Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

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)." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by L00b
source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

it would be very irresponsible for a government not to prepare for that scenario.  

Nonsense.

 

This is not a natural disaster. It is completely avoidable and can be stopped in an instant by an extension to Article 50 or indeed by revoking Article 50 altogether. The risk of no-deal is purely a result of the political ambitions of the current government. Spending billions of our money to mitigate the effects is a massive rip off of UK citizens.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point in the future, an audit of this spending showed it to be unlawful given that the need for the spending was political expediency rather than genuine emergency planning.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if the government would publish a parallel document to Yellowhammer,perhaps it could be Ostrich,and list all the benefits that we will enjoy outside of the EU.

I understand that Yellowhammer runs to only 5 pages and I am sure Ostrich would require much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

The long term aim has always been to agree to a punitive deal

More or less immediately after the referendum result, the EU were offering talks based on a Canada, and or Norway (our choice) trade deal.

 

A Canada style deal would be ok, not great, but if we're leaving we have to accept a compromise. The EU did everything they could and we buggered it up.

Edited by ads36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Nonsense.

 

This is not a natural disaster. It is completely avoidable and can be stopped in an instant by an extension to Article 50 or indeed by revoking Article 50 altogether. The risk of no-deal is purely a result of the political ambitions of the current government. Spending billions of our money to mitigate the effects is a massive rip off of UK citizens.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point in the future, an audit of this spending showed it to be unlawful given that the need for the spending was political expediency rather than genuine emergency planning.

 

 

I don't believe it is nonsense.  The only way to legally stop leaving without a deal is to a) agree to a deal or b) revoke article 50. Extending article 50 does not stop no deal happening, it just kicks the can down the road. 

 

Parliament has failed to agree to a deal multiple times. They would also not agree to revoking  article 50. That means a no deal scenario is still a very likely scenario, and should be prepared for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, RJRB said:

It would be great if the government would publish a parallel document to Yellowhammer,perhaps it could be Ostrich,and list all the benefits that we will enjoy outside of the EU.

I understand that Yellowhammer runs to only 5 pages and I am sure Ostrich would require much less.

Cheap booze and that's about it.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/11/no-deal-brexit-duty-free-alcohol-misleading-10723651/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. 

 

Prorogation has found to be lawful by the English and Northern Irish Courts, and unlawful by the Scottish Courts. All courts have come to their decision by (I assume) correctly interpreting the legal precedents that form part of the body of evidence that they can look at. This differs in Scotland than it does in England. 

 

When the case is looked at by the Supreme Court, how will they decide which laws take precedence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I have a question. 

 

Prorogation has found to be lawful by the English and Northern Irish Courts, and unlawful by the Scottish Courts. All courts have come to their decision by (I assume) correctly interpreting the legal precedents that form part of the body of evidence that they can look at. This differs in Scotland than it does in England. 

 

When the case is looked at by the Supreme Court, how will they decide which laws take precedence? 

Who knows but I suspect they will uphold the right of Boris.

However legality and what is right do not go hand in hand.

To suspend Parliament in the current crisis is a total dereliction of duty.

We might live in a democracy,but it is being severely damaged by an autocratic P.M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

When the case is looked at by the Supreme Court, how will they decide which laws take precedence? 

None of them. The Supreme Court is senior to all those courts and will take a view independant of other courts in the UK.

 

Despite people getting excited about different courts and courts of appeal giving ‘contradictory’ judgements they are actually saying the same thing. London and Belfast both said that prorogation in itself was legal and a political matter. Edinburgh agreed with that but went further and ruled that gaining royal assent for prorogation by misrepresenting the reasons for that prorogation to the monarch, was unlawful.

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will either agree with that interpretation or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.