|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Sep 22:27
After the release of Government papers, surely no one's going to be happy with 'No Deal' now apart from the ERG and the Brexit party?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 11 Sep 22:29
I suspect these have been watered down W E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 11 Sep 22:53
If you’re playing poker you don’t show your hand to the opposite party.
What Grieve and his cohorts have done is undermine the national interest but what do they care? They are committed Europhiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Sep 23:09
The EU will have done their own assessment of the effect of 'No Deal' on their side. I can't imagine they'll learn much from these documents they don't know already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Sep 23:31
I very much doubt the EU were going to destroy themselves to keeo Farage and Boris happy.
Most unliked idiots in Europe try to bully them lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 11 Sep 23:52
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 11 Sep 23:09
The EU will have done their own assessment of the effect of 'No Deal' on their side. I can't imagine they'll learn much from these documents they don't know already.
Exactly.
The EU has always viewed No Deal as a lose/lose scenario as they have a fair idea what the impact is for both sides. This hasn't given the EU an advantage but it has given the people in the UK an insight as to what worst case scenarios (and my understanding is it is meant to be worst case) look like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 12 Sep 00:24
Yes, Chicken Bojo is not only frightened to show up in his own parliament, the one he was never elected leader to, he was also frightened to release relevant public information lest it scared the wise populace who had voted for Brexit. He has already bottled out of EU negotiations as well, being too busy looking in the tabloid mirror. When he visited Ireland he was like a boy who had forgotten to do his homework.
He can hardly now canvass in Scotland in the event of a General Election for fear of being subject to citizen's arrest. Apart from that he is playing a blinder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: davepars
Date: Thu 12 Sep 12:37
The redacted part (section 15 I think) is especially interesting.
15. 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 2000).
Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Thu 12 Sep 14:59
I have no idea what they are up to.
The whole "we don't want a no deal Brexit but we need to make the EU think it is on the table" approach was just bizarre from the beginning.
Everything appears to be building towards Theresa May's deal being accepted, but I have no idea how Cummings is planning to disguise it as something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 12 Sep 15:02
"Everything appears to be building towards Theresa May's deal being accepted, but I have no idea how Cummings is planning to disguise it as something else."
If that happens - and sadly I think you're right, that's the way it's heading - then the Conservatives really are finished. Although I guess that will delight many.
For me it's the worst of both worlds and we would really be as well remaining. We'd still be heavily bound to the EU, still due them a fortune and we'd probably end up with a Corbyn government :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: davepars
Date: Thu 12 Sep 16:47
I think the only way that the May deal or something fundamentally similar will get through is with an amendment making it subject to a referendum.
There's more moving towards that in parliament every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Thu 12 Sep 20:34
Mays deal included the EU's offshore tax avoidance law It will be interesting to see if it is still there when and if it is presented back into Parliament
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 12 Sep 22:16
The more I hear the media hysteria over this publication the more I despair.
Anyone who has been in business will know that when you embark on a major project or change you do a SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.
The follow up is that if, for example, you see threats to your business then you rightly consider what mitigation actions you can apply to deal with and reduce/ eliminate the threats.
Without the publication of the Government’s mitigation plans in tandem then to see these potential ‘worst case scenarios ‘ in isolation is disingenuous but of course that was the intention of the Remainer dominated Commons to create Project Fear M2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 12 Sep 22:25
Interesting observation Buspasspar.
After a few months in the job Johnson has, predictably, produced more heat than light. The ‘threat’ of a crash-out Brexit is not to terrify the EU, who could cope with such a lunatic policy easier than the EU. It is to concentrate the minds of Tory MPs and a fair amount of Remainers on the Labour benches who, so far, have voted against the Theresa May deal. Expect her old wine to be rebottled soon, in a Take it or Leave it Brexit offer to a reconstituted parliament.
I still think Johnson is doomed, having given too much leeway to rabid Brexiteers who will contest him electorally or do their damnest to vote down any compromise deal put in a referendum. He has enemies to the left obviously, but has also made enemies of the Euro Tories as well, and he is about to ‘betray’ the hard line Brexiteers who would prefer Farage in charge anyway.
Parbucks,
Politics is not business. It's more complicated than that.
sammer
Post Edited (Thu 12 Sep 22:27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 12 Sep 22:26
Well, a SWOT is rather rudimentary. I would have a risk log with impact and probability.
If one of my team presented a log with entries of High and high, but had scored that out and scribbled Low and Low I would be somewhat concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 12 Sep 22:33
Then why do politicians behave like children in the middle of a national crisis?
Only complicated because most of them have never had proper jobs outside a political career.
Don’t get me started on those with legal backgrounds on both sides of the house. As I said on another thread all trying to pee higher up the wall to satisfy their inflated egos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 12 Sep 22:46
Ipswich
Getting a bit picky aren’t you?
You seem to be overlooking the basic point that if you publish a paper on “possible” problems then it is only right to present the remedial actions at the same time.
Isn’t that fair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 13 Sep 01:39
I would tend to agree with ipswichpar. A SWOT analysis is geared more towards an assessment of the current situation, while a risk assessment is better suited to a situation planned in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 13 Sep 01:59
<<You seem to be overlooking the basic point that if you publish a paper on “possible” problems then it is only right to present the remedial actions at the same time.>>
I agree that it would be fairer to do so, but from a time perspective that might not be possible. It is almost always easier to identify problems rather than find solutions. Invariably, it takes a different skill set to work on problem-solving and they work to different timelines. They are probably still working on finding the solutions.
In other words, in all likelihood, the people who wrote Yellowhammer would not be the people who developed the means to reduce or eliminate the problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 13 Sep 09:53
Oz
Fair points.
Ironically a former government minister and member of the Privy Council has reported that he questioned the people responsible for the section on delays at Calais. He asked them how they came up with the assessment of 2-3 day delays
and had they spoken to the management of Calais Port. After some squirming they admitted they hadn’t.
They had just stuck their fingers in the air. So this is more about “what if” and needs to be considered in that context.
As it turns out Calais claim they are well prepared and say that the number of checks will be no greater than today and are confident traffic will flow freely on their side.
We’ll see but if the same “blue sky” thinking applies to the rest of this document
it is grossly misleading and not worth the mass hysteria the media are creating around it in isolation from the planning to mitigate any potential risks.
Post Edited (Fri 13 Sep 10:08)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 13 Sep 10:03
A government that accepted such a document prepared in the manner described would be grossly incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Fri 13 Sep 10:10
I think it's already well established Eck that this government is grossly incompetent...and that's being kind ;)
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 13 Sep 10:51
Sammer
The Kinnock amendment has been kept very low key so far
MPs have imposed an unexpected extra condition on themselves: to debate and vote on the withdrawal agreement for a fourth time, coupled with a series of further concessions and guarantees on workers’ rights, offered by Theresa May in her doomed final bid to get Labour MPs on board with her plan.
The amendment, tabled by Stephen Kinnock and backed by more than a dozen of his colleagues, passed thanks to legislative chicanery by the government, who deliberately neglected to provide tellers for the No side, which meant that it passed by default. Because it suited them to do so as it would probably have lost in a proper vote
There will be a 4th vote on Mays deal before the 19th and Bojo will present it as the final chance to get a deal or we leave with no deal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 13 Sep 10:53
In the long term the transport of goods will be relatively normal as now for the majority of freight but initially it is going to be a total nightmare and may last for quite some time.
Particularly the transport of food produce and other fresh goods are going to have major problems given the EU rules about food quality.
Having our fishing waters back will seem ridiculous when they can't find easy ways to get over the border without stringent checks but hey, a fish supper might be cheaper eh?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Fri 13 Sep 10:54
Presenting her "deal" would be his biggest gamble to date. He'd be as well signing his resignation letter at the same time as his party will get destroyed in a subsequent General Election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Fri 13 Sep 14:30
Quote:
parbucks, Thu 12 Sep 22:46
Ipswich
Getting a bit picky aren’t you?
You seem to be overlooking the basic point that if you publish a paper on “possible” problems then it is only right to present the remedial actions at the same time.
Isn’t that fair?
Hi parbucks
Wasnt meaning to come across as picky....sorry. I am just frustrated about the rank incompetence to support the apparent "make it happen at all costs" approach. If that's what they want they should state that......but you get told that it is all scenario planned then you get these amateur assessments. I do feel for them, only having 3 years to try and plan it.....
Post Edited (Fri 13 Sep 14:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 13 Sep 15:26
The real problem IMO is that there was little or no planning under May and Hammond so we sadly lost a couple of years to cover all circumstances comprehensively.
Consultants must be having a field day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 13 Sep 15:32
I think you can take that back an administration and say that Cameron should have started the preparations for Brexit as the Government had to act on the decision fairly quickly (relatively speaking) after the results were in.
Having absolutely no plan or preparation even if they were against Brexit was a waste of about two years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 13 Sep 16:14
Who were the Brexit ministers over the last three years? Shouldn't they have been organising these preparations?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 13 Sep 17:23
The various Brexit ministers were primarily focused on EU negotiations not planning for a No Deal scenario.
As far as I’m aware under Theresa May each Ministry was doing it’s own thing which led to a lack of coordination and differing degrees of preparedness.
Hammond keeping a tight grip on the purse strings didn’t help either.
It’s only since Boris took over a couple of months ago and put Gove in charge of all planning for a No Deal that things are coming together albeit belatedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 13 Sep 17:50
‘Presenting her "deal" would be his biggest gamble to date. He'd be as well signing his resignation letter at the same time as his party will get destroyed in a subsequent General Election.’
The skill would lie in Johnson’s ability to present an updated form of May’s deal as something new and improved to the general public, knowing that many MPs across the house are in the last chance saloon. He can lay it on the line to the hard Brexiteers that if they knock back his deal then there will simply never be any Brexit; this is at least a stepping stone towards complete and utter withdrawal. To the Remainers he is offering the chance to keep a toe hold in the EU and perhaps return in future. If he can get his deal through parliament then he has delivered and can face the electorate as a man who did what he promised.
His other option seems worse. We do not even know if Brexit is still a majority view, but a crash-out Brexit never has been, so if Johnson goes down that road then he will be acting against the will of the people. He would inevitably be thwarted politically and legally so unable to leave by 31st October. He could of course blame everyone else for this failure, but his own credibility would be shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 13 Sep 19:35
Good post Sammer
When Bojo says he is close to a deal the general consensus is that he is negotiating with Brussels although Brussels are saying there is no ongoing negotiations
Boris is negotiating with his own party bullying some members cajoling some rewarding some and tweaking Mays deal to reach a satisfactory conclusion albeit he still has to find a solution to the backstop
I read the other day that he would be prepared to build a bridge from Stranraer to Larne and he has estimated the cost at 50 billion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sat 14 Sep 00:30
There are two proposals for an Ulster-Scotland bridge - one reaches Scotland around Stranraer, the other at the Mull of Kintyre.
If the Baltic bridges are any guide, then a bridge to Ireland would take something like ten years from getting the go-ahead to opening for business.
The roads on the Scottish side are woefully inadequate to handle heavy lorry traffic and they go through areas of natural beauty which would make obtaining planning approvals a nightmare.
Can't see either proposal getting the nod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Sep 00:39
Don't forget about the million tonnes of munitions we dumped in those waters after the Second World War.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
