UK retailer John Lewis has issued a stark warning on the possible impact of a no-deal Brexit as the retail group reported a £25.9 million (€33 million) pretax loss before exceptionals for the first half of its financial year. “Should the UK leave the EU without a deal, we expect the effect to be significant and it will not be possible to mitigate that impact,” the partnership’s chairman, Charlie Mayfield, said in a statement. “We have ensured our financial resilience and taken steps to increase our foreign currency hedging, to build stock where that is sensible, and to improve customs readiness. However, Brexit continues to weigh on consumer sentiment at a crucial time for the sector as we enter the peak trading period.”
gooch2k9 wrote: » Out of interest, when is Mrs Merkel's "30 day deadline" up? Considering the UK have proposed no realistic alternatives to date.
VinLieger wrote: » It wasn't a real deadline, the UK rags seized upon a purposeful mistranslation of her basically saying "there's time enough to get things sorted in 30 days if we really want to" and turned it into "you have 30 days"
trellheim wrote: » The point about the SIEM is well made - there is no agreement on trading electricity in the intra-island market in a no-deal
Seth Brundle wrote: » I think Sept 20th (as they met on Aug 21st) but as mentioned, it isn't a deadline, just something the UK press incorrectly interpreted as one.
A Belfast High Court judge has rejected an application that it would be unlawful for the British government to leave the European Union without a deal.... ... He said there was no substance to the suggestion the United Kingdom would be acting unlawfully if it withdrew from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement. In his judgment, he referred to the “evolving, fluctuating and uncompleted Brexit saga”.
Leroy42 wrote: » I am staggered that there seems so little push back about the Yellowhammer document. From the bits on the media tht I have read and heard, the discussion seems to revolve around whether it is base or Worst case! Nobody seems to be outraged that Brexit has even the possibility of creating food shortages, price hikes, medicine shortages, massive tailbacks at the border. That a government can publish a document like this and the overall reaction amounts to little more than a shrug of the shoulders is baffling to me. "We are putting in place preparations to avoid these outcomes" seems to be the government line. But no-one, that I have heard, has asked for examples. How do they deal with the medicines? Is there a cost involved, how long will it continue, when it will return to pre-Brexit levels? When will the UK actually see the benefits of Brexit? What outcome can different parts of the public expect to see and when? Poor, middle class etc. Just yesterday the government rowed back on there visas for students (was 4 months now 2 years) so already immigration is going to go up.
EU offers Northern Ireland-only backstop - a deal they pedalled from the very start... THE European Union is ready to offer Boris Johnson the Northern Ireland-only backstop in a desperate bid to strike a Brexit deal.
Leroy42 wrote: » Nobody seems to be outraged that Brexit has even the possibility of creating food shortages, price hikes, medicine shortages, massive tailbacks at the border. That a government can publish a document like this and the overall reaction amounts to little more than a shrug of the shoulders is baffling to me.
trellheim wrote: » HERE WE GO FOLKS Trust the express to spin it like this as the EU caving... lads its a fking intervention to what you wanted originally.https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177064/brexit-news-irish-border-backstop-EU-deal-boris-johnson
Itssoeasy wrote: » The EU are offering is it ? The backstop is a solution to the red lines that the UK had and the backstop was suggested by the UK... wait for it first.
trellheim wrote: » Trust the express to spin it like this ]
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Everyone with sense already knew all of that. It is obvious. The reason folks are focusing on Base vs. Worst Case is because: 1) The Government are still lying 2) The real worst case is obviously much worse than this
correct horse battery staple wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/amber-rudd-proportional-representation-voting-system-speech-brexit While I don't agree with her history and politics, and realise PR would give nutters like BP a bigger say, Proportional representation is more democratic, and we have seen how the UK political system has failed.
Leroy42 wrote: » the government had claimed it was all 'project fear' and therefore a large amount of people see it as little more than a largely unlikely scenario.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Everyone with sense knew, just like everyone with sense knew the government were lying. The Brexiteers will continue to pretend not to know this stuff, when the reality is they knew all along but don't care as long as they get Brexit.
Infini wrote: » To be fair PR would mean the nutters like BP would only be able to have a more accurate amount of representation: ie small amount. It would not be able to do what the conservatives have done in the past and be able to have a majority with less than 40% of the vote. The UK system is badly in need of a reform ... and of course FPTP needs to be chucked in the bin as it's distorting the representation as well as disenfranchising voters in "safe seat" areas.