advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... V

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Brexit-loving Sun has got hold of an “official sensitive" government July 20th presentation called Preliminary Set of Reasonable Worse Care Scenario Planning Assumptions to support civil contingencies planning for the end of the Transition Period (aka No deal + Covid 2 = Le Merde).

Some highlights:

One in 20 Town Halls could go bust in a second Covid wave, sparking social care chaos.

The economic impact of the virus and Brexit could cause public disorder, shortages and price hikes.

Troops may have to be drafted on to the streets to help the police in the worst-case scenario — 1,500 are already on stand by.

Supplies of food and fuel are all under threat this Christmas if Dover becomes blocked.

A further £775million will be spent on new border and customs infrastructure and new border rules phased in over six months to try to avoid backlogs.

Parts of Britain may be hit by shortages of power and petrol as 8,500 trucks get stuck at Dover.

Animal disease might rip through the countryside due to shortages of medicines and the Channel Islands could need military airdrops to avoid running out of food.

The Navy might be needed to stop vigilante British fisherman clashing with hundreds of illegal European fishing boat incursions.

There will also be an advertising blitz to get businesses ready for changes and encourage them to prepare supply chains and stockpiling of critical medicines.

Data and finance rules will be relaxed to keep firms trading with the EU in the event of No Deal.
 
Kirk said:
There will also be an advertising blitz to get businesses ready for changes and encourage them to prepare supply chains and stockpiling of critical medicines.

Data and finance rules will be relaxed to keep firms trading with the EU in the event of No Deal.
Click to expand...
Four months to go, they’ve left it a bit late to ‘get businesses ready for changes’ as it is, but if we don’t know what those changes might look like, how do businesses get ready?

And that last bit seems odd. It’s the EU insisting on data protection compliance, eg GDPR compatibility, so not sure what data rules they have in mind since these, and most other cross border data rules are EU in origin, too.
 
Brian said:
What I’m doing is stating the fact that the chance was on the table to vote for a second referendum
Click to expand...

Did Labour unequivocally offer a second ref, or was it contingent on something else ("if the Tories don't get a good deal" or something)? I don't remember it being a feature of their 2019 GE campaigning.
 
farfromthesun said:
Did Labour unequivocally offer a second ref, or was it contingent on something else ("if the Tories don't get a good deal" or something)? I don't remember it being a feature of their 2019 GE campaigning.
Click to expand...
They would themselves negotiate a deal, then offer it to a confirmatory referendum, IIRC.
Whether cancelling the whole brexshithouse would be on the table in that referendum was assigned constructive ambiguity level 10.
Quite a good fudge, but unfortunately arrived at about three years too late. Years of fence sitting and magic grandpa open goal misses had poisoned the well.
 
Kirk said:
The Brexit-loving Sun has got hold of an “official sensitive" government July 20th presentation called Preliminary Set of Reasonable Worse Care Scenario Planning Assumptions to support civil contingencies planning for the end of the Transition Period (aka No deal + Covid 2 = Le Merde).

Some highlights:

One in 20 Town Halls could go bust in a second Covid wave, sparking social care chaos.

The economic impact of the virus and Brexit could cause public disorder, shortages and price hikes.

Troops may have to be drafted on to the streets to help the police in the worst-case scenario — 1,500 are already on stand by.

Supplies of food and fuel are all under threat this Christmas if Dover becomes blocked.

A further £775million will be spent on new border and customs infrastructure and new border rules phased in over six months to try to avoid backlogs.

Parts of Britain may be hit by shortages of power and petrol as 8,500 trucks get stuck at Dover.

Animal disease might rip through the countryside due to shortages of medicines and the Channel Islands could need military airdrops to avoid running out of food.

The Navy might be needed to stop vigilante British fisherman clashing with hundreds of illegal European fishing boat incursions.

There will also be an advertising blitz to get businesses ready for changes and encourage them to prepare supply chains and stockpiling of critical medicines.

Data and finance rules will be relaxed to keep firms trading with the EU in the event of No Deal.
Click to expand...

A positive if this were to happen, which is very unlikely because a deal will be done, is that the only way is up, would be no federal United States of Europe for us. What started out as the EEC for ease of trading, or at least that is what the electorate were sold, changed each year in a quest for federal control. Apart from the UK subsidy for these aspirations the are better off without us; they can now progress the vision.
 
So the positive for a catastrophic no-deal Brexit (which will happen unless Johnson caves on his redlines) is that the only way is up. Marvellous.
 
Colin L said:
So the positive for a catastrophic no-deal Brexit (which will happen unless Johnson caves on his redlines) is that the only way is up. Marvellous.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Colin has possibly articulated another benefit, which is that the EU may be better off without us. It's not a benefit for the UK, so much, but hey, maybe we're just taking one for Team EU.
 
Colin Barron said:
A positive if this were to happen, which is very unlikely because a deal will be done, is that the only way is up, would be no federal United States of Europe for us. What started out as the EEC for ease of trading, or at least that is what the electorate were sold, changed each year in a quest for federal control. Apart from the UK subsidy for these aspirations the are better off without us; they can now progress the vision.
Click to expand...
Laughably delusional. I guess you're typical.
 
farfromthesun said:
Did Labour unequivocally offer a second ref, or was it contingent on something else ("if the Tories don't get a good deal" or something)? I don't remember it being a feature of their 2019 GE campaigning.
Click to expand...
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

From page 89:
Labour will give the people the final say on Brexit. Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain. A Labour government will implement whatever the people decide.
Click to expand...
Crystal clear: a referendum with Remain as an option. Labour even put a timetable on it, and had already made overtures to the EU about what it had in mind.

The reason you don't remember it is that large sections of the media refused to report it straightforwardly. The Guardian was one of the worst offenders, regularly describing Labour's policy as "opaque" when a simple quote from the manifesto shows that to be a lie.

As a result, people wasted time and energy, quibbling about what kind of deal it would be, and whether Labour would recommend it in the referendum. Meanwhile, Swinson's band of opportunists decided to drive a wedge into the anti-Tory allowance by offering to rescind A50, without a referendum. The rest is history, and ****ing grim history, at that.
 
Colin Barron said:
A positive if this were to happen, which is very unlikely because a deal will be done, is that the only way is up, would be no federal United States of Europe for us. What started out as the EEC for ease of trading, or at least that is what the electorate were sold, changed each year in a quest for federal control. Apart from the UK subsidy for these aspirations the are better off without us; they can now progress the vision.
Click to expand...
Were you in the Ye Metryk Martyrs at one time?
 
droodzilla said:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

From page 89:

Crystal clear: a referendum with Remain as an option. Labour even put a timetable on it, and had already made overtures to the EU about what it had in mind.

The reason you don't remember it is that large sections of the media refused to report it straightforwardly. The Guardian was one of the worst offenders, regularly describing Labour's policy as "opaque" when a simple quote from the manifesto shows that to be a lie.

As a result, people wasted time and energy, quibbling about what kind of deal it would be, and whether Labour would recommend it in the referendum. Meanwhile, Swinson's band of opportunists decided to drive a wedge into the anti-Tory allowance by offering to rescind A50, without a referendum. The rest is history, and ****ing grim history, at that.
Click to expand...
The constructive ambiguity I referred to was every so often some party bigwig - I think even including corbyn at one point, but I might very well be remembering wrongly - would say remain was not an option re the ref. This could have been prior to publishing the manifesto - no matter, damage done.
 
ff1d1l said:
The constructive ambiguity I referred to was every so often some party bigwig - I think even including corbyn at one point, but I might very well be remembering wrongly - would say remain was not an option re the ref. This could have been prior to publishing the manifesto - no matter, damage done.
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong. Not a single MP, or senior party official ruled out Remain during the campaign. They would have been torn to shreds if they had, since it directly contradicted the manifesto. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.

As for the damage being done, if some Remainers knowingly refused to vote Labour because they had been slow to reach the exact position they had been demanding, they are even bigger fools than I thought.
 
droodzilla said:
I think you're wrong. Not a single MP, or senior party official ruled out Remain during the campaign. They would have been torn to shreds if they had, since it directly contradicted the manifesto. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.

As for the damage being done, if some Remainers knowingly refused to vote Labour because they had been slow to reach the exact position they had been demanding, they are even bigger fools than I thought.
Click to expand...
As I say, it was probably before the manifesto was published. But it definitely happened. I'm not going to go looking now, as the weather has brightened up and I'm off out with camera in hand and audiobook on the headphones.

Anyway water under the bridge now - it was an OK position just three years too late.

It wasn't the exact position remainers had been demanding - it involved compromising principles. And though you're quick to dismiss it, the Lib Dem position could have flown too, if they only had got someone better than Swinson. The problem was her, not the policy.

Unfortunately at that point having a crap leader seemed to be an opposition fashion imperative.
 
droodzilla said:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf

From page 89:

Crystal clear: a referendum with Remain as an option. Labour even put a timetable on it, and had already made overtures to the EU about what it had in mind.

The reason you don't remember it is that large sections of the media refused to report it straightforwardly. The Guardian was one of the worst offenders, regularly describing Labour's policy as "opaque" when a simple quote from the manifesto shows that to be a lie.

As a result, people wasted time and energy, quibbling about what kind of deal it would be, and whether Labour would recommend it in the referendum. Meanwhile, Swinson's band of opportunists decided to drive a wedge into the anti-Tory allowance by offering to rescind A50, without a referendum. The rest is history, and ****ing grim history, at that.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It seems like such a long time ago that I can barely recall the details - that and perhaps wilfully blocking it out of my memory. Whatever the position eventually was, it evidently wasn't enough; but perhaps it made no difference given the shifting of the 'red wall" to the Tories and how FPTP skews the majority in the HOC.
 
The problem with Labour’s rather last minute 2nd referendum commitment was not the message, it was the messenger. After 4 years of Corbyn fog (apart from his immediate call to trigger Article 50), hardly anyone believed anything he said by the time the general election rolled around. It’s all a bit academic anyway as there is no equivalence between a general election and a referendum. Brexit (in all its forms) was really done and dusted in 2016 - "Brexit Means Brexit", etc.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
To be fair, Colin has possibly articulated another benefit, which is that the EU may be better off without us. It's not a benefit for the UK, so much, but hey, maybe we're just taking one for Team EU.
Click to expand...
Team EU or USE as they could well be known in the near future, as they USE the impending financial crisis to push integration into overdrive. The new USE financial technique of joint debt will allow the flexibility of additional resources, so no need for the sorting out of the thorny issue of social costs that have blighted previous meetings of the 27. In the unlikely event of a no deal this writing of joint grants and loans, to be repaid by their great grand children, will really be a great help to keep the ship afloat. Meanwhile the Chinese are busy buying up Europe, on the cheap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top