMG just went its way without a commons vote. Somewhere in the last few months the case was put to the court and the court gave the verdict that was given originally: there was a legal requirement for Parliament to approve before invoking A50. We'd now be in the position that the entire Brexit process would have been conducted unconstitutionally and, by the terms of A50 itself, not valid.

                  How would that have been for a fiasco? For added flavour consider the scenario that this had been raised not in the last few months but after March 29 (April 1st seems a good date).

                  Leavers seem unable to grasp the simple fact that she did them a favour.

                  1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

                    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                      Re: Ha

                      For christs sake the bitch did it to try and stop brexit

                      The mask is slipping now, isn't it.? Women who disagree with you are 'bitches', are they?

                      Maybe you should leave the ugly sexism back in the mid-20th century along with your other opinions?

                      1. codejunky Silver badge

                        Re: Ha

                        @Loyal Commenter

                        "The mask is slipping now, isn't it.? Women who disagree with you are 'bitches', are they?"

                        Ha! This has to be your weakest attempt yet. If you see sexism in that comment I suggest you reread it, maybe get some help reading it or whatever you did after your first response to my posts on here. When you understand it then try again.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Ha

                          Can't re-read it, as it seems to have been deleted by a moderator. However, if you did indeed use the word "bitch" to describe anything other than a female dog, then you're probably in the wrong here.

                          1. codejunky Silver badge

                            Re: Ha

                            @AC

                            "Can't re-read it, as it seems to have been deleted by a moderator"

                            Basically I said Gina Miller seemed to be using her money, power and influence to try and get the democratic vote overturned. All because we didnt give the result she wanted.

            3. Roland6 Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              >That the remain gov wants to remain?

              @codejunky - you need to take those rose tinted glasses off. This is really nothing about the real world UK and EU relationship, it is all about the various factions within the Conservative party: 1st, 2nd & 3rd and somehow keeping them all together as one great big happy family.

              Firstly Cameron thought he had a way to silence the awkward squad in the Conservative party and failed. Now May thought she could keep the Conservative party together and now she and her supporters (eg. Jeremy Hunt) are wailing vote for T.May's WA or experience a devastating party split; note the lack of mention of the UK economy or standing in the world...

              The UK public and economy (and EU) are simply collateral damage in all of this infighting. As was said at the outset, it doesn't matter what you voted for, the Brexit you will get is the one the Conservative party and its tax haven based backers want.

              Personally, I'm hoping the conservative party will implode. Suspect the Labour party also close to doing similar. Could result in some massive changes to UK politics; although I expect somethings eg. the LibDems getting a handful of seats, not to change....

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Ha

                @Roland6

                I am happy to accept the gov is purely trying to keep its party together and are just blatantly incompetent. Just that such incompetence looks like a serious effort to remain so the outcome is the same.

                It will be interesting to see what happens to the parties although I dont know if we will be seeing an improvement or not if the main ones break up. Kind of depends if we get a balance of views or if it will be worse than what we have in power now.

              2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                Unhappy

                " it is all about the various factions within the Conservative party: "

                And the desire to stop defections to UKIP

                Job done.

                "Kippers" smoked.

                As for the rest of it....

                Just bu***hit produced by the greedy and the delusional to feed to the gullible. Which they lapped up.

            4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              "the one man able to prepare anything (Cameron) refused to and ran when he didnt get the result he wanted."

              Now there we do agree. He should have had a plan B.

              We might not agree as to what the plan B should have been. Mine was to note the advisory nature of the vote and do a proper feasibility study which IMV the vote entitled him to do and simply logic obligated him to do before it went any further. What's more he should have tasked the arch remainers with doing an impact assessment on various sectors of the economy as part of that.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Ha

                @Doctor Syntax

                "Now there we do agree. He should have had a plan B."

                Very true. Offering the referendum but trying to stitch it up was part of trying to force the 'right' answer which is why he didnt have a plan B. He was the only one allowed to negotiate anything and he refused.

                The jellyfish should have handed government over to a member of the party who wanted brexit. We should have been ready to brexit before A50 and preparing for a hard brexit as it is the only guaranteed outcome, but of course negotiations welcome. Excluding handing over to a brexit member that is the only sensible way to go forward even if the dream is not to hard brexit.

                1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  Re: Ha

                  "The jellyfish should have handed government over to a member of the party who wanted brexit."

                  I'm sure you're aware of it but a PM is usually the leader of the largest party in the HoC. A departing PM can't just nominate his successor in either role. So when Cameron decided to quit the only option was for the Conservative party to go through its normal procedure to choose a successor who, by convention, HMQ would invite to form a government.

                  The members of the party who were most strident about wanting Brexit contrived to either quit the contest or stab one another in the back. The result was someone who many of us suspect of having been a crypto-leaver who wanted to protect her position in the event of the expected referendum result.

                  The leading Bresiteers have only themselves to blame for one of them not being at least a candidate for PM.

                  1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                    Re: Ha

                    Funny, I remember the negotiations being handed over to a quit campaigner on the first day. In case you've forgotten, the same individual was the one who was going on about "the easiest deal in history". He turned up to negotiate without so much as a pen, let alone even the semblance of a plan, a spent a fair old amount of time achieving nothing whatsoever before being replaced with another quitter, who also achieved nothing. I lost track after that, are we on the fourth one, or fifth?

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Ha

                      @Loyal Commenter

                      "Funny, I remember the negotiations being handed over to a quit campaigner on the first day."

                      Yes. And he got overruled by May and quit because he was not allowed to negotiate brexit. May instead going begging for something to present from the EU to sell to the UK.

                      "He turned up to negotiate without so much as a pen"

                      Yes. The way it should be. We invoke A50 and that is our bit done, we are leaving. It is not for us to then beg the EU for whatever we want, it is for the EU to give the lay of the land initially and then we negotiate. Crying he didnt have anything when he turned up is to have no idea what he should be doing.

                      "a spent a fair old amount of time achieving nothing whatsoever"

                      Yes. And thats good news. May has made concessions but he didnt. Instead they took the brexit bill and discredited the EU line by line at one point. No matter how much stomping or crying the EU did he did not sell out the country. Brexit can be achieved unilaterally. Failing to brexit is to achieve nothing.

    3. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Ha

      And of course this is somehow going to be the fault of those who voted out

      Well, yes. Such is a referendum.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: Ha

        Well, yes. Such is a referendum.

        To be brutally honest, it's the fault of those who deliberately told the emotive lies, and those who funnelled millions of untraceable pounds through tax havens to fund the propagation of those lies, for the pretty obvious purposes of their own financial advancement.

        You can't blame people for being fooled by attractive lies. The most intelligent amongst us can be fooled occasionally.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Ha

          @Loyal Commenter

          "You can't blame people for being fooled by attractive lies. The most intelligent amongst us can be fooled occasionally."

          I can very much agree with that. The problem is both official campaigns were badly behaved and both sides believe the other was fooled. One campaign stopped with winning the referendum and the other is still pushing propaganda and seriously blatant lies.

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Ha

            No, it's not stopped, someone with money is still pushing "propaganda and seriously blatant lies".

            Obscure no-deal Brexit group is UK's biggest political spender on Facebook

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              @Dan 55

              "No, it's not stopped, someone with money is still pushing "propaganda and seriously blatant lies"."

              I hate to say it but thats great news. Kinda scary it seems so small that I only seem to get remainer FUD but at least there is some effort to keep us from being betrayed

            2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              Not to mention the "OH MY GOD I JUST READ THE LISBON TREATY" bollocks that has been popping up everywhere on Facebook, posted by thowaway accounts, that claims a treaty that came into force in 2009 is coming into force in 2020 and will take away our veto, force us to join an EU army, force the Euro on us, etc. etc., all of which is absolutely demonstrably untrue.

              Someone is still pushing the lies very hard indeed, and it's not remainers. Most likely, it's a state actor. I'll let you decide which one, товарищ.

              Cui bono, et al...

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Ha

            "One campaign stopped with winning the referendum"

            It certainly did. It stopped because it had no idea what to do next. It's entire purpose was to campaign. The nearest they seem to have thought about implementing it would be that Cameron would stay on to do it despite having campaigned against it.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              @Doctor Syntax

              "The nearest they seem to have thought about implementing it would be that Cameron would stay on to do it despite having campaigned against it."

              Its almost like the remainer who ran the referendum, abused the taxpayers money for a propaganda campaign and had the government Treasury and BoE turned against the population to coerce the 'right' result had promised he would stay regardless of the result.

              Go on, next tell me he was no true remainer (in a kilt?)

              1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                Re: Ha

                "promised he would stay regardless of the result."

                At a guess he'd never anticipated the result and didn't expect to deliver on that. Not surprising - he was a politician. Having lost the vote he realised not only that it was a stupid promise to have made and that if was to be implemented it would need someone who believed it was a good idea and had planned for it to do so. He could have seen that if he'd stayed on he'd have been in May's position - struggling to put something together while the ERG and camp followers complained about everything he did to try to put their nonsense into practice.

                You can scarcely blame him for the fact that the group of those who believed it fell apart. Maybe they were of the same opinion - they didn't expect to win and didn't believe it was a sensible scheme. Maybe their only position was to heckle from the back benches and they couldn't keep doing that if they were in government. Were they emboldened in their campaigning by the belief that he would actually stay on and do the heavy lifting for them and take the blame for failing? I don't know. You'd need to ask them.

                But you can't logically complain that he didn't stay on while elsewhere claiming he should have handed over the reigns.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Ha

                  @Doctor Syntax

                  "But you can't logically complain that he didn't stay on while elsewhere claiming he should have handed over the reigns."

                  I didnt complain he didnt stay. I complained he was not only the only one who could have prepared anything during the referendum but then stated without doubt that he would be implementing the result. I complained that the lying weasel did all he could to block any progress.

                  "At a guess he'd never anticipated the result and didn't expect to deliver on that."

                  Exactly the problem. The EU has no majority support here. It couldnt even get 50% in a referendum. The fact that the remain gov 'offered' a referendum with no intention of real choice is one of the very good reasons the remain gov (even now) is not looked on favourably. 'You can have democracy if you vote the right way' is not democracy. And the EU is absolutely on board with supporting remain. That is how little democracy is thought of by those trying to force remain.

                  As I have said before why not do this democratically. We leave the EU and those who are pro-EU vote for a party who is pro-EU to rejoin. We will likely lose the opt outs but if the EU project is so wonderful then why not? (The answer is because joining the EU is seriously unpopular)

                2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                  Unhappy

                  "At a guess he'd never anticipated the result and didn't expect to deliver on that. "

                  According to (IIRC) Donald Tusk in the BBC documentary "Brexit: Ten Years of Turmoil" Cameron's cunning plan was

                  a) Get a 2nd hung parliament

                  b) Have the Lib Dems stop him from holding a Referendum

                  c) Blame them for thwarting the "Will of the people"

                  Tusk said he met Cameron after Cameron had realized what a sh**storm he'd started and realized how big a f**kwit he'd been with his "plan."

                  The whole series made interesting (if depressing) viewing on iPlayer.

          3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Re: Ha

            The problem is both official campaigns were badly behaved and both sides believe the other was fooled.

            I keep hearing leavers parrotting this, "both sides told lies" rubbish, and I'm calling you out on it.

            Please give me five examples of lies told by the remain campaign, on the scale of those told by the leave campaign (e.g. the "£350M a week" lie on the side of the bus, or the "exact same benefits" lie, or the "easiest deal in history" lie.)

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Ha

              "Please give me five examples of lies told by the remain campaign"

              There will be a recession the day of the brexit result. Lie. Followed by- The recession didnt happen because we didnt hand in A50 yet. Another lie as it of course didnt happen.

              The punishment budget. Designed to create a recession and do the opposite of any economic advice.

              We would be at the back of the 'queue' with a US trade negotiation. We are at the front of the 'queue' a phrasing written for Obama by our gov. The EU of course in not in the queue anymore.

              Donald Tusk the end of western civilisation. Lie

              Clegg claiming the EU army was a fantasy. Lie.

              Junker blaming brexit for the collapse of the EU. Getting his excuses in early.

              Cameron will stick around to negotiate brexit. Lie

              Mark Carney argued against what the Treasury and BoE have been trying to achieve and continue to try and achieve because it would result from brexit.

              "on the scale of those told by the leave campaign"

              Since the remain campaign was the government all of their abuses are much more grave as they were also in charge of running the referendum and turning the weight of the government against the population. But in no way do I defend the official leave campaign. They were so shameful I assumed they were there to make remain look good, until I saw the remain campaign had the same quality.

              1. Dr_N Silver badge
                Thumb Up

                Re: Ha

                codejunky "Lie Lie Lie Lie"

                Quite.

                And don't forget the "BREAKING POINT!" MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS invading the UK due a simpler Schengen visa system for non-diplomatic Turkish VIPs!!!

                Than one really help push Brexit over the line.

                Ah.

                No.

                That was one of ones YOU helped peddle.

                My bad.

              2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                Re: Ha

                So, your get-out for "on the scale fo those told by the leave campaign" is:

                "Since the remain campaign was the government all of their abuses are much more grave as they were also in charge of running the referendum"

                Since none of the things you list was an actual lie told by the official campaign, you can't use that get-out clause. None of the supposed things you have come up with are anywhere near the scale of teh lies systematically pushed by the leave campaign over weeks and months. If throwaway comments that I've never even heard before, by foreign politicians not involved in the referendum campaign are the best examples of lies "told by the remain campaign" that you can come up with, then you have proved my original point.

                The EU army thing IS total bollocks, so Clegg saying as much wasn't actually a lie. Lying about whether someone was lying doesn't really help your argument.

                As for 'back of the queue' with US trade negotiations; they hold all the cards in such negotiations. Unless you are all for chlorinated chicken, hormone and antibiotic fed beef, and high fructose corn syrup in all your food, the things we will have to accept to even do a trade deal with the US are unacceptable. The fact that they may now wish to 'negotiate' doesn't mean we can actually get a deal that doesn't result in us being very much the minor partner in any such deal. If you want to buddy up with Trump, be my guest, but it certainly isn't in the interests of the country.

                I'd also like to point out that Cameron had no authority to promsie that the government would enact the result of the referendum. Legally, the enabling bill stated that it was advisory and did not bind the government to action. Claiming otherwsie was a lie, even when printed on the infamous leaflet (which, BTW was not pro-remain). Cameron told lots of lies whilst in office, he was a terrible PM, but you can't associate this particular lie with the campaign to remain in the EU - he wasn't acting as a spokesperson for that campaign when he told that lie (which was a sop to leavers in any event), he was acting as PM.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Ha

                  @Loyal Commenter

                  "Since none of the things you list was an actual lie told by the official campaign, you can't use that get-out clause"

                  Not only is your comment wrong but stinkingly wrong.

                  "The EU army thing IS total bollocks"

                  https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/

                  "The fact that they may now wish to 'negotiate' doesn't mean we can actually get a deal that doesn't result in us being very much the minor partner in any such deal"

                  So we are not at the back of the queue for a deal? So it was a lie.

                  "I'd also like to point out that Cameron had no authority to promsie"

                  So he lied?

                  "Claiming otherwsie was a lie, even when printed on the infamous leaflet"

                  So a lie

                  "he wasn't acting as a spokesperson for that campaign when he told that lie"

                  In that case while lying the official leave campaign were not acting as official spokespersons for their cause when they did it.

                  Ok please tell me you are some parody commenter who doesnt even believe their own mental gymnastics?

        2. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

          Re: Ha

          Sure, 'occasionally'. Not consistently. The pre referendum discussion went on for months.

          Now, it's true that it was not the highest quality discussion, but the facts were out there. It's each person's responsibility to look for a wide range of facts and question their own assumptions. Instead, there were repeated complaints that the issues such as the Irish border were not highlighted (they were).

          There should have been an accessible fact checking website from day one, and the media were complicit in the lack of questioning as that made for improved entertainment. However, the facts were still there and they were not difficult to find (the Irish border was covered on the BBC website, for instance.).

          It seems that there is the expectation for salient points to be posted through each letterbox in the land, and manually stapled to a nearby wall (or preferably each voter's forehead).

          Given the wall to wall Brexit coverage since the referendum, there is *still* a 'Brexit at any cost' mentality amongst a subset (about a third) of leavers. Those voters are criminally selfish, stupid, and/or insane - take your pick.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Ha

            "Those voters are criminally selfish, stupid, and/or insane - take your pick."

            Can't it be all three?

  9. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

    TL;DR

    We're fucked.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TL;DR

      not for another 17 days: lube up buttercup!

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: TL;DR

      Indeed.

      Grease those cheeks and grab those ankles. *

      This is going to hurt.

      *Unless of course you are independently wealthy enough you can buy a central London town house for £5m. In which you'll just lay in a supply of good champagne and have a party, since the problems of little people don't bother you at all.

  10. Beachrider

    No Cheese for you...

    The UK economy has leveraged cheap and efficient goods from other countries for years (back to the Common Market (EEC) back to 1958. Things should be VERY noticeable when the curtain comes down on that.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: No Cheese for you...

      It was EFTA from 1960 to 1973 (the UK was a founding member) and the EC from then on.

      1. Ken 16 Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Re: No Cheese for you...

        I must admit I thought the UK would go back to EFTA when it voted to leave the EU.

        Paris puzzled too.

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          Re: No Cheese for you...

          Nope.

          This explains why

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: No Cheese for you...

            Well, it's a case of if we want to, and they'd have us, and the answer is no in both cases.

            1. Beachrider

              Re: No Cheese for you...

              The EFTA is a DRAMATICALLY smaller environment than the EEC (which the UK is leaving). Get back into the EFTA, if you like. Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are TINY trade partners for the UK

              1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                Unhappy

                " Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are TINY trade partners for the UK"

                In fact you could say they are on the same scale to the UK as the UK is to the rest of the EU.

                Which might explain why they want f**k all to do with the UK.

                Because they understand the actual negotiating power of two such entities with such a mismatch in size IRL.

                And it's not in their favor.

  11. teebie

    "A small increase in biosecurity risk"

    Does anyone know where I can find the bus with this written on the side?

  12. Multivac

    No one thinks it's going to actually happen so they're not doing anything to prepare for it, in the unlikely event of it happening then the worse it happens the sooner it's likely to unhappen so again, doing nothing is the best way to prepare!

  13. Craig100

    Scrap the parties

    How about scrap the parties and have multiple choice ballot papers with policies on them instead? Then parliament enact the policies. No more tribal time wasting. Just a thought ;)

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Scrap the parties

      "Then parliament enact the policies."

      Including the mutually contradictory ones?

  14. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    The Pimlico option

    Technically is the Queen still duke of Normandy?

    Post Brexit - could we all just claim to be French subjects ?

    1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

      Re: The Pimlico option

      Looks like the Queen is still called that in Jersey and Guernsey, but lost the right to be the duke not far off 800 years ago at which time all rights to what was then continental Normandy were also lost.

    2. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: The Pimlico option

      Would that be worse than Brexit?

  15. gnarlymarley

    I don't get it. The local rules do not need to change. The UK would have made rules governing itself locally. Those rules should still be the same. The only thing I see with the brexit is now there is a border change. This "should" only affect people visiting from other countries. However, brexit "should not" affect UK citizens, unless they are traveling remotely. All the UK needs to do is pass an agreement that the border stays the same as it is now, until they can agree on how to limit it.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      So all goods from the Eu (and countries the Eu has deals with) enter without duty.

      All Eu nationals are allowed free movement in the UK

      However all exported goods are subject to whatever tarrifs, inspections, delays etc on the other side.

      UK citizens are allowed into the Eu only with a visa

      I'm not entirely sure how this defn of "taking back control" will go down with the Tory leadership committee.

  16. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    not.. sure how this defn of "taking back control" will go down with the Tory leadership committee.

    Exactly.

    What is happening are two diametrically opposite things at the same time.

    1)Complete control over immigration of EU nationals into the UK

    2) Complete access to the EU single market.

    To which the EU's answer roughly translates as "No f**king way."

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019