Techfullpost

Suella Braverman denies Brexit to blame for Dover queues of 14 hour

Suella Braverman denies Brexit to blame for Dover queues of 14 hour

Suella Braverman denies Brexit to blame for Dover queues of 14 hour, After hearing that some passengers had waited in line for up to 14 hours to have their passports checked, Suella Braverman denied that Brexit was to blame for the delays at the port of Dover.

When a critical incident was declared at the port on Friday, extra sailings were being scheduled overnight in the hopes of reducing the backlog by Sunday midday.

On Sunday, the home secretary declared that since Brexit, border operations with France had been “quite excellent” on Sky News’ Sophy Ridge.

“Well, I don’t believe it’s accurate to suggest that Brexit has had a negative impact on this. Since we left the European Union many years ago, border operations and procedures have generally been excellent.

“I think there will always be a backup at peak times when there is a lot of strain crossing the Channel, whether that’s on tunnel or boats. I merely ask that everyone exercise some patience as the ferry operators clear the bottleneck.

But, the port’s CEO, Doug Bannister, acknowledged Brexit was contributing to longer processing waits at the border in an interview with The Observer a year ago.

“There will be improvements made,” he declared. Individuals will become more adept at reading passports, reviewing documentation, and lodging papers. Yet our trading environment has changed.

Subsequently, Braverman claimed that “poor weather” was to blame for the crisis at Dover and disputed that it would happen again on the Laura Kuenssberg programme on BBC One.

I genuinely feel for families and schoolchildren attempting to travel to France for the Easter holidays, she said. Nobody wants to spend the night at Dover waiting in a coach for hours.

It wasn’t something that would occur every school break, Braverman said in response to the question. The border has been running extremely smoothly in recent years. There is a specific confluence of events that have taken place right now.

She claimed that although the government was in contact with them, it was “ultimately a matter for the boat companies.”

The delays, according to Lisa Nandy, the shadow levelling up secretary, might be avoided if the government “started doing their actual job.”

The government has known for a very long time that they needed to make sure that there were resources in place to deal with additional documentation checks, but there are clearly a variety of issues that have gone into the delays here, and we’ve seen them before, she added on Sky News.

“Whether or not we quit the European Union is not the point. The point was that we were left with an administration that, yet again, made lofty promises but failed to keep them.

And I have a lot of sympathy for the families attempting to go for an Easter holiday, as well as for everyone else who has been affected by the upheaval and whose jobs are in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT
RECOMMENDED
NEXT UP

Google has introduced a refreshed version of its iconic multicolored “G” logo, marking the first significant update in nearly a decade. This subtle yet impactful redesign transitions the familiar red, yellow, green, and blue hues into a seamless gradient, aligning with modern design trends and the company’s evolving visual identity.

A Modern Twist on a Classic Brand Symbol

The new gradient “G” logo was first spotted in an update to the Google app on iOS and Pixel devices, as reported by 9to5Google. Unlike the previous version, which featured distinct color blocks, the updated design blends the four primary colors smoothly, creating a more dynamic and contemporary look.

This change follows Google’s last major logo overhaul in September 2015, when the company shifted to a sans-serif typeface and introduced a simplified “G” emblem that retained its signature color scheme. While the latest update is more understated, it reflects Google’s ongoing commitment to a cohesive and forward-thinking brand aesthetic.

Why the Gradient Shift? Aligning with Google’s Broader Design Language

The new gradient treatment isn’t just a stylistic choice—it’s a strategic alignment with Google’s broader design philosophy. Notably, the updated “G” now mirrors the gradient used in the Gemini logo (Google’s AI-powered assistant), reinforcing brand consistency across products.

Key Observations About the Logo Update:

  • Currently Limited Rollout: The gradient “G” is only visible on iOS and Pixel phones as of now. The traditional block-colored version remains on the web and most Android devices.
  • Subtle Yet Meaningful: While the change may seem minor, it signals Google’s focus on modernization and adaptability in its branding.
  • Potential Wider Implementation: If this update follows Google’s past patterns, we may see the gradient logo expand to other platforms soon.

What This Means for Google’s Brand Identity

Google’s logo evolution reflects its commitment to innovation while maintaining brand recognition. The gradient effect adds a touch of sophistication, making the logo feel more integrated with today’s digital design trends.

Why This Matters for Users & Marketers:

  • Visual Continuity: A unified logo style strengthens brand recall.
  • Adaptive Design: The gradient may hint at future design changes across Google’s ecosystem.
  • AI & Brand Synergy: The resemblance to Gemini’s logo suggests deeper integration of AI into Google’s identity.

Final Thoughts: A Sign of More Changes to Come?

While this logo tweak is subtle, it could be the beginning of a broader refresh for Google’s visual branding. As the company continues to innovate—especially in AI and machine learning—its logo may evolve further to represent its cutting-edge advancements.

For now, users can spot the new gradient “G” on select devices, keeping an eye out for potential expansions to other platforms. One thing is clear: Google remains deliberate in its branding, ensuring every change serves a purpose.

The future of Mozilla Firefox hangs in the balance as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pushes for sweeping restrictions on Google’s search monopoly. Eric Muhlheim, Mozilla’s Chief Financial Officer, testified in court that the proposed remedies—including banning Google from paying to be the default search engine in third-party browsers—could devastate Firefox’s revenue and potentially force it out of business.

Why Firefox’s Survival Is at Risk

Firefox, the only major browser not controlled by a tech giant, relies heavily on its partnership with Google. According to Muhlheim:

  • 90% of Mozilla’s revenue comes from Firefox.
  • 85% of that revenue is tied to its Google search deal.

If the court enforces the DOJ’s demands, Mozilla would face immediate financial turmoil, leading to deep cuts in engineering, innovation, and user experience improvements. This could trigger a “downward spiral”, making Firefox less competitive and accelerating its decline.

The Domino Effect on Web Competition

The Loss of Gecko: A Threat to an Open Web

Firefox’s Gecko engine is the only independent browser engine not owned by Apple (WebKit) or Google (Chromium). If Firefox collapses:

  • Big Tech’s control over the web grows stronger—exactly what antitrust regulators are trying to prevent.
  • Fewer choices for users—reducing competition in browser innovation and privacy features.
  • Less funding for Mozilla’s nonprofit initiatives, including open-source web tools and AI-driven climate research.

Why Switching to Bing (or Another Search Engine) Isn’t a Viable Solution

Mozilla has explored alternatives, but the reality is grim:

  • Bing doesn’t monetize searches as effectively as Google, meaning lower revenue share for Mozilla.
  • Past experiments with Yahoo as the default led to mass user abandonment.
  • Without Google’s bids, Mozilla would have less leverage in negotiations, further reducing income.

The DOJ’s Dilemma: Fixing Google’s Monopoly Without Killing Competitors

The DOJ’s goal is noble—breaking Google’s stranglehold on search—but the unintended consequences could be catastrophic. If Firefox disappears:

✅ Google Chrome’s dominance grows—fewer competitors mean less incentive for privacy and performance improvements.
✅ Apple’s Safari remains the only alternative, further consolidating power in the hands of tech giants.
✅ Innovation suffers—Firefox has been a pioneer in privacy features like Enhanced Tracking Protection.

Can Mozilla Survive Without Google’s Money?

Muhlheim’s testimony paints a bleak picture:

“We would be really struggling to stay alive… waiting on a hypothetical future where more search competitors emerge.”

The harsh truth? Regulators must act carefully—if they dismantle Google’s monopoly too aggressively, they might inadvertently strengthen it by eliminating its biggest rival.

The Path Forward: Balancing Antitrust Enforcement & Browser Survival

To preserve a diverse, competitive web, regulators should consider:

  1. Phasing out Google’s default deals gradually—giving Mozilla time to adapt.
  2. Mandating revenue-sharing transparency—ensuring fair competition in search monetization.
  3. Supporting independent browsers—through grants or antitrust settlement funds.

Final Thoughts: Why Firefox’s Survival Matters

Firefox is more than just a browser—it’s a guardian of an open, decentralized internet. If it falls, the web becomes a duopoly of Google and Apple, with fewer choices for users and developers.

The DOJ’s case against Google is necessary, but the remedy must protect competitors, not destroy them. Otherwise, the cure could be worse than the disease.

ADVERTISEMENT
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Get notified about new articles