Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Winters · 20-12-2018 05:01PM

black forest wrote: »

Ian Dunt is putting the No Deal preparations of the EU in context:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12/20/eu-no-deal-plans-our-childish-outburst-has-put-us-at-their-m

"This material cannot be stockpiled, because of its short half life. It is uniquely vulnerable to transport disruption. Any blockage caused at Dover-Calais would essentially close down the tunnel for the transportation of nuclear material. "

All of the UK's isotopes come from Europe. That explanation about isotopes is just so scary

sKeith · 20-12-2018 05:19PM

black forest wrote: »

Ian Dunt is putting the No Deal preparations of the EU in context:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12/20/eu-no-deal-plans-our-childish-outburst-has-put-us-at-their-m

Looking at that there is no reason for the bexiteers to have a jolly good christmas. The EU is looking for itself and it’s members. The advantages for the UK are just a side effect. It will not prevent the chaos at Dover or other ports and all duties and custom procedures will take immediate effect.

As there is no chance for a second referendum before end of March and no chance of an election till then as well there are only three possibilities on the table.

Mays deal, revoking Article50 or No Deal Brexit.

As others have pointed out there might be a chance for a second referendum
and may be an election if the EU is willing to prolong the time limit shortly beyond March 2019. May be with the condition that the UK can’t take part within the upcoming elections for the EU parlament? If that is technically possible at all.

If May get her deal through HoC in January the backstop should be safe. Should the worst case happen i’m quite sure the the UK will fold within a few weeks and one of the first things the EU will ask for will be an absolute safe back stop before anything else will be on the table.

Of course i could be completely wrong.;)

This article has this.

We are heavily reliant on Europe for our supply of this material. It come predominantly from the Netherlands, where the parent element molybdenum-99 is produced. This has a half life of 66 hours. It is shipped across the Channel Tunnel at night, when it's quiet, goes to a UK distribution centre, and is sent out to hospitals. It is then used as Technetium-99m for medical purposes. At this stage it has a half life of just six hours. Time, in other words, is of the essence.

How does half-life of 66 hours change to a half-life of 6 hours?
It either halves in radioactivity every 66 hours or it halves in radioactivity every 6 hours.

I can't believe anything in thing in this article if they try to push this unscientific nonsense.

AlmightyCushion · 20-12-2018 05:24PM

sKeith wrote: »

This article has this.

How does half-life of 66 hours change to a half-life of 6 hours?
It either halves in radioactivity every 66 hours or it halves in radioactivity every 6 hours.

I can't believe anything in thing in this article if they try to push this unscientific nonsense.

The article is talking about 2 different elements. Technetium-99m has a half life of 6 hours. Molybdenum-99 has a half life of 66 hours.

Thatnastyboy · 20-12-2018 05:24PM

sKeith wrote: »

This article has this.

How does half-life of 66 hours change to a half-life of 6 hours?
It either halves in radioactivity every 66 hours or it halves in radioactivity every 6 hours.

I can't believe anything in thing in this article if they try to push this unscientific nonsense.

You should read it properly before calling it unscientific nonsense,

where the parent element molybdenum-99 is produced. This has a half life of 66 hours. It is shipped across the Channel Tunnel at night, when it's quiet, goes to a UK distribution centre, and is sent out to hospitals. It is then used as Technetium-99m for medical purposes. At this stage it has a half life of just six hours

ancapailldorcha · 20-12-2018 05:24PM

Ian Dunt seems a bit head-screwed-on to make such a silly error.

robinph · 20-12-2018 05:25PM

sKeith wrote: »

This article has this.

How does half-life of 66 hours change to a half-life of 6 hours?
It either halves in radioactivity every 66 hours or it halves in radioactivity every 6 hours.

I can't believe anything in thing in this article if they try to push this unscientific nonsense.

Because it is two different things they are talking about. Half life of 66 hours before processing, do whatever they do to make it into something else, then new thing has a half life of 6 hours.

Akrasia · 20-12-2018 05:25PM

sKeith wrote: »

This article has this.

How does half-life of 66 hours change to a half-life of 6 hours?
It either halves in radioactivity every 66 hours or it halves in radioactivity every 6 hours.

I can't believe anything in thing in this article if they try to push this unscientific nonsense.

Radioactive Isotopes decay into different isotopes which can have different half-lives

sKeith · 20-12-2018 05:31PM

robinph wrote: »

Because it is two different things they are talking about. Half life of 66 hours before processing, do whatever they do to make it into something else, then new thing has a half life of 6 hours.

okay, so either the 66 hour HL OR the 6 Hour HL will be subject to the border delays, but not both. If the processing of M99 is done in UK then the use of T99 is unaffected by the delays.

Dytalus · 20-12-2018 05:37PM

sKeith wrote: »

This article has this.

How does half-life of 66 hours change to a half-life of 6 hours?
It either halves in radioactivity every 66 hours or it halves in radioactivity every 6 hours.

I can't believe anything in thing in this article if they try to push this unscientific nonsense.

Molybdenum-99 has a half-life of 66 hours. During this time, technetium-99 is extracted, which is then converted into the isomer technetium-99m. Technetium-99m is the isomer with a 6 hour half life.

Hospitals themselves do not have the specialised equipment to perform this process, which is why the transport of these materials at the right stage in the right time is so critical. 99M (Molybdenum-99) is transported to sites which created 66mT (technetium-66m), and that is then sent on to the hospitals. After 6 hours, 66mT decays to 66T (technetium-66) which has a half life of 215,000 years, but is unusable for medical purposes because of its low activity.

I can see why any issue with transit would cause issues, though I'd imagine the UK has 66mT generators for itself. The main issue would be getting 99M to them in time before it decays into something else and becomes unusable. Therefore a delay in Calais would mean that stockpiles of 99M would be disrupted, further interrupting the production of 66mT. The UK cannot produce 66mT if 99M deliveries are interrupted, and while 99M has a long half life, once it has been used up in a generator, they have six hour time limit on the produce - and, therefore, a time limit on geting in new 99M to create more.

If 66mT is needed, it must be generated and immediately shipped off and used. It cannot be stored. If 99M deliveries are delayed, it will be difficult to time the importing of that material. They'd need housing to store it in large quantities. And that storage is causing issues with regular medicine, never mind something radioactive like 99M.

brickster69 · 20-12-2018 06:01PM

Nody wrote: »

No, all they need is for the existing derivatives to be cleared out and the new once opened in the relevant European legal entities that the banks have opened already. You appear to have missed the part were UK entities will not be allowed to sell any new products into EU; i.e. no new derivatives and EU will allow derivatives to be transferred from UK to a relevant EU regulated entity instead. That's exactly done to ensure minimal disruption while at the same time shutting down the derivative trade for EU countries in London; exactly the opposite of what your conclusion is.

Argh, so they just want to clear what is outstanding and then take all EU Derivatives and Euro clearing solely back to the EU's control. Then the City of London or anyone else cannot sell new products into the EU unless they are regulated by the EU ?

Leroy42 · 20-12-2018 06:12PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Argh, so they just want to clear what is outstanding and then take all EU Derivatives and Euro clearing solely back to the EU's control. Then the City of London or anyone else cannot sell new products into the EU unless they are regulated by the EU ?

But surely the CoL cannot allow that to happen. I'm not in that business area, and have very little knowledge or it, but surely it forms quite a sizeable part of the business of CoL.

I just cannot understand how the bank and investment houses are, seemingly, so quite about all of this.

demfad · 20-12-2018 06:21PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ian Dunt seems a bit head-screwed-on to make such a silly error.

It's not an error. The point is that you cant stockpile either of the substances.
You can't stockpile before processing, and you cant mitigate this by stock-piling after processing.

kalych · 20-12-2018 06:25PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely the CoL cannot allow that to happen. I'm not in that business area, and have very little knowledge or it, but surely it forms quite a sizeable part of the business of CoL.

I just cannot understand how the bank and investment houses are, seemingly, so quite about all of this.

Simple, they have all established subsidiaries (and moved staff as required) on the continent, that will take over the business of issuing new derivatives after their expiration. It will be largely seemless for them.

Leroy42 · 20-12-2018 06:28PM

kalych wrote: »

Simple, they have all established subsidiaries (and moved staff as required) on the continent, that will take over the business of issuing new derivatives after their expiration. It will be largely seemless for them.

Yes, I got that bit, but wouldn't that be a massive blow to both the GDP and tax take of the UK?

20-12-2018 06:34PM

I've put money on it ending up as a Remain. This thread has kind of lost the run of itself believing it will be a no deal.

Parliament won't let it happen. Article 50 will be rescinded. The UK will see no inward investment for a generation while all money flows out in case something like this gets triggered again.

Just my thoughts, but the amendment by Grieves seems to tally up with that I'm saying.

J Mysterio · 20-12-2018 06:38PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've put money on it ending up as a Remain. This thread has kind of lost the run of itself believing it will be a no deal.

Parliament won't let it happen. Article 50 will be rescinded. The UK will see no inward investment for a generation while all money flows out in case something like this gets triggered again.

Just my thoughts, but the amendment by Grieves seems to tally up with that I'm saying.

I'm not sure we have agreed a collective position on this. Either way, anything is possible.

I wouldnt bet on remain though. I think it will be May's Deal which wins the argument.

FreudianSlippers · 20-12-2018 06:38PM

breatheme wrote: »

If they call for one tomorrow then I'll eat my words but I don't see either happening because the ERG will still continue to back the government to avoid its collapse and May has taken the cowardly position of delaying the vote on her deal as late as possible. If there's a GE/2ndRef it'll probably be called in February.

There won't be a GE/Referendum until after May's deal is shot down.

Nody · 20-12-2018 06:40PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Argh, so they just want to clear what is outstanding and then take all EU Derivatives and Euro clearing solely back to the EU's control. Then the City of London or anyone else cannot sell new products into the EU unless they are regulated by the EU ?

Correct; which is why the banks have been rushing to set up EU entities in various countries to ensure they are allowed to continue selling their products in EU countries. The difference now being that a) they are under EU (not UK) control and b) the legal entity issuing will change on the derivative. It's the b) part that would cause problem on March 30th since the contracts would be potentially null & void (i.e. the contract is no longer valid & enforceable in EU as the legal entity that issued it is no longer allowed to carry out the trade at the specified date beyond March 29th on behalf of it's EU customers as it's no longer certified to provide services in EU) which would cause a huge disruption. By giving a year for them to expire and an option to move longer once into EU entities they get around most of the problem while ensuring the future control of them under a suitable controlling entity.

brickster69 · 20-12-2018 07:17PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely the CoL cannot allow that to happen. I'm not in that business area, and have very little knowledge or it, but surely it forms quite a sizeable part of the business of CoL.

I just cannot understand how the bank and investment houses are, seemingly, so quite about all of this.

The tax earned by HMG is approx £600 Million as the COL is just a middleman between two parties basically earning commission. However in case one part defaults on a contract the UK as a whole (taxpayers) are liable to cover the risks.

Problem that comes about is that any company wanting to trade in EU products will have to set up EU entities. This will apply not just to the UK but all global financial institutions which no doubt will be reciprocated by the whole ****..g world in order for EU companies to access any Global products.

Kermit.de.frog · 20-12-2018 07:36PM

Peter Foster (who has been more than fair to Ireland in his reporting) of the Telegraph not impressed at all with the government's preparedness document

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1075814562644017152

UsedToWait · 20-12-2018 07:43PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Peter Foster (who has been more than fair to Ireland in his reporting) of the Telegraph not impressed at all with the government's preparedness document

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1075814562644017152

I reckon there's much more planning, particularly around the border, not included in this document, going on Coveney's remarks today.

The Irish government can't let the position slip from no hard border, until there is no other option.

oscarBravo · 20-12-2018 07:49PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Peter Foster (who has been more than fair to Ireland in his reporting) of the Telegraph not impressed at all with the government's preparedness document

I'm not sure it's entirely fair of him to criticise the lack of detail of hard border preparations. It's such an incredibly sensitive topic that, assuming there are contingency plans in place for border checks, they would quite probably not be published at this stage.

serfboard · 20-12-2018 07:50PM

UsedToWait wrote: »

I reckon there's much more planning, particularly around the border, not included in this document, going on Coveney's remarks today.

The Irish government can't let the position slip from no hard border, until there is no other option.

Yep. Crash-Out = hard border. There Is No Alternative.

The Irish Government can't be showing its full hand now. It doesn't want to give ammunition (:o) to DUPers or dissidents.

brickster69 · 20-12-2018 08:36PM

serfboard wrote: »

Yep. Crash-Out = hard border. There Is No Alternative.

The Irish Government can't be showing its full hand now.

The Irish Government has no hand, it has given its cards to another player . :pac::pac::pac:

briany · 20-12-2018 08:36PM

serfboard wrote: »

Yep. Crash-Out = hard border. There Is No Alternative.

The Irish Government can't be showing its full hand now. It doesn't want to give ammunition (:o) to DUPers or dissidents.

Man, the ERG must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of Ireland having to erect a border. It's a political win several layers deep for them.

- The UK could basically get to erecting their own border the next day. They can say, "Ah, well, we *were* committed to preserving the GFA, but Ireland already breached it, so no use crying over spilt milk."

- They can use the case of Ireland having to erect a border as the EU telling little countries what to do, even when it violates hitherto successful peace deals. Sows a few more seeds of Euro-scepticism around the place.

- Gives them a nice clean exit from the EU. No faffing around or worrying about WTO's Most Favoured Nations Rule.

- It's the result the DUP wants. Keeps them well onside and participating in the current government's C&S deal.

murphaph · 20-12-2018 08:45PM

brickster69 wrote: »

The Irish Government has no hand, it has given its cards to another player . :pac::pac::pac:

It was good enough for the UK for nigh on half a century.

murphaph · 20-12-2018 08:48PM

briany wrote: »

Man, the ERG must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of Ireland having to erect a border. It's a political win several layers deep for them.

- The UK could basically get to erecting their own border the next day. They can say, "Ah, well, we *were* committed to preserving the GFA, but Ireland already breached it, so no use crying over spilt milk."

- They can use the case of Ireland having to erect a border as the EU telling little countries what to do, even when it violates hitherto successful peace deals. Sows a few more seeds of Euro-scepticism around the place.

- Gives them a nice clean exit from the EU. No faffing around or worrying about WTO's Most Favoured Nations Rule.

- It's the result the DUP wants. Keeps them well onside and participating in the current government's C&S deal.

And the car park on the M20 and empty shelves? The UK can't escape the fact it imports 40% of its food. Most of this comes from the EU.

CelticRambler · 20-12-2018 08:49PM

briany wrote: »

Man, the ERG must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of Ireland having to erect a border. It's a political win several layers deep for them.

- The UK could basically get to erecting their own border the next day. They can say, "Ah, well, we *were* committed to preserving the GFA, but Ireland already breached it, so no use crying over spilt milk."

- They can use the case of Ireland having to erect a border as the EU telling little countries what to do, even when it violates hitherto successful peace deals. Sows a few more seeds of Euro-scepticism around the place.

- Gives them a nice clean exit from the EU. No faffing around or worrying about WTO's Most Favoured Nations Rule.

Oh, I think that nice clean exit from the EU would suddenly look a bit too clean if anyone on the UK side started gloating about Ireland being forced to put up border controls. Those helpful concession for planes, trains and automobiles announced yesterday, for example, might suddenly disappear and today's chaos in Gatwick would become the new normal for every airport (and Ashford International/Ebbsfleet/St. Pancras stations).

briany · 20-12-2018 08:51PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Oh, I think that nice clean exit from the EU would suddenly look a bit too clean if anyone on the UK side started gloating about Ireland being forced to put up border controls. Those helpful concession for planes, trains and automobiles announced yesterday, for example, might suddenly disappear and today's chaos in Gatwick would become the new normal for every airport (and Ashford International/Ebbsfleet/St. Pancras stations).

It wouldn't be the official UK line, of course, but I'd say MPs like Peter Bone couldn't help themselves. Theresa May would be coming with the usual lines about being committed to forging a close future relationship and all that. May, for her part, can be seen to tut-tut over any untoward comments.

UsedToWait · 20-12-2018 08:53PM

briany wrote: »

Man, the ERG must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of Ireland having to erect a border. It's a political win.

I'm not being smart, and I'm not advocating it, but they'll get fairly cheesed off with checking under their cars every morning, if they're not careful.

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments