Brexit process

[johnhemming2]

Wikipedia has a good page on rationing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing ... ed_Kingdom

[clv101]

If you look at it fairly all the winning in WW2 came from Yank food supplies and arms factories plus quite a bit of Yank boots on ground in the air and on and under the seas.

Is that what they teach in the US? I was under the impression the Soviets did more than any other nation to defeat Hitler.

[cubes]

The UK stood alone against Germany for two long years, including defeating the Luftwaffe in the most important air battle of the whole war.

The UK never stood alone, we had Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa at the very least that chose to help us out from the start of WW2. They didn't have to join in (unlike India who had no choice).

[vtsnowedin]

If you look at it fairly all the winning in WW2 came from Yank food supplies and arms factories plus quite a bit of Yank boots on ground in the air and on and under the seas.

Is that what they teach in the US? I was under the impression the Soviets did more than any other nation to defeat Hitler.

You are reading me wrong. The Russians and the UK did a heroic job of hanging on with some but not enough supplies shipped from the US from '39 to December '41 But though you were hanging on you weren't winning anywhere.The tide turned after we got into it after Pearl harbor. Even the Russians did not have a major success until the surrender of the Germans at Stalingrad in February '43.

[vtsnowedin]

A bit to think about.

A total of 50 billion dollars were spent by the US on lend lease, or 17% of the country's total war spending, although the bulk of it went to the UK.

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel, 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.

One item delivered was an entire intact tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-United-St ... on-the-U-S#

[Mark]

Rationing works fine if you have a limited supply. It does not work if their is no supply to ration or one so inadequate that basic needs can't be met with your ration.

True and if handled badly it can result in a more limited supply. (eg Venezuela)

Like most issues on here, there are a number of factors in play....
Population in the UK is too high, and increasing too rapidly - discussed at length on here...
Most individuals over-consume, leading to obesity - we need to consume less...
Supermarkets & most individuals waste far too much food - just go to Tescos at closing time and see what they put in pink bags....
We don't grow enough - we need to protect and better use agricultural land, go back to digging back gardens and as UE mentions, do more foraging etc.

If/when rationing does come, it will need to be supported by strong government (Martial Law ?)
In WWII, the people accepted it by and large for the greater good - I don't think we'd get that kind of consensus in future....
Especially as the rich/powerful would most likely by-pass any restrictions....

[Mark]

A bit to think about.

A total of 50 billion dollars were spent by the US on lend lease, or 17% of the country's total war spending, although the bulk of it went to the UK.

The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel, 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.

One item delivered was an entire intact tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-United-St ... on-the-U-S#

The Americans were very happy, sitting on the side and raking in the profits from WWII. They only joined in when their hand was forced by Pearl Harbour.
Once in, their resources helped greatly, but only in Hollywood did they win it single handed.... but unfortunately that's where many of the younger generation get their information from....
Barely a mention of the massive losses suffered by the Soviets...

[vtsnowedin]

Mark wrote'

but only in Hollywood did they win it single handed..

That is not even close to what I said.
I said the winning started after the USA joined the other allies. That is joined not replaced.
My statement is just a stating of the facts. Yours or mine opinion today has no bearing.
Here is a fact for you.
Of the 2259 Japanese merchant ships sunk and 275 damaged beyond repair between December 1941 and VJ day 1150 were sunk by USN submarines and 32 by allied aircraft (Australian ,Canadian, British etc.)and 23 were sunk by Allied subs. The balance were sunk by American air power (land and carrier based)(798) mines ( 210) and 17 by naval gun fire.
The Japanese Navy had 693 ships of all sizes sent to the bottom over the same period with USN subs sinking 201 of them.
All this while the USA was fighting from North Africa to Berlin alongside Allied troops in the West.

[Mark]

Mark wrote'

but only in Hollywood did they win it single handed..

That is not even close to what I said.
I said the winning started after the USA joined the other allies. That is joined not replaced.
My statement is just a stating of the facts. Yours or mine opinion today has no bearing.
Here is a fact for you.
Of the 2259 Japanese merchant ships sunk and 275 damaged beyond repair between December 1941 and VJ day 1150 were sunk by USN submarines and 32 by allied aircraft (Australian ,Canadian, British etc.)and 23 were sunk by Allied subs. The balance were sunk by American air power (land and carrier based)(798) mines ( 210) and 17 by naval gun fire.
The Japanese Navy had 693 ships of all sizes sent to the bottom over the same period with USN subs sinking 201 of them.
All this while the USA was fighting from North Africa to Berlin alongside Allied troops in the West.

It's an old argument..., but nobody doubts the impact of the US in helping to win/shorten the war
Once they arrived....

[Little John]

The United States only joined in once it was certain who was going to pay the lion's share of the butcher's bill.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 20926.html

[Lord Beria3]

Back to the topic in hand.

The truth is that we won't face a sudden Armageddon style collapse of food imports over a few months... it will be more of a rolling process over decades, periodic crisis's leading to further price rises, shortages and disruption of the free market exchange of foodstuffs.

This means that each crisis will trigger a bout of government led activity to drive national self-sufficiency drives and potentially rationing down the line.

Of course, the initial means in which society will adjust will be through the market and price rises which will force the consumer to spend more on food and waste less as welll.

In time, as warned by the German military in their report on peak oil a few years ago, the free market will collapse and the state will take over ensuring that sufficient food is supplied to a population (e.g. the era of scarcity industrialism).

[vtsnowedin]

Back to the topic in hand.

......
........

In time, as warned by the German military in their report on peak oil a few years ago, the free market will collapse and the state will take over ensuring that sufficient food is supplied to a population (e.g. the era of scarcity industrialism).

You lose me there LB. Nowhere in history has a state run farm to market system produced more food then the same land farmed by free landowners. I remember a tale (perhaps published in the Readers Digest) of USSR athletes here in the USA for one set of games or another. Whatever they saw a Gym, Pool, or Stadium, their canned response was that there were much bigger and better ones back in the USSR. Then the guides stopped at a super market to pick up a few things for the evening. By the time the athletes got to the checkout counter they were all in tears.
When the Berlin wall came down a few years later the truth of the tale was very apparent.

[Mark]

Back to Brexit.....

Trump has dangled a 'very big, very powerful' trade deal which will be completed 'very very quickly'....
That's a lot of 'verys'....., I think we should tread with a lot of caution....

We've historically found it difficult to trade with the US for a number of reasons.....
In our desperate rush to replace the EU, the danger is that we'll rush into a very very bad deal.....
Suspect we'd end up being dumped with a lot of cr@p....
Time will tell, I guess.....

[vtsnowedin]

Back to Brexit.....

Trump has dangled a 'very big, very powerful' trade deal which will be completed 'very very quickly'....
That's a lot of 'verys'....., I think we should tread with a lot of caution....

We've historically found it difficult to trade with the US for a number of reasons.....
In our desperate rush to replace the EU, the danger is that we'll rush into a very very bad deal.....
Suspect we'd end up being dumped with a lot of cr@p....
Time will tell, I guess.....

Well Trump is just a "Huge" BS artist so I would be "Very Very" careful about dealing with him.
But really any deal you have with Canada should serve as a template for trade with the USA. Low or zero tariffs both ways and no dumping of subsidized goods on the others market. What would you need beyond that?

[emordnilap]

What would you need beyond that?

No ISDS for a start.