Jenny1

Fingers crossed - appears to be OK now

Hi Anyone else with water supply problems in Melbourne Grove area?

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keep eyes and ears open for the arrival of the > swifts... must be any day now, I hope. Here's my > list of the first recorded swifts in ED since 2011 > (from the forum and my own observations): > 2011 ? May 9 > 2012 ? May 1 > 2013 ? May 17 > 2014 ? May 8 > 2015 ? May 9 > 2016 ? May 4 > 2017 ? May 6 > 2018 ? May 7 > 2019 ? May 8 > 2020 ? May 6 > 2021 ? May 9 May 9th - 08:15 swifts ahoy!

Another recommendation for Maurice. I always call on him to fix plumbing problems. He's very competent, well-priced and incredibly good-humoured.

The swifts are back! It was very welcome to hear them this morning.

Thanks for that. So to raise issues on national food distribution email [email protected]

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I emailed Mike Coupe yesterday as it is impossible > to get through on the phone. No response, of > course! I think it might be better to be emailing the minister in charge of food, Theresa Villiers. This is a problem that requires central government co-ordination. Email below. [email protected]

.

I guess it's not unusual for people posting on internet forums to misunderstand each other. But I am still struggling a little with your meaning. I don't think anyone would claim that, as yet, we have a fully functioning crystal ball that allows us to see the future. To establish 'facts' about the future if you will. But of course that doesn't mean there's no value in forecasting and planning accordingly. If you believe the Yellowhammer warnings to be significant (while being clear that they are forecasts rather than facts), then that surely means you take them seriously. I also wouldn't claim they are 'facts', but I would say they are professionally produced forecasts that should be heeded. This presumably means we agree about that? Would I also be right in thinking that we agree that the 'Singapore Model' is not a particularly useful or desirable one for the UK to aspire to?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >You've got some balls. Thank you. We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though. I regarded the flow of comments, from everyone, as being part of a complete debate. So I read the article that Keano77 linked to about the Singapore Model, with approval, as being a reinforcement of his belief that we should not take the Yellowhammer warnings too seriously. The message seemed to be 'Look at this positive vision for the future of the UK - that's what I believe in - rather than the Yellowhammer warnings'. You, on the other hand, did not see it that way. You wanted to agree with Keano77 when he said he did not regard the Yellowhammer warnings as significant, while being careful not to express approval for the 'Singapore Model', which he cited to reinforce his argument. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I can see your point of view, I would imagine you could also appreciate mine. This isn't really a cause for outrage, is it?

OK. I see you did reference Keano77's dismissive comments about Yellow Hammer. But Keano77 had just above reinforced his argument with a link to the Singapore Model article. Does this mean that you put little store by the Yellow Hammer warnings, and agree with Keano77 on that, but disagree with his approval of the Singapore Model of Brexit? If so, fair enough, but you didn't make that clear. If you disapprove of the Singapore Model, what are your reasons for doing so, and what would your alternative model be?

I don't need to look back very far TheCat. You referred approvingly above to what you regarded as the positive 'facts' referenced by Keano77 in the article he posted about the benefits of a 'Singapore Model'.

I agree that most of the current 'debate' (if you can even call it that) has no basis in reality, it's more like a concocted fever dream. But actually I think it's important that we don't lump supporters of the Singapore Model, such as Keano77 and TheCat, into the same category as those, like Dulwich Fox, who favour the 'Swiss Model' of Soft Brexit. One of the problems with our current situation is the myth that all these radically contradictory models are, in some way, the same thing. That someone who favours shaking off the shackles of regulation is in some way 'on the same side' as someone who wants to live in a country that is tightly aligned with the EU, like Switzerland. That's one reason why none of the alternative scenarios is ever scrutinised adequately. Anyway, at least we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that we are living through the most exciting period for constitutional law since the 1640s.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you think of this country goes down that road > it will be good for the ordinary joe do you? I don't think the welfare of the general population is of particular interest to Keano77 and TheCat, Sephiroth. It seems they favour a low wage, low tax, low regulation, minimal welfare model of Brexit. In that case one should have the courage of one's convictions and argue openly for a more unfettered form of capitalism, not neglecting to admit what the consequences for the vast majority of the population will be. Incidentally I don't think Dulwich Fox would agree with them. He favours the 'Swiss model' of soft Brexit.

The BMJ have published a paper calling for a comprehensive health impact assessment of 'No Deal' to more fully inform both public and politicians. https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5300

So it seems that the Lord Advocate, Scotland's chief legal officer, has said the prorogation of Parliament amounts to an 'abuse of executive power'. I guess that'll be significant as the relevant legal cases progress, ultimately getting to the Supreme Court presumably, like the previous Brexit-related legal challenges.

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny, I suggest you read this article below: > > https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/15/inaccura > te-coverage-on-farming-in-a-no-deal-brexit/ > > And put down your copy of the Guardian which is > not at all non-biased in its reporting. > > Louisa. But that article is about the UK government's 'support' payments to UK farming and has nothing to do with the consequences for UK farming of zero tariffs on agricultural imports.

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John I beg to differ. > >You need to > read up on WTO rules, and the limited actions > possible to take by the EU in the event of such a > situation. Louisa. We do seem to be talking at cross purposes on this. No country currently only operates under WTO rules. There's a reason for that. Also you seem to think that it's EU or indeed WTO 'sanctions' that might dissuade the UK from reducing all its tariffs to zero, and if there are no such sanctions it would be in the UK's interests to do this. But such a reduction would flood the UK market with cheap imports that would kill off the farming industry overnight. No UK government will therefore do this. This means the 'open all the borders, cut all the tariffs' idea is not a serious one.

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny that?s not the case. We would continue to > trade with the rest of the world through existing > agreements on goods and services which would > include agricultural exports. > > Louisa. Which 'existing agreements' are those?

But Louisa, you were saying that the UK, under WTO terms, would decide to unilaterally drop all tariffs on the Irish Border. No it wouldn't. That would kill our own farming industry. Even if we didn't care about breaking the rules of an organisation (the WTO) in which Brexiters claim they wish to play a leading role in future.

Louisa. I see a couple of issues there. Firstly. No country in the world currently trades on WTO terms alone. There's a reason for that. Secondly, that wouldn't work on the Irish border. See attached. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/checks-on-both-sides-of-irish-border-mandatory-under-no-deal-brexit

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or is the body responsible for delivering foods > just ?conjecture? as well? > > Are they likely to know more about how food gets > to our table? Or do you know more? > > https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/goves-claim > -fresh-food-supplies-unaffected-by-no-deal-brexit- > categorically-untrue_uk_5d6bb55ce4b0cdfe05719d77 I think there must be people who have all their lives longed to say 'The British Retail Association?! Don't talk to me about the British Retail Association! What do they know about British Retail?!'. That's the only explanation I can come up with. This made me chuckle.

..PS to Louisa. Have you seen my query above about 'WTO terms'? Thanks.

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There really are some genuinely well respected > posters on here, people who often make good > balanced arguments, turning into complete doom > mongers over this issue. Not even based in fact, > pure conjecture. Very odd indeed. > > Louisa. Ah. What things 'not based in fact' have been said recently that you object to Louisa?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sephiroth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > prepared to put people through this for > decades? > > > > People will die. Be it because of resumption > of > > the troubles. Or food/medicine shortages > > > > And you won?t > > Hahaha. You really make me laugh. No, people > dieing doesn't make me laugh. Statements like the > above really do though. > > I don't know how you can even attempt to claim > balanced judgement with comments like this one. > Best of luck to you though. Do you have any friends or relatives on long term medication at all TheCat? If so, what are their views on this?