Pumps run dry at gas stations in Britain
reuters.com
reuters.com
What concerns me is government planning to address this looks a lot more forward looking than a few days/a week, so I can see it getting worse.
Interesting how the government say it’s not a shortage, if the refineries were running low you wouldn’t say there’s no shortage as there’s plenty of crude lying under the sea bed. If I can’t buy petrol at the pump then for all intents and purposes it is a shortage.
I feel like there’s a chance here there is a systemic issue and “panic buyers” are a convenient scape goat as I think most people are just filling up to the top instead of half way, or going a little earlier than they would otherwise. No actors doing this would class themselves as panic buyers, but there’s a lot of vitriol and anger towards the concept of a panic buyer which is a convenient diversion away from other causes.
Workers aren't prevented from travelling because of Covid restrictions, but Visa restrictions do apply. Also it's not a good prospect to move to a country where you feel like you are on some kind of a migratory ejection seat...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...
This is widely reported across a number of publications
Somehow it seems on these forums that any left leaning publication is immediately trusted but any right leaning one immediately distrusted.
The companies blame visa rules because they don't want to pay staff more. It is that simple (what people don't understand, even in the UK, these stories are all coming from a lobbying group of haulers...not drivers, the people who are having to pay staff more and are very angry about doing so, they just want the cheap labour back).
One of the companies that has had persistent shortages for months is a bread producer making £30m/year, they have 150 driver vacancies. I know someone who talked to a hiring manager there, they pay below market, they are experiencing massive attrition, when he asked what pay rises they were offering...2%, "the rise is satisfactory, workers should be happy"...meanwhile other firms are paying 10-30% raises, some HGV drivers are being retained on £50-60k salaries (this producer pays people £27k for multi-drop, starting at 2am, I believe it is mostly class 2 but their wages are a fantasy). Some firms in the UK have glutted themselves on cheap labour. They have no idea how to operate any other way (and btw, this bread producer is throwing away product every day because they don't have drivers, at no point have they tried to raise wages, they believe the low wage labour will return it seems).
Reminiscent of Teresa May's "magic money tree" comment
This problem has been brewing for decades as the jobs have been outsourced to low cost countries and the drivers mercilessly exploited. Now that some economies have improved and COVID has hit a lot of those drivers are either unavailable or simply unwilling to travel so far and so long in horrible working conditions for so little reward.
Society needs to recalibrate the value of workers who do manual work. There really is no good reason why the average software developer should be paid more than an HGV driver while enjoying much better working conditions.
See https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Software_Developer/..., https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Heavy_%2F_Tractor-T..., https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Delivery_Driver/Hou...
There really is. Computers will blindly obey orders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and can be scaled pretty much indefinitely. So those capable of giving computers orders are in a position to do a large amount of important work, with little effort.
Truck drivers can only do a relatively small amount of work at a given time. Trucks have a limit to the volume of weight they can carry, and the speeds that they may travel to carry it. Thus, their work per hour is capped to a very modest amount. Since there's no real efficiencies to be gained, the only way to improve wages for drivers is to increase the cost of goods by a proportional amount.
Replacing fuel delivery via truck with fuel delivery via pipeline would make things much more efficient, but seems like a waste of resources given that EVs are taking off.
It's not fair, but it is reality. Any profession whose labor cannot be augmented by technological efficiencies is likely going to face the same economic realities. They either go up-market and serve only those who can pay reasonable prices for their services, they get their wages and status slashed in a cut-throat environment, or they are displaced by an inferior, machine-driven replacement.
There are a number of factors at play including delayed testing because of covid, relatively low wages, and perhaps drivers shifting to more local deliveries e.g. supermarkets post covid due to changing demand. I was speaking to a taxi driver who said the taxi industry was being decimated by this
Those are Human beings that have to be, in essence, "stolen away" from another job, in the case of high school graduates (or whatever you call them) from another potential career. That's why wage isn't the magic wand many people believe it to be. If one industry increases wages (provided they can afford it), another gets the short stick. Unless you "steal" workers from other countries. As the UK did/does successfully for example with health workers...
So yes, while there is a wider issue, the wider issue is not the current problem or the high-order bit.
Note also that UGKOV plans to address the driver shortage by offering to ease restrictions on non UK-based (i.e. EU) drivers.
So yes, this is totally due to Brexit.
Hard to imagine why they might not be jumping at the chance to spend another Xmas with no access to sanitation or even food in a place that is run by people who abuse them publicly every day
Yes, though Europe is a larger "network." I think it's a bit like Metcalfe's law. Even if the EU has similar shortages of labor or goods, the larger number of citizens and companies allows things to flow to and from wherever they're needed more easily. The UK is now a separate far smaller system no longer plugged into that larger network.
- There is only really a "shortage" of about 100-150 tanker drivers in the entire country.
- The petrol shortage was caused by aforementioned hauliers association deliberately telling the press that there was about to be a massive fuel shortage. That wasn't true but triggered panic buying, provoking an artificial "crisis" that was used (successfully) to put pressure on the government to issue some visas to eastern European truckies.
- There are more vacancies for HGV drivers, but that's mostly due to a lockdown-induced backlog at the driver licensing authority, combined with many people who have HGV licenses not wanting to drive due to poor pay and conditions.
- Brexit isn't the cause of this (which at any rate came into effect at the start of the year), except via a rather tortuous route ... the people at the RHA who manipulated the public through the press are all notoriously and outspokenly anti-Brexit, and they unfortunately have a history of leaking, in fact their press guy is a former BBC journalist already known to the government for prior leaking. BBC is of course notoriously anti-Brexit culturally. Therefore it is very likely these people saw an opportunity to both make money by getting access back to cheap labour whilst simultaneously winning a propaganda victory by convincing everyone to blame Brexit.
- And in fact Brexit has allowed the government to rapidly adjust the criteria for licensing HGV drivers to help clear the backlog, which wouldn't otherwise have been possible under EU rules.
So that's the official line at the moment.
Lots of truck drivers have left the industry after suffering years of poor pay and conditions. The licencing scheme is not so simple that they can return on a whim either.
The resulting media-fuelled spate of panic buying overloaded normal delivery cycles.
There is plenty of product stored at the ports/refineries themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kkRX2p9wH4
..how is the government supposed to manage this? The messages have been "just buy fuel normally" - but people are ignoring it. It's the same problem as happened with toilet paper, people will start hording whatever is now limited.
I'm confused, can't they just fill up jerry cans, or if garages aren't allowing this, just siphon the fuel out of the car at home?
I live in the American south and we had a gas shortage like this in the spring due to a ransomware attack. There were pictures on social media of people trying to fill up all sorts of nonstandard containers ranging from buckets to grocery bags (yep). But I think the people who would buy gas cans for this, or try such silly alternative storage methods, are a minority and most won't expend the effort to pursue additional storage capacity beyond their vehicle's tank.
I can't remember if this applies to limits you can transport in a vehicle or if it applies to storage at a home/work location as well.
Well, zero more likely.
Daddy Government will always provide, of course.
Didn't the Colonial Pipeline attack have people filling up plastic bags with gas?
Cue fire brigade level intervention!
BP met with the govt on Thursday, they said that supply levels were roughly at the level they had been since the start of the summer, low but manageable. Allegedly, they said they were only closing 10 or their 1,200 locations. They also said stock was low below normal levels.
Someone leaked this information to the media for the Thursday night news (it is very unlikely that it was anyone but the RHA). The person who did this left out several important details, in particular the fact that BP planned to close almost no locations. BP briefed the media later they were closing 20 (it was assumed initially that they were behind the leaks as the initial report was that the meeting was lobbying to lift visa rules, it seems not to have been the case). Other retailers briefed they had no issues with stock at all. Too late.
And the reason why people suspect the RHA is because they have been lobbying aggressively for most of this year to change visa rules. Visa rules were changed for them a few hours after this all kicked off (they also did poultry workers, this group have been working closely with RHA on lobbying)...this alone should suggest who is responsible.
RHA are, however, not backing down. This is not surprising as they are traditionally one of the most combative lobbying groups (the BMA is the other, SMMT has quietened down, NFU is combative but prefers to operate in the shadows when they are in govt). But, given that their lobbying has been successful, it is notable that they are continuing to push hard for further concessions (their line has modified ever so slightly though, they are talking about improving conditions...although they still sound quite angry that some HGV drivers are being offered £50k packages).
Unfortunately, lobbyists have worked out they have the media and the public in the palm of their hands. The outrage cycle in the UK has become rapid. After May folded to Nissan/SMMT (another lobbying group), lobbyists have realised there is a lot of money in briefing aggressively against the govt with a very pliant media (the RHA has been most aggressive by far, and has aligned itself with the big food lobbyists too). Brexit is inevitably part of this: 95% of journalists voted Remain, and there is a subset of the population who read a lot of news and talk about nothing but Brexit (if you are from the US, it is basically: what Trump did to Dems, what Obama did to Reps...it is non-stop).
EDIT: I made an error. The actual date of the govt meeting is not clear. Shapps may have said it was ten days ago, I am sure I read somewhere else it was on Thursday...I don't know. If it was ten days ago, that is obviously...unusual because the leak, most likely, wasn't accidental but premeditated. BP have completely washed their hands of it and claimed they weren't operating in the media on Friday morning...I don't quite believe that.
What? This is a stocks and flows problem. If everyone filled up to the brim every time, but followed the same pattern of use otherwise, the weekly fuel consumed is exactly the same (modulo some tiny loss of efficiency due to cars being marginally heavier).
Of course a nation of half-full cars suddenly filling them to the brim demands much more fuel during the (short) period of time over which they make that transition, but that shouldn't create an expectation of drastically increased future _consumption_ of fuel.
That assumes people fill up every week. Not everyone does, it really depends on the amount of driving they do and size of their tank.
> Of course a nation of half-full cars suddenly filling them to the brim demands much more fuel during the (short) period of time over which they make that transition, but that shouldn't create an expectation of drastically increased future _consumption_ of fuel.
Isn't that what's being stated? That there's no actual industry shortage, just a short term shortage and demand spiked unexpectedly for a day or two but to such a degree that the normal per-station reserves and delivery cycle was unable to cope? The expected result would be that the following days or even weeks (to a lesser degree) would see reduced demand, since it's less an increase or decrease in demand overall but really just a shift of some future demand to the present.
But to the broader point, perhaps I misread. I fixated on the ‘cannot be kept up with’ bit which I read as implying a change in expected future consumption, but I see could also be read as a referring specifically to the demand shock.
The biggest problem imo is that any time just about any government official in any country in any continent anywhere on the planet says trust us there is no need to panic people cast their minds back to the previous times they have heard that and (rather naturally) go 'Yeah, right!' and so think to themselves 'better safe than sorry'.
The UK gov has done a U-Turn and said that they will grant 5000 temporary work visas to EU HGV drivers .... that expire on Christmas Eve. Quelle surprise the take up rate has been rather low.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but are you referring to vehicles in this context? Is it not common to always fill your tank to the top?
Of course if you can't afford a full tank, and are living hand to mouth each month/week, then you are in the poverty trap where everything is a percentage more expensive for you overall.
Found this[1] from a quick search.
[1] https://www.carsforsale.com/how-to/5-simple-reasons-to-keep-....
Very nice calculation. The results were that by filling up two half tanks as opposed to fully topping off one can get an extra 3.5 kms, albeit with a time penalty for going twice to the gas station. Hardly worh it as just making the round trip to the gas station would probably eat up those kms. To this I would add the wear and tear on the car by having it run longer with a nearly empty tank, something which is not recommnded.
Also, it's very common to buy round amounts of value e.g. £30 of petrol, periodically, rather than just fill it up for however much that costs, for some people this makes it easier to think about from a budget point of view.
The fill it up to the brim meme seems to come from emergency preparedness folks like the police and the army where no vehicle goes to the parking space overnight without being 100% as ready as it can be for tomorrow.
Much fewer proportion of people are driving those peugots or other tiny cars where the weight of fuel would be material relative to the time it would take to fill up fuel more often.
Another British thing that amazed me was their auto insurance prices were based on engine size, and they were fretting about the insurance cost between 2L and 3L cars, and all the vehicles we had in America were 4L+.
In 2019, the average new petrol ("gas") car in the UK requires 5.7 l of fuel per 100 km (49.2 mpg) [1].
The corresponding figure for the US is ~9.44 l/100km (24.9 mpg [2,3]).
We really, really need to decarbonise our economy worldwide and in many ways this fuel scare may be the catalyst required, with UK autotrader saying it was driving people to e-car retailers [4].
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/energy-a...
[2] https://www.iea.org/reports/fuel-consumption-of-cars-and-van...
[3] https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2021/sep/27/uk-pet...
The spoils of a government that does not have a high fossil fuel tax.
My most recent car was 1.1L and was fine for anything I used it for...
I do agree that basing insurance on engine capacity is odd though. Why not power to weight ratio or something?
Do European cars have gigantic fuel tanks?
40kgs is 40 / 0.71kg/L = 56.3L ~= 14.9 gallons.
14.9 gallons is as much, or more than any car I own carries. And I've never put more than 13 gallons into any vehicle ever during a single fill up.
To have that kind of "spare" capacity beyond what would be necessary for my daily commute, I'd need to be driving a large SUV or pickup truck.
I looked up a 3 Series BMW, and they have 40L or 57L tanks in the new models. Down from 60 or so 10 years ago.
I feel like 20kgs is a more accurate number. And that's really the difference between a small woman and a medium sized man driving the same vehicle.
I guess the question is how much does moving 20kg extra cost you over 20k km?
I always fill to the brim, as I value my time more than the incremental value that half a tank of gas will do for me. Obviously it's not the same for everyone.
But so far this has happened 0 times since I have a car.
The main ideas are not to step on the gas pedal more than say, 30%, and use the smallest car for the job.
Besides, you don't want your fuel aging more than 6 or 12 months. So, if you drive less than 40 miles per month (as in a pandemic), it can make sense to just fill up 1/2 way or 3/4.
Building a small financial buffer would likely improve their situation a great deal. It seems likely that it isn't always the case that the lack of buffer is a choice...
Jokes apart, in Europe the gasoline is so expensive that you need ~80€ to fill up a small car. For an SUV can be close to 100€.
So we just fill up to just what is absolutely necessary and then we live in anxiety :)
When we lived in Europe in the 90s, my mother would never fill up past a quarter tank.
Many times youth is also splitting gasoline costs for a night out, so everyone will chip in 2-3€ to pour enough gasoline.
But if you supposed that everyone drove normally until their tank was 1/8 full then refuelled to the top, the average tank would be 7/16 full so if lots of people refuel all at once that is 9/16 times a lot of fuel tanks.
Luckily I don't have to be concerned with what someone who can't notice that believes: it falls to you to explain why there are so many lightweighting products on the market. Why do BMW offer a carbon roof that reduces weight by 5kg? Why did pre-refill-ban F1 only do partial refills? Why do rally co-drivers sit lower than the drivers?
Sorry, extremely minor nit-pick but I think the fractions go the other way. The average tank should be 9/16 full leading to 7/16 of a tank extra per person.
Depends. When I am in a hurry I buy fuel for an exact amount of cash, so that I can hand over cash and move on.
When I am not, I fill up to the first click[1], and then wait for the attendant to amble on over with a payment terminal so I can use my card.
If I was always paying cash, I would never fill up because I don't really want to hang about while they make change for whatever money I give them. [1] I had a 1986 BMW 525e that, if you filled up to the very top, will leak out excess fuel through an overfill pipe when on a slight (or not so slight) incline. Filling up to the top wasted that fuel.
Lately far too many of these playbooks have been focused on suppressing the systemic mistreatment of the working class. Fuel isn't running low because we can't find enough truck drivers due to systemic underpayment and overwork; its low because people are panic buying. Schools cant find enough teachers not because of underpayment and overwork; its because of right-wing pushback against mask mandates, people are scared to return to the classroom. Hospital ICUs aren't overflowing because of a critical care staff shortage due to systemic underpayment and overwork; its because of the unvaccinated.
The unfortunate reality is, these public relations control strategies work because there is some element of truth to Their explanation. Rarely do problems boil down to one solution; and if They can keep focus on the one, small element of the problem that encourages Us to stay mad at each-other, They don't have to worry about solving the systemic issues, built-up over decades, which anyone with half a brain could have seen coming.
Man, I can smell the schadenfreude from all the way over here.
"A fifth of all EU border checks are now happening in Northern Ireland, the government has said."
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/unsustainable...
There is a distinct possibility that the EU is being vindictive
With time countries usually end up passing treaties to make these regular passings easier. When you are a country newly enforcing the Schengen border it’s a high faff affair and closely scrutinized.
I remember when Slovenia first got the border it caused huge problems and long delays.
The checks are at the ports in NI, the whole point of the agreement between the EU and UK was to avoid any checks at the land border between NI and the Irish Republic.
Would they try to force migrant workers to work in the UK, even against applicable UK law?
Other EU politicians have been quite diplomatic and friendly during the whole thing. A lot unlike a certain Prime Minister from a former EU member I could name.
It makes travelling in the EU harder, let alone it risks upsetting the Ireland situation. You can expect an international audience to disapprove.
The electoral commission went to great lengths and expense to find any wrong doing and came up with nothing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20...
Edit: Rant alert: It really irks me that the people who call the Brexit election unfair, don't seem to acknowledge that Britain was never given any kind of referendum when joining the EU
"Although the United Kingdom ratified the treaty in Parliament, this was not without some opposition. Broadly the governing Labour party supported the treaty, while the opposition Conservatives did not. The Liberal Democrats supported the treaty, while calling for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU as a whole.[119] Several 'Eurosceptic' MPs called for a referendum on the ratification of the treaty. Daniel Hannan pointed out that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair had twice promised a referendum on the matter, to which Blair replied that he had promised a referendum on the European Constitution rather than the Lisbon Treaty, which unlike the former was not a constitutional treaty.[120] In early October 2007, the Commons' European Scrutiny Committee had found that the treaty was "substantially equivalent" to the rejected constitution.[121]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_...
There's a handy dropdown that lets you pick the lie you want to explore.
EDIT: I replied to the wrong comment accidentally due to the delayed rendering from an HN helper extension I use, my apologies. I can't delete the comment once someone has replied to it.
Given what we know about Russian interference in other elections, it would be strange if Putin said "Nah, let's sit this one out..."
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-lea...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-...
The organisation (Vote Leave) withdrew their appeal, and paid the fine.
"Never given any kind of referendum" is far fetched.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
So no, the UK joined the EU in 2009.
Also note:
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE; commonly referred to as the European Constitution or as the Constitutional Treaty) was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas which had previously been decided by unanimity among member states.
The Treaty was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the then 25 member states of the European Union. It was later ratified by 18 member states, which included referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg. However, the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end.
Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but, instead of repealing and replacing the existing treaties, simply amended them and abandoned the idea of a single codified constitution. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.
So it was initially reject, some cosmtetic changes were made and it was shoe-horned through. Hardly what I would call democratic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...
The "European Union" as an entity came into existence at the time of the Maastricht Treaty (aka Treaty on European Union), and the UK was a signatory to that treaty. That was in 1992.
Could you explain why you think 2009 is the relevant date?
While we did have a referendum to join the EEC, I maintain that the EEC served a very different purpose (being a trade based agreement) to the EU.
The Treaty of Maastricht was passed by parliament, though was never put to the public vote.
The subsequent treaty of Lisbon and consolidation of the EU had no public vote either.
Brexit was a public vote.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if the other two had been put to the vote
When it’s half the country each way, you’re going to get a lot of people with very different ideas on what they voted for even at the best of times; with two different competing leave campaigns and shockingly inept government communications on the topic, it’s even worse.
[0] I’ve tried to engage with someone who blamed “the EU” for Russia annexing the Ukraine.
You mean someone blamed the EU for what Russia did under Catherine the Great (or whenever it was they originally annexed the Ukraine), or you mean someone blamed the EU for Russia annexing Crimea in 2014?
You're right that there was no referendum for the Treaty of Maastricht which formally created "the European Union", but I think that places undue significance on that single event in terms of the trajectory of the European communities.
Personally, I don't think the Brexit referendum was unfair (what does that even mean?).
I do think that "the Brexit that was voted for" (i.e. the Leave platform) was quite different from "the Brexit that we got", and I therefore have some sympathy with those who ask for another vote. Whether the difference between the two versions of Brexit is down to deliberate lies, misunderstanding of the scope and complexity, wrong expectations about the ease of concluding agreements with trade partners, I cannot even begin to guess.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w...
Conclusion: Leave.EU was ultimately fined £66,000 in total after their appeal.
Vote Leave Ltd:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w...
Conclusion: commission found evidence, issued fines, most significant fines appealed, commission lost appeal and paid costs.
Investigation into payments made to Better for the Country and Leave.EU:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w...
Conclusion: The Commission had reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency, who investigated and found not much.
They lost their appeal but the Chairman of the Electoral Commission aplogised, and the Met found nothing
The specific offence was that there was collusion between BeLeave and Vote Leave which ultimately meant that money spent by BeLeave was actually supporting Vote Leave's campaign, which was not lawful.
Both 'parties' were fined - Vote Leave and BeLeave/Darren Grimes.
The judge who overturned Grimes's fine did not pass judgement on whether the spending was lawful or not.
The appeal was upheld based on the ruling that the Electoral Commission had not properly done their homework to prove BeLeave's legal status, or justify the maximum fine permissible for Grimes - essentially a procedural error, rather than a factual error.
As an EU citizen I’m sorry that UK left. And I do hope that things will not get much worse in the UK, though I fear they might.
I do think that brexit is the biggest self-inflicted harm a country has voluntarily done to itself in a really long time.
As someone who lives in the UK, I agree.
And Schadenfreude isn’t punishment.
- Their political opponents have spent months dismissing their concerns as scaremongering.
- Many would still like us to rejoin the EU at some point. So it makes sense to point out the advantages of doing so.
There is just too much national pride around this move, and the British political system is so thoroughly messed up that it will take one or two leadership generations for them to come to their senses. They can hardly manage the exit, the Reintegration would be even harder.
It seems unlikely. I would say it is more likely that being outside the EU leads to more euroscepticism among the young. Perceiving the sharp end of EU incompetence - triggering article 16 without even informing Ireland - or malice, such as seizing vaccines and the whole propagandistic negative portrayal of the UK during the vaccine rollout in the EU - has already led many a former remainer to think that the EU is not the most fantastic of institutions.
It is certainly true that there are many in the EU keen to paint every minor event as some sort of disaster for the UK. They will gladly ignore the wider context of the pandemic, of driver shortages in the EU as well, of this being a purely manufactured demand-side panic buy "shortage" - to gleefully jump up and down shouting about the UK being self harming and it is all 100% brexit. It really comes across as deceitful propaganda I am afraid - and people take note and the EU loses its shine bit by bit.
I always thought the Brexit vote should have required a supermajority.
After the Suez Crisis in 1953 it was clear to the British establishment that the US would put its own interests first over its allies, and the UK was a busted flush as a world power. Without its empire its only future was as a "first among equals" in the European project.
It spent the next two decades trying to get into the EU (or EEC as it was then) despite objections from Charles de Gaulle and domestic opposition on both sides of the aisle. But by the early 70s it was clear that Britain was not only no longer a world power, but was unable to keep the lights on. The Common Market - plus North Sea oil - was the lifeline.
Now the UK is back where it was in the 70s, only this time the North Sea oil wells are running dry and it is out of the EU with no prospect of joining soon, having trashed relations with its closest neighbours.
Years, not months. Pretty much all concerns about Brexit were dismissed as being Project Fear.
And the point of "net transfers" is to build up markets in less developed parts of Europe. No European country benefits from what is happening in Poland right now.
Not nice, and I dislike the guy but I found the quote somewhat funny.
The laughing and snide comments are just A) Schadenfreude at being so stupid as to ask for that "punishment", and B) intense annoyance growing into anger at the fuckwittery of whining about "punishment" for getting what one asked for.
As such, it's all utterly well-deserved IMO.
It has to be said though, that the EU did go to great lengths to try to find some kind of common ground that would leave much of the entitlements in place (as a matter of self-interest of course, as these amounted to business for various EU states) - to which the HMG responded with V-signs and blowing loud Benny-Hill raspberries.
To trade across international borders you have to have agreements, and you can't have an agreement with somebody who openly flouts the rules at every given opportunity.
I wouldn't be relying on your neighbours' nativist agendas to drive some sort of "free trade" angle either cause nativism typically favours tariffs.
Particularly when people were screaming at the tops of their lungs, “There’s a lot of absolutely fundamental societal wide issues that should be considered…”
There is nothing shocking here.
Yep! This is exactly the kind of sentiment I was talking about.
No, you were talking about "smug" EU remainers / still-in-the-EU citizens, weren't you? The people who "voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party" are the Brexiteers.
I've been trying to read into the causes and dont feel like I've come to understand it any better. I'm tempted to see it as part of the broader supply chain crisis but I get the impression its a little different.
Then again I'm not sure I understand why the broader supply chain disruption is as pervasive as it is at this point in time.
There is no direct link to the spikes in energy prices.
They are clearly struggling. And even if Brexit is only 10% of the problem, they run into the fact that it's key to central government policy to portray Brexit as successful, and so you mustn't mention that element.
That said, my local large Tesco had a small few aisles completely empty - yoghurts I think, and some fruit and veg.
Clearly not an apocalyptic situation, and much better than the Great Toilet Tissue Shortage, but unsettling nonetheless.
The continued staff shortages would seem to mean that it's not simply an issue of pay, and there aren't enough Brits willing to do those jobs.
From what I've read (and take this with a pinch of salt) there are a lot of licensed HGV drivers in the UK who don't drive anymore, with common reasons being long, unsociable working hours, management that treat you like dirt, shitty rules around where they can park to take rest stops with substandard (typical everywhere in the UK...) facilities, and pay that hasn't risen in decades.
This, combined with not enough younger folk taking up the job, along with Brexit, has led to a shortage
The easily exploitable workers aren't available anymore, so the companies who exploited them will have to change their exploitation habits if they want to fill their positions from the remaining labour pool.
Of course a landed citizen isn't going to sign up to be treated unfairly if they don't have to, they're not as desperate and therefore not as exploitable. I imagine they're reading the terms of employment on these positions with disgust, and so they should.
And if, lets say, the corporations will now have to pay double for UK citizens to drive the gas delivery trucks. Wouldn't that raise the gas prices quite considerably?
The world outside the UK is working pretty well with labor import. Even a certain US ex-president was speaking about how bad it was, while he was requesting hundreds of low cost work visas for his vineyards (got to keep costs low...)
This suggests that doubling the pay of the truck drivers would make a much less than 2% increase in pump prices.
Sure, cities will be wealthier than the regions, but ultimately a city in Romania and a city in sweden, infrastructure and education being also equalised through structural funds, should present equal opportunities.
Completely disregarding the language barriers, which are quite extensive so practically freedom of movement would be easy for corporations to use the benefits but not the wider population even if you neglect family ties.
These questions need to be answered and I don't think the educational elite has an answer without painting flowery pictures not too many might be inclined to believe.
Most people in the UK are very supportive of HGV drivers finally being paid a fair wage. It is unfortunate that political leaders side so quickly with large corporations (although not surprising in Germany, it isn't usual in the UK, the public won't take it).
E.g. stop publishing photos of queueing cars and cordoned off pumps and report purely on the statistics of the matter. Too many media outlets are entirely hell bent on getting clicks without a care for the furore they induce in the general public as a result.
Social media does of course amplify the messages and images the media put out, so they compound the issue.
Or put another way, fear & outrage buy.
What narrative around Brexit? I see a lack of narrative around Brexit. We are always told about “supply chain issues” with barely any reflection on the cause.
Yes, other nations in Europe have supply chain issues, but they’re not seeing the problems we’re seeing in the uk.
This is a Brexit issue, but no major media outfit seems to be holding the government (who are the architects of the exit and the deal) accountable. Especially the serial liar at the top.
Also if you check Amazon UK, most jerry cans now have limited stock and longer delivery times
BUT...
"The government on Sunday announced a plan to issue temporary visas for 5,000 foreign truck drivers."
The politicians think that everyone's dumb. If you need to pass temporary visas, a thing that truckers didn't needed when UK was in the EU, clearly Brexit caused this issue.
It's more of a local British problem...
Although at this rate, Northumberland will be accidentally seceded to a newly independent Scotland, and the entity of Cornwall will become part of an independent Wales.
The lorry driver shortage inflicted by Brexit is starting to cause problems, though.
What. A. Coincidence.
(could well be true - but i did laugh out loud)
What Brexit did impact it was that it removed EU cabotage and availability of drivers. For example, cargo would arrive on a RoRo ship in Dover, without changing to a british driver. The same driver could take other cargo while in UK (for example having delivered to point A, then taking a load from point A to another british location at point B, and finally taking a load from point B to a continental destination at point C). With Brexit, you suddenly have extra demand (as even with dimnished cargo traffic you need more drivers to service ports as cargo no longer comes with its own drivers) and inability to hire (whether complete firms through cabotage laws or simply due to smaller pool of candidates.)
That's not to say that the UK government isn't characteristically unprepared, despite months or even years of warnings about these very issues, or that they couldn't have done better to mitigate problems.
I've had multiple conversations which run along the line of "I'm not panic buying, I am rational. I'm only buying this because others are panicking and there wont be any left for me. "
So yes the term is wrong but also people don't know what it is, and how they negatively contribute to the cycle.
People don't panic when they "panic buy". People don't see themselves as panic buying and they are not reflective
In my opinion the best solution to this in uncertain times is to have a decent supply of shelf-stable foods and good recipes with them before things get crazy. I try and keep at least a couple weeks of food on hand with a decent supply of shelf-stable stuff that'll last a while in emergencies. Its not a bad idea to be familiar with recipes that use mostly dry and canned foods that may only require water and a hot pot to cook. Most of the time it means we slowly cycle though meh-level canned meals once a month to keep the canned foods fresh(er), but when grocery stores go empty or you don't feel safe to go outside its pretty nice. That said, there's plenty of nice recipes where you can substitute canned chicken, canned veggies, or evaporated milk without taking too much of a hit on overall quality of the meal. On the plus side a lot of those dry food recipes often work pretty well on camping trips.
If that was any indication at least, it will last for a few days and then return to normal if supply can resume for normal demand (assuming it can for normal demand)
This is pure supply shock
I'm drawn to die on this hill every time. The toilet paper shortage made sense.
At the start of the first lockdown in the UK, we were told to minimise contact with others. This meant that it made sense for a daily shopper to become a weekly shopper & a weekly shopper to become a biweekly shopper. And if you're shopping less frequently but consuming at the same rate, you'll be buying more volume each time. Shops don't have the means to react to an overnight doubling of demand, so the shelves became empty.
To be efficient is to stop being resilient. The world runs on JIT. And if you buck that trend and make things resilient, you can't compete on price. So it's a race to the bottom where all it takes is one off-white swan event for things to fall apart. Does your country have food security? Does your country have energy security? If it does, what would it take for that to stop being true?
1. Covid doesn't generally disable young and healthy people, so there will be no supply shortage.
2. It will be nice to have a reason to go out if I'm cooped up inside all day, and buying groceries is a good one.
Then of course, I ended up using napkins as toilet paper for a week, because everybody else thought different.
Almost all "panic buying" is calm and rational.
That never happened? Perhaps new sign-ups (at the company's discretion)?
I had groceries delivered before the pandemic and continued throughout, only affect was that for a few months slots would be booked up weeks in advance of normal, so had to plan ahead more.
I believe it's more serious than just a mediagenic phenomenon, with only a few stations affected. From The Guardian: "Ministers are considering a range of options after BP said a third of its petrol stations had run out of the main two grades of fuel, while the Petrol Retailers Association (PRA), which represents almost 5,500 independent outlets, said 50% to 90% of its members had reported running out. It predicted the rest would soon follow." (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/27/eu-lorry-dr...)
https://driverrequire.co.uk/ir35 https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0015112ir35_reform_fuellin...
Lorry driver shortage is a fairly common phenom in Europe atm.
Over many decades, employees in easy-to-learn and especially easy-to-outsource jobs were treated as disposable cogs, and now after Corona and other crisis crunches the whole house of cards comes crushing down.
[1] https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/supply-chain/the-real-causes-of-...
Sounds like a lot of work to maybe save $50, but hey... mostly fun and games (unless you barn catches fire).
https://www.ricochetfuel.com/blog/dyed-diesel-fuel-vs-regula...
By UK standards, it was the middle of nowhere.
Diesel generally stores better, but it can have problems with algae growth.
> You can store up to 30 litres of petrol at home or at non-workplace premises without informing your local Petroleum Enforcement Authority (PEA).
https://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosion/petrol-storage-club-...
In most states in the US its illegal to put gasoline in improper containers. This hasn't stop people from putting them into trash bins and plastic bags in fuel crunches in the US.
Of course, they will suffer economically for a while, but that was part of the game with Brexit.
The voters however - were slightly lied to regarding the immediate downsides. It's probably important to keep the big picture in mind.
Compared to what? Efficiency always scaled poorly with size. For what it's worth, bureaucracies of US Federal government, not to mention those of China, India, Russia etc. are far worse, it seems.
It's not about the EU's throughput of things, but things it enables. Things like efficient allocation of resources via a single economic area, for example.
The UK had a very privileged place in the EU before, and was able to punch above their weight. When they inevitably rejoin they certainly won't be able to hold that special status again.
If I had voted remain you could say I had done so on lies if my motivation was to prevent house prices dropping by 18% [1] - where as actually they have moved about 18% higher [2]. There were no specific claims about removing foreigners, only the factually accurate statement that we could move to a points based immigration system if we wanted to.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/20/eu-referend... [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/housing-index
Might it not be fairer to state the sentence either as this:
> I'm sorry that the reality I want to believe does not line up neatly with the one you want to believe
... or this ...
> I'm sorry that the reality I experience does not line up with the reality you experience
All in good faith of the discussion.
As an aside, this sort of attitude is probably why you ‘better educated’ people lost the vote.
This shortage of drivers thing is likely a convenient side story to distract from the fundamental issue of high prices.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/aug/04/uk-petrol-pric...
We've just had a low-wind summer, increasing the demand for gas.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/britain-facing-long-...
Government unveils ‘guaranteed to work’ petrol track & trace app to beat fuel crisis
https://newsthump.com/2021/09/27/government-unveils-guarante...
"You put in your location and details, and then next Tuesday you’ll get an appointment to get precisely three litres of fuel from a pump in Sunderland"
Hopefully it is just another toilet roll craze.
Depending on your EV car, your driving habits, etc you might get ~4mi/kWh. So for 100mi, you're looking at 25kWh to get your 100mi weekly range.
So over the course of 42 weekly hours, you'll need to come up with 25kWh. 25,000Wh / 42 hours converts to ~595.24W. So you'll want about 600W of generation capacity.
Modern PV cells usually get ~150W per square meter, so 600 W / 150 W/m^2 = 4 m^2.
You'll probably want to add a bit of additional overhead to deal with the weeks where you don't get quite a much sun and also with some of the losses in the system. As an additional note, this is only really thinking about the "peak" hours in the system. You'll get a few more hours a day charging at a lot of latitudes. This can also vary a decent bit based on the layout of your solar array.
Everyone in the industry is telling anyone who will listen that there is no shortage of petrol (gas), and there is no shortage of drivers. Yet the media are still whipping the story because it’s selling papers/views/clicks etc for them.
This is yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire. There should be prosecutions for this sort of behaviour. Lives will be put at risk or lost because of this.
And seriously, the public need to stop listening and believing the media. They have no morals, and they certainly do not care about truth.
To those downvoting: If there is still a “crisis” next week, I will eat my hat. There is no crisis. You know this. The media will have moved onto the next “crisis” they can manufacture.
From the article:
> Drivers queued for hours to fill their cars at petrol stations that were still selling fuel, albeit often rationed. There were also calls for National Health Service (NHS) workers to be given priority to keep hospitals open
That is just ridiculous. It’s so far removed from reality. Who queued for hours? Who in their right mind is suggesting hospitals might close? It’s just reckless reporting designed to make panic buying worse. And trying to link it to our decision to leave the EU years ago, is just utter desperation.
You all know this is BS, and that in a couple of days, once the story has peaked, and the media has moved onto something else, the “crisis” will be over.
BP blamed the restrictions on “delays in the supply change which has been impact by the industry-wide driver shortages across the UK”.
Tesco said it had “experienced temporary supply issues caused by driver absences in recent days”, adding: “We expect the situation to improve in the next week and apologise to our customers for any inconvenience caused.”
[0] https://inews.co.uk/news/hgv-driver-shortage-bp-to-start-rat...
Tesco aren’t rationing petrol due to the “driver crisis”. They are rationing it due to the media telling people to go and panic buy petrol.
As you can see in the article, the only one with driver issues is BP. Other petrol stations have plenty. Yet they are all affected because of the media whipping consumers into panic.
And as you can see in the article, BP reports that “between 50 and 100 stations affected”. Out of 1200!!! That’s not even newsworthy, yet the media are whipping and whipping.
Can you see the issue with the following…
> Petrol stations operated by Morrisons, The Co-op, Sainsbury’s and Asda also said they had no current issues with their fuel supplies, the BBC reported.
> LARGE FONT ALL BOLD! ‘Rapidly worsening crisis’
> Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary, described the lorry driver shortage as a “rapidly worsening crisis” that required urgent Government attention.
So the petrol stations say it’s all fine, and the article shouts “RAPIDLY WORSENING CRISIS”. This, as I say, is disgraceful reporting, and is shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre where there is no fire.
If that were true, then there'd be no issue. But things were continuing to worsen before the media reported on it.
In a few days, it will all go away. The sky is not falling.