Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[nightrider 13]

8 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

That's not exactly what they're saying. They are saying it's the reasonable worst case assumptions. That doesn't mean that they expect it to happen, only that in the worst case, it is reasonable to assume that they would. 

 

There is no evidence online to there being an 'operation Blackswan' document. Do you have a source for that? The term black swan event just means something that is highly improbable. 

Wrong - they changed base to worst case in the document released yesterday. The original leaked document said this was the baseline scenario, and ex civil servants confirmed the language used meant this was the baseline.

 

The government is lying (yet again).

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, nightrider said:

Wrong - they changed base to worst case in the document released yesterday. The original leaked document said this was the baseline scenario, and ex civil servants confirmed the language used meant this was the baseline.

 

The government is lying (yet again).

Or it could be that the billions of pounds that have been spent since the document was originally put together has mitigated some of the issues that they foresaw happening, so that they are no longer the base case, and are now less likely to happen (i.e worst reasonable case)...

 

[ads36 219]

It's the same text that was released before, all they've done is change 'base' to 'worst case'.

 

You'd have thought there were better things to spend billions on, but apparently shooting ourselves in both feet is a matter of utmost supremacy.

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, ads36 said:

It's the same text that was released before, all they've done is change 'base' to 'worst case'.

 

You'd have thought there were better things to spend billions on, but apparently shooting ourselves in both feet is a matter of utmost supremacy.

Which could be for the reason I suggested. They went from being base to worst case because of the measures taken. According to Gove, they are going to release an updated version soon, which includes information on the mitigation methods taken.

 

It's a waste of money yes, but seeing as the very real possibility of no deal was enshrined in law when Article 50 was invoked, and the chances of no deal increased every time parliament voted down a deal, it would be very irresponsible for a government not to prepare for that scenario.  

[ads36 219]

Every item, has been equally mitigated, in such a way that the text requires no alterations?

 

And that seems credible to you?

 

Ben Wallace, defence secretary, this morning, described yellowhammer as "planning assumptions".

 

I'll be honest, I'm not too bothered about the money we're wasting chasing unicorns, it's the time. We've wasted so much time, and if we do leave with no deal, this is going to drag on for *years*. So much needs doing, and it's all being sacrificed at the altar of Brexit.

 

It's a cult. There are no benefits. Just wear the robe, drink the hemlock, lie down and wait for the aliens.

 

All hail Brexit.

Edited September 12, 2019 by ads36

[L00b 441]

41 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

That's not exactly what they're saying. They are saying it's the reasonable worst case assumptions. That doesn't mean that they expect it to happen, only that in the worst case, it is reasonable to assume that they would. 

 

There is no evidence online to there being an 'operation Blackswan' document. Do you have a source for that? The term black swan event just means something that is highly improbable. 

The source for the existence of Blackswan is the same journalist to whom Yellowhammer was first leaked.

 

Your online searching must have been less than perfunctory, if you did not find the Times, inews <etc.> articles mentioning it, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of tweets cross-referencing the #BlackSwan hashtag.

 

Other posters have usefully pointed you to the futile attempt by the government at de-dramatising the base case with a subtitle editing.

 

I'm guessing that redacted paragraph 15 relates to social order.

 

Any Brexit will be bad for the UK, and a no deal one will be the worst, by an intergalactic mile.

 

Erm...You don't need any life-preserving medication past 1st November, do you?

Edited September 12, 2019 by L00b

[Robin-H 11]

5 minutes ago, ads36 said:

Every item, has been equally mitigated, in such a way that the text requires no alterations?

 

And that seems credible to you?

 

I'll be honest, I'm not too bothered about the money we're wasting chasing unicorns, it's the time. We've wasted so much time, and if we do leave with no deal, this is going to drag on for *years*. So much needs doing, and it's all being sacrificed at the altar of Brexit.

 

It's a cult. There are no benefits. Just wear the robe, drink the hemlock, and wait for the aliens.

 

All hail Brexit.

I think it's more likely that they haven't finished producing an updated version yet, with everything collated into one document etc. They weren't planning on releasing the document, and only did so because they were forced to by parliament a couple of days ago, and so decided to just change the title to reflect the fact that the mitigation measures taken mean they are no longer the base case. 

[Obelix 11]

38 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

That's not exactly what they're saying. They are saying it's the reasonable worst case assumptions. That doesn't mean that they expect it to happen, only that in the worst case, it is reasonable to assume that they would. 

 

There is no evidence online to there being an 'operation Blackswan' document. Do you have a source for that? The term black swan event just means something that is highly improbable. 

It was the base line assumption. They changed that part in time for the release.....

I'm sat inside the NHS at the moment and can see their planning for it. Yellowhammer is whats expected to happen - not worst case - this is what wuill go down on a hard brexit. The planning for worst case involves martial law and curfews and talks about "acceptable" losses from lack of medication. It's not good.

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, L00b said:

The source for the existence of Blackswan is the same journalist to whom Yellowhammer was first leaked.

 

Your online searching must have been less than perfunctory, if you did not find the Times, inews <etc.> articles mentioning it, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of tweets cross-referencing the #BlackSwan hashtag.

 

Other posters have usefully pointed you to the futile attempt by the government at de-dramatising the base case with a subtitle editing.

 

I'm guessing that redacted paragraph 15 relates to social order.

 

Any Brexit will be bad for the UK, and a no deal one will be the worst, by an intergalactic mile. But you knew that.

I asked for a source. Perhaps you could provide one. 

 

The redacted paragraph is not about social order no. It states..

 

"Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2,000)." 

[Car Boot 10]

The Remain side has been colluding with Brussels ever since the 2016 People's Vote went against our Establishment masters. The long term aim has always been to agree to a punitive deal which allows justification for a new referendum to deliver the correct Remain result. 

 

Remain MPs are calling for their political opponents to be imprisoned. Remain MPs are calling for the mobile phones of their political opponents to be seized. Remain MPs are blocking both the People's choice Brexit AND a General Election.

 

EU fascism funded by Goldman Sachs is operating in the UK.

 

Smash fascism. Smash the EU. By any means necessary.

 

 

[L00b 441]

3 hours ago, Robin-H said:

I asked for a source. Perhaps you could provide one. 

 

The redacted paragraph is not about social order no. It states..

 

"Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2,000)." 

Caroline Wheeler, Rosamund Urwin, The Sunday Times, 18 August 2019. Link to the article on the Operation Yellowhammer wiki page, reference 10:

Quote

The Sunday Times has reported that Yellowhammer is one of three scenarios being studied, with the other two being Kingfisher, involving a support package for distressed British businesses, and Black Swan, a disaster scenario

As the "disaster scenario", Blackswan would be the one with rationed food and medicines, rationed electricity in NI supplied from barge-mounted gennies, invocation of the Emergency Powers Act, army on streets, etc.

 

And so far, I've no objective reason to disbelieve it: not only is it perfectly good governance and risk mitigation to 'plan for the worst', but I've long known a person with business ties to the armaments industry, who told me months and months ago that they were rammed with UK government orders for 'riot control supplies' (I think I might have posted about that in here at the time).

 

Quite aside of whether this would ever come to pass, those pallets of rubber bullets have been bought with real taxpayers' money, which isn't going to count towards that fabled NHS' £350m per week, is it?

 

Good of you to add one more bit of good news from the Operation Yellowhammer summary.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by L00b
source

[taxman 12]

10 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

The Remain side has been colluding with Brussels ever since the 2016 People's Vote went against our Establishment masters.

 

Boris, Rees-Mogg, Murdoch et al are our establishment masters.