Pumps run dry at gas stations in Britain(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Pumps run dry at gas stations in Britain
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-gas-stations-are-running-dry-english-cities-retailers-association-says-2021-09-27/
351 comments
As Brian Madderson, chairman of the Petrol Retailers Association, explained on BBC Breakfast this morning. This happened because a BP document was leaked to the media, which unsurprisingly got them excited about a possible shortage and led to the panic buying. Madderson also said the industry is used to dealing with about 2 million liters of fuel being required a week, but that's with typical weekly fill-ups. He suggested that's effectively doubled now as people fill their tanks to the brim, which you can't keep up with under any circumstances. So there's no shortage in the industry, only a shortage created by consumers changing their behaviour overnight.
So the trucker shortage is a false conclusion? Cause this article states that’s the definitive cause. It reads to me like an axe to grind with Brexit and trying to tie this crisis to that political football.
The trucker shortage has so far caused a minor shortage, but has the potential to cause worse shortages over time unless the trucker shortage is dealt with. The panic buying is making that all much worse and speeding up the timeline.
The fuel supply problems actually caused by the shortage of truckers were such a minor issue that I doubt even the people affected by it would've noticed - a handful of petrol stations ran out in the entire country, and there's always the odd one that has some problem or another anyway. I think they'd been going on for a while too with nothing much changing. The widespread shortages that actually impact people are all due to the panic buying.
There's a general shortage of HGV drivers across Europe at the moment. The shortage didn't cause fuel pumps to run dry, though. It was the result of panic caused by the media after they got their hands on a document, with the initial news being that BP had closed 5 petrol stations. It escalated very quickly from there due to relentless media coverage. You could certainly argue the shortage of drivers made it much more difficult to cope with the panic once it was in full flow.
The lorry drivers that drive fuel lorries have different certification than general HGV drivers and there has never been a shortage of these lorry drivers.
In terms of the trucker shortage: the govt said today that the fuel driver shortage is small (150-300, tanker drivers make more than HGV drivers so probably true). BP said they were having no problems hiring but experiencing high levels of attrition (likely due to competitors offering pay increases)
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.
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.
thank you for the additional information
But over the long term, filling to the brim will not change the overall demand, it just changed the storage location. Once the system catches up to that fact, there shouldn't be a shortage anymore.
> which you can't keep up with under any circumstances
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.
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.
> the weekly fuel consumed is exactly the same
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.
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.
s/weekly/per unit time/g
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.
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.
There is also a shortage of tanker delivery drivers which means that it is impossible to increase the number of deliveries which leads to outages which are then amplified via social media and news outlets (anything that gets clicks/engagements wins the race for Top Post/Ad Views/Headlines).
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.
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.
> ..as I think most people are just filling up to the top instead of half way..
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?
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?
It's not common for people who's budget doesn't allow for a full tank. My family usually just put in a certain amount. 10-20$. When I visit home, I make sure to fill up their tanks in secret and they look at me like I'm insane. "Who fills up a tank?!"
[deleted]
I’ve seen some people keep the tank only partially full because it improves performance (the car will be more efficient if it is lighter and might eg handle better too, especially if it is a small car) though I don’t really buy that argument.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Yeah you’re right. I should have realised it doesn’t make sense for the numbers to be in that order relative to each other.
That argument seems ridiculous. Gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds per gallon and most cars have 15-20 gallon tanks, so if you keep your tank around half-full your car will be lighter by maybe 50 or 60 pounds. Any performance improvement from that would be imperceptibly small.
Sorry but this is just wrong. The difference in feeling after filling up a small car from empty is significant just for normal driving. Look at what people pay for making sports cars lighter - 50 pounds is a lot!
Even small cars weigh thousands of pounds. Fifty pounds is objectively not a lot. If you're trying to tell me you can tell a significant difference in performance and handling in a car with a 7-year-old in the backseat versus no 7-year-old in the backseat, well, I don't believe you at all.
I can feel that too. Or a suitcase in the back. It's absurd you're telling me I haven't experienced this.
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?
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?
[deleted]
> 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?
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.
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.
When gas/petrol shortages occur, it is often because people fill up a 1/2 full tank, rather than waiting for it to be less than 1/4 full. This makes sense if you do not have confidence that you will be able to find gas. But it also means more trips to the station, and a net shift of fuel to automobile tanks.
Tell me you are an American without telling me you are an American.
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 :)
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 :)
Anecdata on this: yesterday I filled up an almost empty 55 Lt tank for €90. The actual petrol cost €35, the remaining €55 was taxes.
I lived in Europe. Add to that a general lack of cash liquidity of the middle class. I.e. when you're poor you're not sure you might not need those extra euro 60 next week for an unforeseen emergency.
When we lived in Europe in the 90s, my mother would never fill up past a quarter tank.
When we lived in Europe in the 90s, my mother would never fill up past a quarter tank.
The european gas pumps even have prespecified fill volumes typically 5,10,20,50€. So when you select the 20€ it will dispense 20€ worth of gasoline.
Many times youth is also splitting gasoline costs for a night out, so everyone will chip in 2-3€ to pour enough gasoline.
Many times youth is also splitting gasoline costs for a night out, so everyone will chip in 2-3€ to pour enough gasoline.
Depends a lot on the social status I think. Growing up in a poor household, we never worried about gas prices. When the salary came, we would buy 200HRK worth of petrol and use the car as long as it had petrol. After that, you walk. It was never a full tank and these days its not even half a tank.
I think about myself as a pretty standard middle class person who's obviously empathetic to those who have less. But this proves how easy it is to be out of touch an not even realize it. I really had no idea. I just assumed when you filled, you filled all the way.
Well-off people are usually quick to criticize the decisions of "the poor", but they rarely understand the context. For example, why do poor people stand in line for a new iPhone just to sell it immediately upon exiting the store? Its often because they can get it on a telecom-contract, sell it unopened immediately for less than it usually costs to someone else and pay it off across two years. It effectively serves as a quick cash loan with a moderate interest fee in case you can't get one from a bank and are smart enough not to contact the mob. Every time the iPhone gets more expensive, people with a dire need for cash rejoice...
I know this sounds strange and privileged, but I'd love to see a compilation of tid bits like this (alongside a myth busting element of whether it's really true)
Unless your petrol station is on one of your regular routes, it's false economy not to fill up completely when you have an empty tank, otherwise you are incurring an extra trip to the petrol station.
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.
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:
https://theconversation.com/can-you-save-money-at-the-bowser...
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.
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.
It’s expensive being poor. They also pay more fees for financial products and the like. For example poor people use expensive Western Union and rich people use wire transfer
But the efficiency is lower driving around with a full tank.
I think not. With a full tank there is less room for fumes to expand. I believe less fuel in the tank means worse fuel economy.
Found this[1] from a quick search.
[1] https://www.carsforsale.com/how-to/5-simple-reasons-to-keep-....
Found this[1] from a quick search.
[1] https://www.carsforsale.com/how-to/5-simple-reasons-to-keep-....
In addition to my sibling comment, I'd point out that the weight of fuel is negligible in this application, especially in a smaller car. A full 14 gallon tank weighs half of an adult male. You'd save more fuel in the long run by losing some weight, but it still wouldn't be that much.
No. It's a waste of money. Britain is a small country, you're not going to run out of fuel (ordinarily) on a trip and so it makes sense to keep the money in your pocket instead of turning it into fuel that's sat there doing nothing useful.
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.
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.
Also if you fill it up you have to tow it around with you; an extra 40kgs of weight in the car which costs a bit.
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.
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.
This blew my mind as an American kid visiting England a couple decades ago. I was only ever aware of putting in a credit card and filling up a gas tank all the way, and my uncle took out a 5 or 10 quid note to go pay before filing petrol and he said why should I pay to haul around extra fuel if I pass by the petrol station everyday and I only use half a tank every 2 weeks.
Somebody should do the math of pulling out to the gas station vs. driving with a full tank.
With US engine sizes, fuel efficiency, and number of miles driven, I would guess it makes no difference for most people.
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+.
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+.
No normal person needs a 4l car. You just don't. Heck, 3l is huge and not required with modern engine sizes; between 1 and 2l is plenty for the vast majority of people who are not farmers routinely getting stuck in mud whilst towing heavy equipment.
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...
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...
I know. My neighbor just upgraded from a mini SUV to a 5.7L pickup truck to commute to his office job.
The spoils of a government that does not have a high fossil fuel tax.
The spoils of a government that does not have a high fossil fuel tax.
4L!? Are you towing an aeroplane?
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?
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?
Fuel is/was a lot more expensive in UK.
Yes, that is also a factor I forgot to mention.
>an extra 40kgs of weight in the car which costs a bit.
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.
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 haven't rounded to the nearest dollar in over 10 years, using credit cards. The only time I cared about rounding was when I paid in cash.
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.
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.
Unless you value your time at 0, the amount of money you'll save by not carrying around the extra weight is less than the value of the time you'll spend filling up twice.
Yes, but time is not everyone's most precious asset.
I always fill up myself because I hate filling up any more than I have to, but when it costs the equivalent of $70 to fill even a tiny car or $140 for a large car, no, it's pretty common to just buy "what you need" for the next few days or whatever.
I'd rather keep my money in fuel than cash, in the off chance hyperinflation strikes, triggering a bank holiday, without me having any physical cash.
But so far this has happened 0 times since I have a car.
But so far this has happened 0 times since I have a car.
But, don't forget that evaporation will be greater by maintaining a full tanks.
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.
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.
That's great if you have the money to spare, but not everyone does.
If you don't have money for fuel, I warmly recommend learning about hypermiling.
The main ideas are not to step on the gas pedal more than say, 30%, and use the smallest car for the job.
The main ideas are not to step on the gas pedal more than say, 30%, and use the smallest car for the job.
If you have money to spare, you're also not going to be able to keep a meaningful share of it contained in filled-up household vehicles, even if you own several of them (such that it'll actually function as a sum large enough to offset hyperinflation in any way that matters).
Still seems odd to me. Whether it's $70 a week or $140 every two weeks the total is the same. Only difference is how many stops you have to make, and maybe a 1% difference to the average weight of the vehicle.
It is odd to you because you have never had to live paycheck to paycheck. Many people are barely getting to the next pay day so that extra $70 the first week means less food that week.
True, if you have literally $0 cash on hand then it could make sense. If you ever get your hands on $70 though that seems like a worthwhile investment to spend ~50% less time at the gas station for the remainder of your life. Probably one of the more cost efficient quality-of-life purchases you could make in my opinion, which is why I find it odd that it's not more common (apparently).
You aren't addressing the situation the people are in. They are constantly choosing which need to address with the funds they have at present, not simply deferring the purchase of one half tank of gas.
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...
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...
Of course it is never quite that simple. When people are cash strapped and under stress, pure unemotional logic may not drive all decisions. Making a $140 purchase when you know you can get by in the short term with a smaller purchase just doesn't add up to a person in that situation.
But "time at gas station" is only like 3 mins per visit though. Yes it's not where you want to be but in absolute time terms it isn't much, especially if a gas station is on your typical travel route
If you’ve spent your money on gas, you can no longer choose to use it on surprise expenses and forgo driving. Money is more liquid than gas, it turns out.
I've had periods when the kids were small and expenses high when I would put in just enough gas to go till the paycheck came in, or even try not to drive in those gap days. Stressing and unsustainable.
Most people fill in small increments usually relating to their pay point. This is especially so for the UK where weekly pay is popular. I suspect this is a worldwide thing.
I think for some folks living check to check, it's pretty common to not have enough money for a full fill. In the end it's the same amount of gas, so this seems like just another one of the myriad ways poor people end up spending more resources than wealthier people because they can't invest a bit more now for better returns later.
Keeping extra gas in the tank (aka filling up all the way) is like keeping a savings account - many people can't afford it. Depending on the country, the tank size and the price of gas, you can easily be looking at $100 for a tank vs. just keeping a bit in there to get around.
I think it was unclear as to why there is no gas. Is it because there are no drivers to drive the gas to the stations or because the general energy supply for GB currently sucks?
The official line is that there is a lack of truck drivers, which is mostly true because Brexit has prevented a lot of the foreign drivers from working
[deleted]
No mention of lockdown effects detracts from the credibility of that comment.
I can tell you now, the UK has functionally no restrictions within the country. You ought to wear masks on public transport, that's about it. Lockdown is over, for now at least.
The lockdown has had some effect: HGV tests and lessons were restricted over the lockdown period. And the DVLA has also gone on strike due to covid workplace safety concerns which has meant that those who have passed their tests have been delayed in getting their licenses.
You're saying effects are only instantaneous. No comment.
I don't think I'm saying that. The only thing I meant was the UK has no lockdown right now, and hasn't for a number of months. I imagine lockdown had some effect, but other countries that went through harsher conditions aren't seeing the shortages the UK is, so I imagine other things are more to blame.
no other country with a lockdown is having the same problem, and GB sort of stopped their lockdowns a while ago, didn't they?
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...
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...
Yes I came from GB to Germany a month ago and I can say that definitely the lockdown is basically over back there
Europe also has a shortage
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...
This is widely reported across a number of publications
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...
This is widely reported across a number of publications
Is this the most trustworthy source you could find?
Can't comment on the child of the post for some reason. Here is another source:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/24/dont-blame-b...
Somehow it seems on these forums that any left leaning publication is immediately trusted but any right leaning one immediately distrusted.
Somehow it seems on these forums that any left leaning publication is immediately trusted but any right leaning one immediately distrusted.
It's just that the shelves in the UK are empty, and in the other countries they aren't. Both in the UK and in the rest of the EU there already was a shortage of professional drivers. And the companies in the UK do seem to blame the VISA situation as a major contributing factor.
[deleted]
Indeed so, but that may still be due to more complicated factors. At no point have I said it isn't a factor, just that it's one of many.
The shelves in the UK aren't empty. The press in Europe appears to be eagerly reporting this fact. Where I am, the supply of fresh food has improved significantly since the start of Covid. I don't know of anyone who has had problems buying food (if anyone did, there would be panic buying). There has been industrial action at some places, and some individual producers have driver shortages. It is not widespread at all (and btw, I live in rural area...we have had shortages before due to bad weather, but what is happening now isn't noticeable unless you are familiar with the grocery supply chain...this stuff is just being reported because it relates to Brexit, which journalists care about). It is fair to say there were probably problems due to Brexit for the supply of some fresh food...but that was months ago, and I didn't notice any disruption even then. And btw, if drivers were going to leave because of Brexit, they could have left between 2016-2020, the UK didn't ask anyone to leave, they all had the right to stay and work...most left in 2020, due to Covid, before we left. The timeline makes no sense.
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).
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).
Which is why I said mostly. Unless you'd care to exactly quantify the reasons?
It's definitely true that they lack truckers. They don't just grow on trees, and when a few tens of thousands leave, well...
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK with HGV licenses but only half of them driving.
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...
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...
The reason software developers get paid more is that it is a lot harder for an average person to become a software developer than it is to get an HGV license. Basically anybody not suffering from mental impairment could master the skills for that license. That is not true of software development, and it also takes longer.
Britain treats it's HGV drivers like crap. Long unsociable hours, low status, lack of facilities and relatively low pay considering how responsible the job is. I was horried to find that some (all?) of them don't even get paid for their mandatory breaks. Why would anyone put up with that, if they had any choice?
> 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.
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 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.
> They don't just grow on trees,
Reminiscent of Teresa May's "magic money tree" comment
Reminiscent of Teresa May's "magic money tree" comment
[deleted]
I've genuinely no idea why this is phrase is most frequently associated with May. As best I can tell she was just regurgitating a line from her predecessor: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21694944
I'd be leaving, too, if I'd spent Christmas stranded on an airfield. https://jalopnik.com/uk-airfield-becomes-worlds-largest-truc...
Brexit may be a (small) part of it, but it certainly isn't the whole picture. Btw much of Europe faces a shortage of drivers as well.
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
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
Brexit may be a (small) part of it, but it certainly isn't the whole picture. Btw much of Europe faces a shortage of drivers as well.
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.
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.
The supply of drivers is somewhat fungible, but it doesn't just multiply when demand is high and shrink when it is low.
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...
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...
The rest of Europe has mostly projected driver shortages, and no acute shortages of drivers, let alone goods.
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.
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.
...the same non-UK-based drivers that it proposes to kick out of the country again on December 24th. And the same drivers that last year on December 24th it corralled onto a disused airport runway behind fences and locked the doors so they couldn't go anywhere while being kicked out of the country.
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
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
That's actually not the official line. That's the line of the Road Hauliers Association. The government line was provided to the Telegraph yesterday, and goes like this:
- 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.
- 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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/924574.stm interesting that in 2000 the panic was sparked by an active measure, e.g. a physical blockade of refineries, this time round it only took a leaked document.
Currently tanker drivers need extra certification but are still treated badly by employers. There is currently high demand for HGV drivers generally with big incentives to move employers. Therefore, some fuel tanker drivers have left to work elsewhere and can not be so easily replaced.
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.
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.
Originally, there were a handful (like 3-6 or so) stations that ran out of fuel due to a BP driver shortage.
The resulting media-fuelled spate of panic buying overloaded normal delivery cycles.
There is plenty of product stored at the ports/refineries themselves.
The resulting media-fuelled spate of panic buying overloaded normal delivery cycles.
There is plenty of product stored at the ports/refineries themselves.
> Unlike the toilet paper panic buying there is limited capacity people can buy, so I would expect this to naturally end short term when people don’t have capacity to buy any more.
Didn't the Colonial Pipeline attack have people filling up plastic bags with gas?
Didn't the Colonial Pipeline attack have people filling up plastic bags with gas?
Have you ever tried doing that? It works for about 5 minutes until the bag disolves.
I think the photo you reference that was going round at the time was an old one from Brazil or Mexico or somewhere.
There is pictures in the Daily Mail of people emptying water bottles and filling them with petrol.
This is very common throughout Southeast Asia as short-to-medium-term fuel storage, I imagine elsewhere too.
I did this once in Malaysia as the piece of crap car I rented ran out of fuel 5 minutes after leaving depot. Walked to petrol station, tried to fill up Coke bottle with petrol, which created a wonderful petrol fountain/volcano all over me .. then a nice long walk back to the car in mid day sun ... was still a great trip :P
the best one I heard of was the people using domestic wheel bins as attempted fuel depots.
Cue fire brigade level intervention!
Cue fire brigade level intervention!
This sounds like the classic establishment divert-and-divide playbook for managing public outrage. Come up with some reasonable story which explains the problem by redirecting outrage at average people. Make sure we stay mad at each other.
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.
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.
"Nothing to see here, please disperse"
Refusal to send the army in reeks of BoJo not making a decision until the crisis couldn't get any worse and so he's forced to
> when people don’t have capacity to buy any more.
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'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?
Sure, but anecdotally, most people don't have gas cans of significant capacity and many don't have any cans at all.
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 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.
You’re technically limited to storing a certain quantity of fuel on your property without a license. Whether a regulator could detect this is another question.
It's 30 litres, for reference.
Just to clarify: Petrol and Kerosene (parafin) are limited to 10L in a plastic jerry-can, 20L in a metal can and you're limited to 2 containers or 30L maximum. Diesel is exempt.
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.
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.
Most modern cars have anti-siphon traps preventing this.
Most people don't even possess jerry cans, let alone keep them filled and stabilized. Allocating time and resources to common-sense supply chain shock preparedness gets in the way of important things like football, porn, and social media.
Daddy Government will always provide, of course.
Daddy Government will always provide, of course.
The government really mis managed this - they keep saying there is no shortage yet all the stations have run out - they can’t spin this and ignore it until the next disaster distracts from this disaster.
I'm sorry but when you have selfish (and idiotic) people like this:
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.
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.
> "The free movement of labour is part of the European Union, and we tried very hard to convince the British not to leave the Union," said Olaf Scholz, the Social Democrat candidate to succeed Angela Merkel as German chancellor. "They decided differently. I hope they will manage the problems coming from that," Scholz said.
Man, I can smell the schadenfreude from all the way over here.
Man, I can smell the schadenfreude from all the way over here.
You definitely get the impression that the other EU members intend to punish the UK for leaving.
When you cut off your foot with an axe, the bystanders are not punishing you when they observe that you're having trouble putting on your pants afterwards.
What would they need to do to convince you they don't intend to punish the UK?
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.
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.
Just an observation. Ever since the announcement it seems like various groups on Reddit and elsewhere want to celebrate every difficulty that the UK experiences.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to equate reddit with other EU member states.
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 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.
>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.
As someone who lives in the UK, I agree.
POTUS Donald J. Trump is a tough competition, though.
I think it's UK remainers pointing out the difficulties. Which is somewhat understandable considering:
- 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.
- 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.
The UK will rejoin at some point, especially because the younger generation will demand it, but it will have to take a decade, more likely two, unless Brexit proves to be an uncontroversial disaster and GB falls behind extremely. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
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.
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.
> The UK will rejoin at some point, especially because the younger generation will demand it, but it will have to take a decade, more likely two, unless Brexit proves to be an uncontroversial disaster and GB falls behind extremely. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
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.
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 wonder how that Euro-scepticism among the young breaks across the UK's internal borders? Scotland (62% remain) and NI (56% remain) didn't want Brexit. Will that sentiment hold over the next 5-10 years, or will they slowly follow England and Wales in being anti-EU (both ~53% leave)?
I always thought the Brexit vote should have required a supermajority.
I always thought the Brexit vote should have required a supermajority.
The related question is how long the UK will survive with an SNP/SNP-Green government in Scotland and customs restrictions at the NI-GB border. For the same reason that time make an EU re-entry more likely (pro-EU sentiment skews inversely with age), the likelihood there won’t be a UK to rejoin also goes up.
The tragic thing is that this is just a re-run of history, with the whole "first time tragedy, second time farce" ring.
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.
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.
> Their political opponents have spent months dismissing their concerns as scaremongering.
Years, not months. Pretty much all concerns about Brexit were dismissed as being Project Fear.
Years, not months. Pretty much all concerns about Brexit were dismissed as being Project Fear.
Yes, there was razor-thin margin for the Leave campaign, with massive lies being told, partially financed by Russia, and the younger generation generally opposed.
It makes travelling in the EU harder, let alone it risks upsetting the Ireland situation. You can expect an international audience to disapprove.
It makes travelling in the EU harder, let alone it risks upsetting the Ireland situation. You can expect an international audience to disapprove.
That's quite a claim. Do you have some strong evidence to back it up?
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_...
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_...
Leave.EU Group Limited:
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.
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.
I'm genuinely confused by this:
In 2018, Grimes was fined £20,000 by the Electoral Commission after it determined that there was evidence that BeLeave had spent more than £675,000 with the Canadian political consultancy firm AggregateIQ in coordination with the official Brexit campaign organisation Vote Leave in distribution targeted social media advertisements.[24] The Commission argued that these actions violated electoral spending rules, and that Grimes and Vote Leave official David Alan Halsall had made false declarations relating to the spending. Grimes appealed, claiming that his misstatements were unintentional, and his fine was overturned;[25] Vote Leave, however, withdrew its appeal and paid fines totalling £61,000.[26] Subsequently, in May 2020, the Metropolitan Police ended its investigation into Grimes and Halsall.[27] In June 2021, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission apologised to Grimes in a Sunday Telegraph interview.[28]
They lost their appeal but the Chairman of the Electoral Commission aplogised, and the Met found nothing
They lost their appeal but the Chairman of the Electoral Commission aplogised, and the Met found nothing
So the difference is that there were two fines issued for the same offence - one for 61K and one for 20K.
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.
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.
It's worth saying that the UK has essentially no long-standing history of direct plebiscite / national referendum as a democratic process. Ironically, the first I'm aware of was the 1975 vote on EC membership.
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.
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.
The UK joined in '73. After the terms were finalised there was a referendum in '75 where the public agreed to stay in.
"Never given any kind of referendum" is far fetched.
"Never given any kind of referendum" is far fetched.
One thing I’ve noticed a lot of in the last five years, has been that the thing being objected to by a Leave supporter can vary from the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances[0] to the Lisbon treaty.
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.
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.
> 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 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?
"After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 the pillar structure ceased to exist. The European Community, together with its legal personality, was absorbed into the newly consolidated European Union which merged in the other two pillars (however Euratom remained distinct). This was originally proposed under the European Constitution but that treaty failed ratification in 2005."
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...
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...
>So no, the UK joined the EU in 2009.
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?
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?
My apologies, I misread the quote and retract the earlier statement.
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
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
https://brexitlies.com/
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.
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.
That's all good and well, but I don't think it answered my question about a source for accusations of Russian involvement, nor did it address my question about the lack of democratic process when joining the EU, so I'm not entirely sure why you posted this.
[deleted]
Wikipedia says the investigation is ongoing an there seems to be some evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Given what we know about Russian interference in other elections, it would be strange if Putin said "Nah, let's sit this one out..."
Given what we know about Russian interference in other elections, it would be strange if Putin said "Nah, let's sit this one out..."
Your source is behind a paywall, and I'm not interested in paying the Telegraph, but it seems there's a factual inaccuracy in your statement - the electoral commission did not 'come up with nothing'. They imposed a fine, referred Vote Leave to the police, and Vote Leave dropped their appeal.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-lea...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-...
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/vote-lea...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/29/vote-leave-...
Later article from a non-paywalled source:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-...
That's an individual (Darren Grimes), who pursued and won an appeal.
The organisation (Vote Leave) withdrew their appeal, and paid the fine.
The organisation (Vote Leave) withdrew their appeal, and paid the fine.
As a Polish citizen I want to see post-Brexit UK struggle, so that my government doesn't get any stupid ideas of leaving EU.
As an Italian citizen, I hope for Poland to leave so my country's net transfers less money to the eastern countries and will, hopefully, encourage Italy to grow a pair and leave
Italy's economy is almost an integral part of the EU, so Italy leaving would probably end the EU as a whole. Italy's economy would hardly survive both being cut off from the trade union and its major trade partners taking a plunge.
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.
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.
Reddit groups aren’t EU members.
And Schadenfreude isn’t punishment.
And Schadenfreude isn’t punishment.
Every day I quake in my boots at the thought of the hideous revenge r/France will inflict upon us.
Like Boris Johnson said "Prennez un grip and donnez mois un break."
Not nice, and I dislike the guy but I found the quote somewhat funny.
Not nice, and I dislike the guy but I found the quote somewhat funny.
Yes, but there's no need for any punishment on top of what Brexit is.
I don't see any clear case of such punishment. There are consequences for not being in the trade union. You can't leave the trade union and expect the same conditions as the members...
And there is no "punishment" beyond Brexit itself: All the "punishment" is just Britain getting exactly what it asked for.
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.
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.
You also get the impression the UK wanted to have its cake and eat it too. Some of the Brexit political promises are pure delusion. I think a few over zealous Brexiteers might be conflating not getting rewarded with punishment.
EU membership conferred privileges which were seen as entitlements, so when inevitably withdrawn it seems like punishment.
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.
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.
Or just treat them as they do any other non-EU country? The special deals and preferential treatment come with being in the EU. When you leave, they stop. Fair’s fair.
Not sure.
"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
"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
Or there is the distinct possibility that this was a heavily-traversed border pre-Brexit and with Brexit it now requires a lot of border checks.
I'm not going to argue whether the actual statement is true or not: Many people don't trust the government at the best of times but if it is true, I seriously doubt whether it constitutes 1/5 of all EU trade (assuming that border checks are in proportion to trade).
Or people who live just across the border where there previously was none continue to commute to work daily, now across a border.
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.
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.
> Or people who live just across the border where there previously was none continue to commute to work daily, now across a border.
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.
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.
Brexit did come with a healthy dose of "F-u" to the rest of the EU. Hard to keep back the smile I suppose.
Not helping them solve their problems is different than actively punishing them.
But they did try to help! They spent years trying to negotiate some kind of trade deal, as many European economies stood to lose out ... but it's clear that the unilateral no deal approach was the plan from the outset.
[deleted]
I definitely sense a smug air of "this is all your fault and you deserve every ounce of pain for leaving. Let that be a lesson to you!"
Considering how smug the pro-leave people were and how they were repeatedly and loudly insulting towards those who wanted to remain, surely we’re not surprised.
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.
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.
'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.
>" 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."
Yep! This is exactly the kind of sentiment I was talking about.
Yep! This is exactly the kind of sentiment I was talking about.
And in what conceivable way is it not justified? "Project Fear" was always "Project Reality". It's just that reality is now biting for the people who voted for the leopards to eat their faces.
> 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.
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.
Yeah, so? It is all their fault and they deserve every ounce of pain for leaving. Nobody to blame but themselves, the nitwits.
... except there's also news reports everywhere of an energy crisis in Europe too? Also maybe Asia as well.
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.
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.
Apparently, petrol (gas for Americans) is plentiful at the refineries, but there aren't truck drivers who can drive it to the petrol station. For some weeks now, supermarkets have been somewhat sparsely stacked (no shortage of food in general, but definitely limited ranges etc.).
There is no direct link to the spikes in energy prices.
There is no direct link to the spikes in energy prices.
It should be noted that the photographs that the news outlets use in the articles about supermarket shortages are mostly from last year. It's deceptive.
We don’t need to rely on photographs to physically see the sparse shelves with our own eyes
I dunno, this site probably disproportionately represents the kind of demographic who just orders all their groceries on Amazon Fresh and hasn't set foot in a grocery store in months anyways. Maybe some people do need photos.
Still, there are shortages. For example, my local supermarket has for a month or so had signs explaining that "Supply difficulties" may mean some items aren't in stock, e.g. most of the Italian ready meals section (I like Italian and I'm lazy) is replaced by an incongruous display of Italian wine, even though the wine section is actually on the far side of the store.
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.
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.
True.
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.
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.
I went to the supermarket on Saturday - every shelf was fully stacked - I walked around looking for missing things. I got bored and bought a steak and a bottle of wine and went home.
[deleted]
The issue with free movement of labor is that it only works out well across a region with standardized pay rates. Otherwise corporations will import labor from the low-cost zones and fire their high-cost local workers. This causes a lot of anger, see Brexit.
Yeah, that's what people keep saying. But if it were true, the staff shortages post-brexit would be easily resolved by simply paying a bit more.
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.
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.
> 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
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
This seems like a case of trying to cram the ruinous practices back into pandora's box, which has been leaking for a very long time. Transport companies have had a long time to optimise their extraction of value from cheap, easily exploitable employees from overseas.
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.
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.
There has been a driver shortage for years - a whole variety of factors have just all come along at the same time to knock it over the edge and cause all the resulting chaos.
Problem is that these transport companies are one of the most affected industries by international and open markets. That had severe repercussions for prices for any form of logistics. Transportation is dirt cheap and highly competitive and that has an effect on wages of course.
[deleted]
And yet the truck driver openings, now that the low cost workers are gone, have yet to see a significant pay rise to bring in locals that have never considered the job until now
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...)
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...)
> Wouldn't that raise the gas prices quite considerably?
I would be surprised if the distribution cost of petrol was more than 2% of the pump price. Quick googling gives numbers of around 2p/litre, around 5 years ago. That's total distribution costs, not just driver pay.
This suggests that doubling the pay of the truck drivers would make a much less than 2% increase in pump prices.
This suggests that doubling the pay of the truck drivers would make a much less than 2% increase in pump prices.
An outcome of free movement is flattening of income distribution across geography. Nowhere stays cheap, as wage inflation hits, and nowhere stays expensive, as employers move to cheaper places.
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.
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.
What is the advantage for Sweden here when they have higher wages and can people and cities in Romania compete against the Swedish ones to not pull the most educated out of the country?
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.
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.
[deleted]
Not really. The ones who are angry about this are lobbyists representing haulers.
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).
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).
Not suggesting that there are not other factors (Brexit, Covid etc) but the media have to shoulder the "panic" element of this.
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.
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.
It's not unlike the panic buying at the start of the pandemic. The media is driving this hysteria because a) it fits their narrative around brexit, and b) fear & outrage sells.
The media may have made the problem appear a little faster, but they can't be the actual cause of the shortage, the supply strain existed well before the first headline was ever pushed.
Yes the strain was there but if you publish front page news every day that the pumps are "running dry" then you're going to cause a spike in demand.
> it fits their narrative around brexit
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.
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.
Edgelord leftist.
> fear & outrage sells
Or put another way, fear & outrage buy.
Or put another way, fear & outrage buy.
I would be less inclined to try find a pump if I saw photos of long queues and closed forecourts
If this is true, this should only inconvenience people for a week or two. Unlike toilet paper, average citizens don't really have a way to store 100x more than their normal weekly consumption of petrol. So if there are no supply issues and only some distribution challenges, demand will slump off once everyone has had a chance to fill their tank and the 1-2 jerrycans they may have lying around.
It's worth noting, you can only 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-...
Panic buy Jerry-cans!
You're joking but I read this on the news today:
"Halfords recorded a seventeenfold rise in the number of jerry cans sold over the weekend compared with the same period a week earlier."
Also if you check Amazon UK, most jerry cans now have limited stock and longer delivery times
Also if you check Amazon UK, most jerry cans now have limited stock and longer delivery times
Shh! We mustn't let the Tory voters see that or we'll have another bloody shortage!
[deleted]
This is exactly what happened during the Colonial pipeline fiasco. They themselves said if things went normally, there'd be no shortage. Of course the media had a field day with that one nationwide. Florida, who doesn't even get gas from it, saw outages and long lines for gas. I wish there were more controls for prosecuting media companies.
"British ministers have insisted that Brexit is nothing to do with the current trucker shortage."
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.
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.
Brexit didn't cause it, it just made it more obvious. The problem is not a shortage of drivers, it is the poor pay and conditions.
There were multiple factors of which brexit was maybe number two. People stopping working due to covid was no 1. Also the diver license folk knocking off.
This is all actually due to the initial phases of the inevitable collapse of the Galactic Empire, as foreseen by Hari Seldon.
How can we counteract this. Should perhaps one or two settlements be created at the opposite ends of the Earth be established? In order to make ready for the new empire?
One in Cornwall and one on the Orkneys should be enough.
It's more of a local British problem...
It's more of a local British problem...
Any blueprints for these settlements we can use?
Land’s End and Marshall Meadows Bay should suffice.
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.
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 British did this a while back when their Empire still looked strong - the Foundation was North America. The silent sleeper cell second foundation is probably New Zealand. Unfortunately, Boris Johnson a.k.a the Mule came along.
It’s incredibly sad it’s come to this, but it’s an entirely self inflicted pain. Voters were lied to and this is the result.
Entirely deliberate Bullingdon-style class warfare.
I'm sure we'll all shed a tear because 'brenda #fbpeu' had to queue up for some petrol she didn't need.
The reason more tears haven't been shed is probably because the consequences are so terrible nobody on either side had the will to enforce the original terms and timelines and Tories will try to kick this can down the road for as long as politically possible, perhaps much longer.
Appears to be _mostly_ a mediagenic phenomenon: the driver shortage caused a few stations to run out, a minister told everyone not to panic buy, so they immediately started panic buying. Like the great toilet paper shortage.
The lorry driver shortage inflicted by Brexit is starting to cause problems, though.
The lorry driver shortage inflicted by Brexit is starting to cause problems, though.
>Like the great toilet paper shortage.
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?
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?
Additionally, everyone moved home and offices emptied out, so the daily/weekly/monthly demand for toilet paper went from 50/50 consumer/industrial to 100% consumer overnight. Those are two very different supply chains, with distinct, roughly (if you'll pardon the pun) incimpatible products, packaging and distribution networks.
We were also told to prepare to self isolate a family for 2 weeks. That's a bunch of toilet roll for a normal sized family needed to stock up on. When internet deliveries were restricted to just the vulnerable too.
Almost all "panic buying" is calm and rational.
Almost all "panic buying" is calm and rational.
> When internet deliveries were restricted to just the vulnerable too.
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.
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.
Exactly, booked up for weeks, so to plan you had to buy in the shops in bulk before a slot became available to your family of 4
The annoying thing was, my position on first lockdown was:
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.
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.
People on the whole do not know what "panic buying" actually is.
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. "
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. "
Sounds like they do understand panic buying. The issue is that it's completely rational on an individual level. "Panic" buying isn't really a good term for it.
The issue is that everyone thinks they are rational, there's not a bunch of people panicking and another bunch of people reacting to them. There's just one bunch!
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
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
They don't just think they are rational, they are rational. When there is a run on the bank, the rational thing to do is join the run, because if you do, you have a chance of getting your money, but if you don't, you have no chance. That is why this behavior is so hard to stop.
I'm sure game theorists have studied this problem extensively so I could be very wrong and just showing off my ignorance, but I would think that the rational/utilitarian thing in a situation where a large number of actors are acting selfishly is to also act selfishly, assuming you have no effective method of influencing those other actors.
In the northeast it was typically bread and milk (and also toilet paper) people would stock up on before a big storm often causing shortages. I've seen "French Toast Alert" used but it's a bit too cute to quite capture it.
[1]https://www.universalhub.com/french-toast
My wife was the same during lockdown, I said there's no need to panic buy stuff we don't need. She told me she was just buying stuff so we could eat if the shelves went empty
> She told me she was just buying stuff so we could eat if the shelves went empty
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.
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.
I honestly think Brexit was only a very small part of this. It's probably also a combination of IR35 making the entire endeavour not worthwhile for UK AND European workers and the government not having enough HGV tests available to bring newly qualified drivers into the workforce. It's a combination of a lot of different things.
And poor working conditions. Why live in a truck when you can get paid the same to stack shelves in a supermarket and wake up in your own bed.
What a coincidence that something that was claimed for years to be a likely outcome of Brexit happened right in the aftermath of Brexit.... but it turns out that it was mostly unrelated to Brexit.
What. A. Coincidence.
What. A. Coincidence.
From a purely selfish perspective, the worst outcome of the pandemic so far is that it has served as a distraction and shield for Tories who bungled Brexit and have yet to face any political consequences.
Only on a programmers' forum could this all be IR35's fault!
(could well be true - but i did laugh out loud)
(could well be true - but i did laugh out loud)
IR35 doesn't just apply to programmers, it applies to everyone performing individual contract work through a Limited Company, (as originally recommended/insisted upon by the Inland Revenue).
I'm not sure drivers could fall afoul of IR35 anyway.
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.)
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.)
I find that a strange take. There is a HGV driver shortage solely because a lot of drivers have left, due to Brexit. The UK wouldn't need so many extra HGV licences without Brexit, because drivers from the EU would be qualified. The IR35 issues are because people in the UK are used to cheaper labour from mainland Europe, which is no longer available, due to Brexit.
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.
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.
You can have one ass and buy a thousand rolls of toilet paper. You can't have one car and buy a thousand liters of fuel.
This is pure supply shock
This is pure supply shock
A sister comment on this article mentions that Halfords have seen jerrycan sales multiply 17-fold compared to last week. Perhaps a thousand liters is a bit much, but you can definitely get more than a carfull.
This reminds me of the video from the forklift driver in one of the warehouse where they store the toilet paper here. He was laughing as he drove by hundreds of meters high stacks of toilet paper.
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)
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)
"Appears to be _mostly_ a mediagenic phenomenon: the driver shortage caused a few stations to run out".
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...)
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...)
It's still a mediagenic phenomenon. The driver shortage itself only caused a handful of petrol stations to run out - it was panic buying due to frenzied news headlines about petrol shortages that caused all the rest to run out of fuel.
A larger contribution to the driver shortage was the change in self employment status caused by IR35 off payroll legislation.
https://driverrequire.co.uk/ir35 https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0015112ir35_reform_fuellin...
Lorry driver shortage is a fairly common phenom in Europe atm.
https://driverrequire.co.uk/ir35 https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0015112ir35_reform_fuellin...
Lorry driver shortage is a fairly common phenom in Europe atm.
For non UK-english aware, a lorry is a truck.
Minister needs to tell everyone not to panic vaccinate.
Well... looks like the UK are the next in line to discover that paying people in essential industries shit wages leads to said shit outcomes.
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.
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.
They would still be in the UK doing their shit jobs for shit wages, if they had a better visa situation...
There is a massive shortage of HGV drivers across Europe and has been for years. 'It should be noted first and foremost that Britain’s driver shortage is not a new phenomenon. Even in the heady days before Covid or Brexit, the UK was already lacking around 76,000 drivers, according to Logistics UK.'[1]
[1] https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/supply-chain/the-real-causes-of-...
[1] https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/supply-chain/the-real-causes-of-...
Well, aren't we all in the West (if I may assume where you live) guilty of that? 55 inch TVs are $500 nowadays, mangoes flown from South America are less than $2 in my local supermarket, we like to fly to Thailand because vacationing is "dirt cheap" there...
People can only fill their tank, so it's self-limiting.
People tend to find creative ways around this. Jerrycans have been used to carry additional fuel for example.
What do you mean by that? They can fill jerry cans or siphon out fuel at home
More generally, people have limited capacity by how many fuel containers they own. I don't think there is a massive supply of unused jerry cans anywhere, and and in any case it would take several cans to equal a single car tank.
Have a buddy with multiple 50 gallon "drums" he fills up with gas anytime he even suspects that gas price is going to go up.
Sounds like a lot of work to maybe save $50, but hey... mostly fun and games (unless you barn catches fire).
Sounds like a lot of work to maybe save $50, but hey... mostly fun and games (unless you barn catches fire).
Gasoline has a shelf life also, particularly modern gasoline blended with ethanol and other additives. Ever had trouble using last year's gasoline in the lawn mower the following spring?
Diesel generally stores better, but it can have problems with algae growth.
Diesel generally stores better, but it can have problems with algae growth.
Apparently the new stuff only lasts around 30 days before it’s useless.
Well, you can put $1 of stabilizer in and have it last for at least a year.
Mm. A Facebook friend in the UK just reported a petrol tout to the police for storing more than 15 litres without a licence.
Depends on where you live. Farmers in the US typically have around 8000 liters petro on their farm in various grades. They have a contract with a local company to keep those tanks full of whatever the correct fuel for the current season is. When it is a long way to town and many vehicles never go to town having your own private fuel station starts to make sense.
They also dye diesel, the dye shows no tax was paid so you get in poo-poo if you try to drive on public roads with it
https://www.ricochetfuel.com/blog/dyed-diesel-fuel-vs-regula...
https://www.ricochetfuel.com/blog/dyed-diesel-fuel-vs-regula...
Farmers tend to have more than one grade of fuel. dyed diesel is the most common grade because there is no road tax. Farmers that aren't close to town (most of them) are likely to have undyed diesel for their trucks as well. Gasoline is somewhat common - though gasoline tractors went out of style around 1960, sometimes there is a car that never goes to town, lawnmowers, ATVs... It depends on the farm what they keep on hand.
This story is about the UK, and in the UK everyone is close to town by American standards. Heck, the tiny rural nowhere I rented for 5 months after Uni was still… huh, Google says 4.4 miles from the University itself.
By UK standards, it was the middle of nowhere.
By UK standards, it was the middle of nowhere.
Of course some buyers are bigger than others but even your friend (unusual as he is) only has so many drums.
You can only store 30 litres of fuel at home.
> 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-...
> 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-...
So what happens when that person brings the 31st litre of fuel home? It instantly disappears? Or maybe people will do it despite the law.
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.
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.
TBH I still think Brexit is a good choice for Britain. The EU is a terribly inefficient and hopeless organization (but perhaps I am a bit biased, I've always been opposed to the EU because it's far too heavy weight).
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.
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.
It absolutely was not the right choice for the UK (not just Britain, don't forget about Northern Ireland). The EU has definitely shown itself to be quick when it needs to be, and in general has improved life for the average person. There are nothing but downsides in the immediate and long-term future for the UK without the EU — these economic consequences are not easily solvable, and the Tories have not shown themselves capable of actually solving these problems.
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.
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.
As a Brit, I think "slightly lied to" is a huge under-exaggeration. Literally everyone I spoke to who voted for Brexit did so entirely on the lies, for example the NHS money thing, specific claims about removing "foreigners", and promises of rebuilding of British-only enterprises.
I'm sorry but you can't know that. The vast majority of people had probably made their decision before the messaging kicked in. Also you can claim the same the other way. The only reason people voted to remain is because of the scare of no drinking water, no medicines, fear of an instant market crash etc. Both sides can and were manipulated to some extent by false messaging that never came to be, but certainly not everyone voted the way they did as a result of that messaging.
You’re replying to someone stating what others have told them, not making an assertion based on something they ‘know’. Did you reply to the wrong comment perhaps?
I can't say this is true for everyone that voted, but can sadly confirm that I know for many this is true, certainly had a significant impact in my opinion.
I seriously doubt this claim 'Literally everyone I spoke to who voted for Brexit did so entirely on the lies' - that seems to be a coping mechanism for anybody on the opposite side of a debate.
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
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
I'm sorry that the reality I experience does not line up neatly with the one you want to believe
'Literally everyone'? Not me, Joe - so now your previous comment is incorrect.
I meant people I spoke to in person
> I'm sorry that the reality I experience does not line up neatly with the one you want to believe
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.
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.
I don't think so personally. I see it based on what I know versus what they know. I know about my reality, whereas they want to believe something different about my reality. I'm not saying they want to believe something about their _own_ reality, I'm saying that it is about my own. I had an experience and they are saying "no, you didn't", which is them projecting their belief onto my experience of reality. So I think that both of your examples do not express what I meant.
You have literally stated that any view which differs from yours is based on lies. Let me know how that works out for you.
As an aside, this sort of attitude is probably why you ‘better educated’ people lost the vote.
As an aside, this sort of attitude is probably why you ‘better educated’ people lost the vote.
No, I stated that every person I personally know who voted for Brexit did so primarily based on lies. It is strange that you cannot understand the difference.
> The EU is a terribly inefficient and hopeless organization
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.
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.
[deleted]
Seems strange that this has nothing at all to do with the rapidly rising prices of petrol in the UK.
Russia has been reducing the flow of petrol into Europe due to conflict over a new pipeline. The UK has a had a terrible windy season, meaning more demand for fossil fuels. And economic recovery after the pandemic, all these things have pushed prices really high.
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...
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...
How would a windy season lead to more demand for fossil fuels? You'd think all the wind turbines going full swing would mean less electricity has to be generated with non-renewable means, thereby reducing demand for fossil fuels.
By "terrible windy season", he means that a season that is usually expected to be very windy has instead been quite still.
A terrible windy season is one in which there is less wind. This would be different to a terribly windy season, in which there is too much.
We've just had a low-wind summer, increasing the demand for gas.
We've just had a low-wind summer, increasing the demand for gas.
[deleted]
The Mash nailed this last week
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/britain-facing-long-...
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/britain-facing-long-...
And NewsThump today:
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"
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"
They are petrol stations.
Well it didn't take long after the apocalypse to go full Mad Max
Hopefully it is just another toilet roll craze.
Hopefully it is just another toilet roll craze.
Here is South Africa during our last Covid lockdown there were also a shortage going on. But then the government banned the selling of petrol to people who were bringing random containers, which apparently made up a big portion of the total sales.
It's OK everyone, the government says there is no shortage, so there isn't one. That's how it works in the New Sovereign UK.
Solar + Battery + EV - No need for a pump, just sayin…
How much panel surface would you need to drive an EV, say, 100 miles a week?
A Tesla does about 4 miles per kw, give or take. So 100 miles would use about 25 KWH. Typical solar panel setups for domestic usage are around 3-4 KW. So depending on the season, you could get to 25KWH in a single day in the summer and you might struggle to get there in a week in the winter. All depends on you latitude, cloud coverage, etc. If you are in the north of Scottland, probably not a great plan in the winter but fantastic yields in the summer due to the long days.
This will need to make some assumptions based on how many good hours of solar generation you get. This will vary quite a bit based on latitude and season. Assuming you get ~6 hours of good generation a day on average, charging 7 days a week means you'll get 42 hours of good solar power output.
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.
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.
I've got a tesla and a plug, there's no need for a pump with that setup either...
In ten years of Nissan Leaf ownership, I've needed neither solar panels nor a gas/petrol station to power it.
The media need to be held accountable here.
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.
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.
Your claim that "there is no shortage of drivers" according to "everyone in the industry" is incorrect. From [0]:
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...
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...
I’d suggest you should listen to what the drivers, refinery, and actual garage staff say. I think you’ll get much closer to the truth.
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.
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.
> 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.
If that were true, then there'd be no issue. But things were continuing to worsen before the media reported on it.
If that were true, then there'd be no issue. But things were continuing to worsen before the media reported on it.
No they weren’t. Certainly around here, the order of events was exactly this:
* Petrol stations all chugging along normally
* Media start scaring people into panic buying
* Petrol stations overwhelmed by idiotic buying
In a few days, it will all go away. The sky is not falling.
In a few days, it will all go away. The sky is not falling.
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.