Cloud, internet biz will take a Yellowhammer to the head in 'worst case' no-deal Brexit Cloud providers, social media platforms, and e-commerce companies are going to be hit hard in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to official UK government correspondence. The seven-page “Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions” document [PDF], code-named Yellowhammer, was released on Wednesday night following a so- …
It wasn't always like this....
Actually it was. It's never been any different. It's just rose tinted spectacles to say it was better in the past.
Every generation supports stupid, it's just gotten to such a level that people think the stupid is normal now and so are willing to elect the likes of BoJo and Trump and accept the bullshit they get fed. But thats not any different to the bullshit they used to get fed by the likes of Thatcher, Reagen or Nixon ("I am not a crook"), it's more that they now know they can get away with outright lying now and not have to worry about massaging a thing called truth.
To quote Sir Terry: "'The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it." This also applies to populations...
The people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip elected him to parliament, and the approximately 180,000 conservative party members elected him to lead the Conservatives after May resigned/was pushed out. The entire UK elected enough Conservatives MP's to give them the majority and hence make BoJo prime minister. So yes under the laws of the UK, you did elect BoJo. Even if you didnt vote for him directly...
No, because he was selected from the Tory party as PM under the *rules* that the party happened to have at the time. Thee rules are not dictates by law, and are only under the influence of Tory party members.
Labor changing the voting regs prior in a way to favour Ed Milliband is another example of this separation.
The other title was "Base scenario".
As they haven't released that version we'll just have to assume it was pretty similar. If it was notably better it would have been published.
But it's fine of course. This destruction and chaos was exactly what everyone who voted Leave wanted. They wanted to lose their jobs, they wanted to live out of tins, have some rich inheritee take their home, end up on the street and die of a preventable and/or treatable illness due to lack of medicines and vaccines.
Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't want any of that.
Maybe a few hundred thousand actually wanted to kick Cameron in the pig head filler and didn't think there was the slightest chance of Leave actually winning. Maybe a few million were swayed by the lies offering a variety of different unicorns and rainbows.
Maybe a few million have now gazed upon the abyss and don't like what they see, and just want to call the whole thing off.
It is actually the same apart from the title and random censorship.
So, yet more legal action for misleading parliament on the way.
As everything is tradition, it's probably not a crime. I guess everything, including the sense of shame, will all have to be legally codified.
And to be honest I would have expected Parliament to be unsuspended the next day after the finding in the Scottish court was published and the government then appealing to be able to prorogue it, not them carrying on with Parliament suspended regardless while appealing. But, hey, I'm obviously one of the little people.
There's also the small matter of all the other documentation. They obviously have more than 5pp of Yellowhammer -- indeed Anna Soubtry has tweeted that she knows other docs exist because she's seen them -- and the Humble Address instructed the gov to release it all.
My working hypothesis is that they're deliberately turning every possible interaction with Parliament into a confrontation because Alexander's trying to position himself as a non-establishment, non-elite, non-politician. (That seems a familiar tactic, where've I seen that before?)
"Anna Soubtry has tweeted that she knows other docs exist because she's seen them"
I wonder if the really embarassing documents might have been produced under another project name so that they wouldn't have to be disclosed in response to a request for "Operation Yellowhammer" material. Time to go looking for "Operation Yellow Hammer" or "Operation Blue Tit." Bonus marks for the creator if they managed to make the project name acronym the same as another common one so "Operation National Suicide (ONS)" turns up millions of documents from the Office for National Statistics to swamp the requested material.
Isn't it sad how expectations of politicians are about how they will be deceitful or dishonest to circumvent the law rather than comply with it?
Wrong. The ADVICE of the people was to leave.
The referendum was ADVISORY, not binding. It said that quite clearly in the Government booklet that was sent to all voters before the referendum took place. There is no excuse whatever for treating it as binding. Any voter or MP who did so is just plain wrong.
Really?
Would you be so kind as to tell me on which page?
Because I just looked through it, and the best I can find is:
"The referendum on 23rd June is your chance to choose if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
Which does rather imply that the choice of staying in the EU or leaving is to be made by the people; nothing about 'advisory'.
Page 25 from the House of Commons briefing paper, number 07212, 3 June 2015:
5. Types of referendum
This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.
Debates confirming that MPs know it's advisory are to be found in Hansard.
After the referendum, confirmed by the High Court:
Following the 2016 referendum, the High Court confirmed that the result was not legally binding, owing to the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, and the legislation authorising the referendum did not contain clear words to the contrary.
This means it's the PM's choice to go ahead with Article 50. In the Wilson vs Theresa May case it was found that nothing can be done about Article 50 notification even though irregularities were found in the referendum campaign and the PM knew about them as the court said there was no legal link between the referendum campaign and the PM's decision. Establishment's gonna establish.
Dan55.
Thank you. Always happy to consider actual evidence rather than fabrication (from either side of the argument), and I appreciate it when people take the trouble to present evidence to support their point of view, rather than resort to crude insults because they happen to disagree with an opinion.
The briefing paper was very interesting (and deserved proper study, hence the delay in response), and does make it undeniably clear that from a strict legal point of view, the referendum was not binding on the government or parliament.
However, this does not invalidate my comment, unless perhaps I was just unlucky, because while I received a document from the government trying to persuade me to vote remain, I did not receive a copy of the briefing paper. Therefore I repeat my question:
"It said that quite clearly in the Government booklet that was sent to all voters before the referendum took place" Really, where?
Because the leaflet that every household received said "The referendum on 23rd June is your chance to choose if we should remain in or leave the European Union". it does not appear to give any indication that the vote was advisory, which suggests that the comment I was responding to does come under the heading of 'fabrication'.
It appears that government and parliament were told in a briefing paper that they all received that the vote was non-binding, but were happy to tell the general electorate that it would be.
Perhaps we (the electorate) should have been pro-active and sought out this briefing paper, but realistically, we shouldn't need to. If the government is telling us the vote will be implemented whatever the results, and parliament is not contesting this view, it's not unreasonable that we believe this.
Added to which, while it's clear that the wording of different referendum Bills varies, is it reasonable to expect the general electorate to know and understand this? Or is it reasonable to expect that the general population will see that seemingly every referendum result has been implemented, and will therefore assume that all referendums are binding? And it is quite clear that the pro-remain supporters prior to the referendum were just as certain that the result would be binding as the pro-leave supporters.
Perhaps the most salient point is that despite the fact that most of the UK's MPs supported remain, the majority of them felt obligated to vote in favour of triggering Article 50, which perhaps indicates that whatever the strict legal position might be, they felt that they were constitutionally bound to implement the result.
Here's the document that set out the terms of the referendum:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf
Section 5 clarifies that this referendum would be advisory:
5. Types of referendum
This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of
2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where
opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not
have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a
referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of
Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should
be held are set out in its constitution.
In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on
AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting
without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also
provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act
2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial
majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the
re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all
EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and
agreed by both Houses.64
Very true... and bugger all to do with membership of the 'EU'.
But what about those swarms of foreigners taking all our jobs?
Tell your greedy, cowardly bunch who presume to be a 'government' to get on and use the tools they already have to manage immigration.
And then try looking at the 'facts' instead of the lies and misinformation spewed out by your favourite mouthpiece for some money grubbing media mogul and their cronies.
I believe the referendum question was clear, the result wasn't a knife edge, and there was an enormous white paper on sale everywhere so people knew what they were voting for.
Nobody published a 500-page Leave plan, they just spent several months saying Brexit would cure every ill the UK had.
Leaves plan was:
"You get a Deal, and you get a Deal, and you get a Deal. Everyone gets a Deal." It's just that no one actually said what the Deal would be until after the Referendum. If you actually read the Leave campaign's website you very quickly realise it was all smoke and mirrors with no substance. Lots of phrases like "a deal will be the easiest thing ever" and "we could stay in the Common Market, or the EEA. Be like Norway, or Switzerland". Nowhere did it say "voting Leave means leaving on WTO terms and only those terms".
So it's true, everyone knew what they were voting for, the problem was no one was voting for the same thing.
" how about if I say the Remainer position seems to be I'm alright, Jack ?"
How about you stop trying to portray leave voters as some kind of hard done-by underclass struggling against imperialist oppression as personified by the EU? Are you suggesting that the leave voters were all unemployed? that would come as a shock to the government, no wonder we cant afford anything other than universal credit and most of our regional funding comes from the EU.
The Remain position is simply this - the EU isn't perfect, nobody claims it is, but any brexit option from a "deal" to "no deal" is clearly going to impact our economy to a lesser or greater extent. Together with the loss of workers rights and the threat to our institutions like the NHS, we would be insane to leave the EU.
It's ironic that those who you obviously think are the ones fighting for a free and democratic Britain are the ones who are going to be royally shafted post brexit.
I am just trying to rationalise the Brexit position.
Assuming the Remain position "the EU isn't perfect, nobody claims it is, but any brexit option from a "deal" to "no deal" is clearly going to impact our economy to a lesser or greater extent. Together with the loss of workers rights and the threat to our institutions like the NHS, we would be insane to leave the EU" is entirely factually correct and based on the application of massive intellects to all the pertinant facts, why any Brexit votes ?
Is it more likely that Brexiters feel that they get shafted by the economy whether it goes up or down, and the NHS and workers rights are threatened anyway, or that Brexiters were temporarily afflicted by racism and now bitterly oppose Brexit and long for a second vote?
and just want to call the whole thing off.
Or maybe we just want parliament to get on with what it was fscking told to do 3 years ago, and stop playing petty party-political games that do no good to anyone? Corbyn needs to remember that 60% of his constituencies voted to leave, and he should stop blocking that in his desperate quest for power.
Support the government, or give us an election.
@CrazyOldCatMAn the one that gets me is that it would be undemocratic to hold another Referendum. In that case I argue it would be undemocratic to hold an election, the Prime Minister should be voted for once and the next election held after they die. I mean, if we hold elections every 5 years in case the public changes their minds... (or in the case of the current lot every 2 years) At this rate we'll have had 2 elections since the Referendum, which Leavers would surely agree is undemocratic.
> In that case I argue it would be undemocratic to hold an election, the Prime Minister should be voted for once and the next election held after they die.
It is the Will Of the People that that PM is PM, and by the new gods and the old, death will not disbar them. People knew they were voting for an eventually dead person all along.
"we just want parliament to get on with what it was fscking told to do 3 years ago,"
1. we live in a parliamentary democracy, not under mob rule. The referendum was essentially an opinion poll. Cameron was stupid enough to say he would accept the result and also stupid enough not to set it up properly in the first place - the way he did it could have seen us forced to leave by a single vote. Any sane person would have made it 60:40 at least.
Parliament is not there to simply parrot what Wayne down the pub says.
2. the job of parliament is to hold the government to account by voting for or against government legislation. Not to blindly support the government - there is a name for that and its not democracy.
3. the leave campaign has been proved to have lied, used false accounting and dubious foreign sources of income - had it been a binding vote it would have been declared void because of the dodgy activity, as it is, it's not binding, just some super rich have decided that's the way to make a lot of money out of people like you.
4. parliament will give us an election once they are certain that the arch liar Johnson wont simply revoke the no-deal ban and waffle a bit to explain how he is above the law. Once the etension has been set, then there will be an election. I don't understand why people like you are so desperate to fuck (yes I can spell the word, gosh) everyones lives up for the sake of a totally ridiculous set of claims by the leave campaign, every single one of which has been debunked again and again.
The redacted version of Yellowhammer we were allowed to see is bad enough, but even that doesn't ring alarm bells in your head does it?
And those who wanted to leave the EU would have been free to continue to campaign for it without being screamed at, threatened or physically attacked.
And perhaps in a few years time there would be another referendum to see whether opinion had changed.
Democracy is being able to change your mind.
In this alternate history where the referendum went the other way by the same margin, the Brexiteers would not be abiding by the result of the referendum and would be implementing the Brexitting . Pretty sure the referendum-victorious Remainers would be screaming at, threatening and physically attacking the Brexit camp.
Anyway, you have hit the nail on the head. Democracy is being able to change your mind. Democracy said leave. We leave. And perhaps in a few years time there would be another referendum to see whether opinion had changed.
I haven't seen a single post anywhere with a Remainer making threats of violence, and no remainer has been prosecuted.
Yet I see hundreds of Leavers making threats of violence every single day, and several have been convicted of assault and actual bodily harm.
Even though they won that referendum. One wonders why that is so.
So no, you're flat wrong.
"Democracy is being able to change your mind."
OTOH some things in real life are not so easily changed. Getting back into the EU might prove rather difficult and come at a cost of such things as adopting the Euro. That's why insisting on a large majority for a change to the status quo would have been the right way to have run the referendum.
"Getting back into the EU might prove rather difficult and come at a cost of such things as adopting the Euro"
Given a 10 year application period, assuming our refusal to pay the 40 billion euros we already owe is kindly overlooked, yes we would probably be let back in. No pound, no exemption from Schengen, no rebate. Personally I wont care if that happens, but it will give the little Englanders apoplexy.
Correct, operation Yellowhammer is the plan dealing with the foreseeable. Until a few weeks ago this was considered the 'Base Scenario' but some late night redacting by some poor junior sods has involved a find and replace 'Base' -> 'Worst'. We're still missing many pages though, last night's release is only a five page summary whereas a leak in February of an earlier version was already 37 pages. It looks as if the government only released those pages that were leaked a few weeks ago so they didn't have to release many new information.
Operation Blackswan (what's in a name) is the name for the project working out the worst case scenarios and, perhaps more importantly, trying to work out the interaction between some of the "never events". Not just what happens if we get food shortages but also how do fuel shortages interact with food shortages? What if the fuel blockades by protesting petrol workers in some scenarios (because an estimated 2000 people are laid off from UK refineries after No Deal) clash or coincide with consumer panic/pro-democracry protesters/looting/etc.? What if fuel protests block medicine transport? Power cuts combined with gas disruption?
The permutations are almost endless and some interactions are hard to predict. Hence 'Blackswan'.
You heard wrong, the rumour is they're going to finally shoot 28 Months Later in post-Brexit Britain.
There's no way Demonic Cummings would let that happen, he needs it to influence the electorate and get his sock puppet to spout unaccountable nonsense.
Well, yes, it says the supply will be fine...
Erm, what was the publication date of this Yellowhammer document again?
you can eat stuff out of cans, Blitz Spirit and all that
Screw cans. I've already gone back to full-on 1940's powdered milk, powdered egg and powdered potato. It's the best way to provide a last line of defence for my calorific requirements when the torpedoes of Brexit start sinking our trade convoys.
Of course, leaving Europe means the UK can exercise it's sovereignty in a very full and meaningful way.
Apart from having to comply with EU regulations on everything from data to the butter on your breakfast toast, if you want to do business with the EU. Oh, and havingto comply with WTO trade rules for most of the rest of the world, which will also allow megacorps free rein to buy into and corporatize anything British that they fancy. Fracking in your back garden anyone?
Yay! The UK will be able to control it's own destiny!?
Puerto Rico isn't the target in Boris Johnson's head. He would much prefer the UK (or more likely just England) to become a larger and colder version of Singapore, that petty authoritarian state which has had one-party rule since 1959. This is his form of One Nation Conservatism: one nation, one party, one... um, er...
Sorry haven't been keeping up with my Daily Mail reading.
Were barmaid's bouncy lady parts being excessively regulated under Eu rules?
Were we forced to endure Metric German busten
Are other body parts so regulated ? Have I completely misunderstood the true implications of "bendy bananas"
So, let me recap: In the long run, the UK will be OK. In the short to medium term, the effects may range from acute embarassement (revoke A50) to mild inconvenience and slight slowdown in some sectors of economy (orderly brexit with a deal) to a significant disruption for a significant fraction of the population and many aspects of the business and economic life (no-deal, no-prisoners brexit).
And, three years down the road, the country still can't agree on which one it's going to be. Well done, carry on.
That last should actually read "... to the deaths of anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 UK citizens who are unable to obtain vital medications with short shelf life, such as insulin and chemotherapy isotopes. And that's just the base case, which has been rebranded as "reasonable worst case" in the hope that people won't notice it is the same document as was leaked to the Sunday Times last month (no-deal, no-prisoners Brexit)".
If anyone missed it: the redacted section is about how UK refineries will be shuttered as it will no longer be competitive to export fuel to the EU.
Ignoring Brexit for a sec (yeah yeah, pigs can fly too)... If we're exporting fuel doesn't that mean we consistently have more than we need?
Otherwise why export it. Keep it and lower prices to meet the oversupply. Demand will increase, tax revenue will increase to compensate for the price drop.
Price isn't determined by how much supply we have from UK refineries, it's determined by wholesale prices on the global market. The biggest decider in price is firstly how much Saudi Arabia releases onto the market, followed by the GBP/USD exchange rate. You can stockpile it all you want at the UK refinery, but it won't make any difference to the forecourt price (except perhaps to offset any increase in oil price in the short term.
But it's okay, I'm sure we'll find someone to sell it to, I hear there's a market for oil in Syria.
in the long term the uk will be ok. Possibly. It depends on your definition of "long term" - Rees Smug himself suggested 50 years, but that coming from a government mouthpiece would suggest a timescale of probably double that - HS2 anyone? This is your "mild inconvenience" by the way. No deal puts the country at the bottom of the pile in terms of trade - yes we will till have it but under WTO terms we will have to pay tariffs on everything - including the 40% or so of food we currently import through the eu tariff free. UK govt ministers response? We'll grow more food here. Sure.
No deal also means we have to restart every single existing trade deal, which takes years, we renege on existing obligations (the 39 billion) which means we are a nation that doesn't pay its debts, who will want to trade with us? And of course the USA gets its claws into the NHS and other institutions, lowering of food standards, etc etc
Embarrassment and possible political chaos following revoking A50, quite likely the collapse of traditional 2 party politics and FPTP elections. Worth it.
"but under WTO terms we will have to pay tariffs on everything - including the 40% or so of food we currently import through the eu tariff free". Erm, no.
The UK has to apply tariffs fairly on all nations (absent a deal allowing otherwise), so the government will have to apply tariffs to imports from EU equal to what we charge on goods from outside the EU. For food stuffs, these tariffs do coincidentally approach 40%, since this is the EU level of tariff (to protect EU farmers from outside competition). Currently, 80% of the tax raised by the UK government from such tariffs is paid to the EU. Outside the EU, all moneys raised through tariffs remain with the UK. Perhaps more importantly, outside the EU, the UK can vary tariff levels from what was set by the EU; many tariffs will be zero rated - the obvious example being oranges, where the existing EU tariff is to protect Spanish farmers, and where the UK doesn't produce the product. Dropping the tariff to zero has no impact on UK agriculture, and makes oranges from South Africa or USA or wherever else cheaper. The competition would then logically also put downward pressure on the cost of Spanish oranges.
The EU will, of course, have to apply tariffs on their imports of UK products, and this is certainly an issue of concern for farmers / companies in general that export to the EU. But as we are constantly reminded, the value of the pound has dropped relative to the Euro since the referendum. If the application of EU tariffs on UK exports to EU is going to be significant in terms of sales, them logically, the fact that UK exports to the EU are now significantly cheaper in Euro terms should have resulted in a surge in sales (I've no idea whether this has or hasn't happened, but don't recall the BBC reporting it )
"No deal also means we have to restart every single existing trade deal, which takes years,"
Incorrect. Latest published figures are that 44 countries have agreed to roll over exiting trade deals
" we renege on existing obligations (the 39 billion)"
39 Billion is estimated. Includes our share of costs of EU projects agreed to but not yet implemented (some legal opinion is that we don't have to pay towards this), pensions deficit (some legal opinion is that we don't have to pay for this), and normal contributions to the EU during the transition period (only due if there is a transition period, so no obligation if no transition: everyone agrees on that - well apart from you, apparently)
"which means we are a nation that doesn't pay its debts, who will want to trade with us?"
Everyone that currently trades with the UK. But if they are really worried about default, they will ask for the equivalent of money up front
"And of course the USA gets its claws into the NHS and other institutions," Possible, but unlikely, beyond the fact that elements of the NHS are already privatised, and therefore open to US or multinational companies already
" lowering of food standards, etc etc" I assume a reference to chlorinated chicken, which permits a lowering of animal welfare standards, but not food standards (I believe there is in fact some evidence that the US approach actually results in safer chicken as compared to the EU non-chlorinated approach; also, chlorinated food is already routinely sold in the EU: salads, mostly, I believe).
If pro-remain people want to end the idea of project fear it would really help if pro-remain people made the modicum of effort to present a truthful assessment of the situation, rather than providing the distortion of the facts that justifies the concept of project fear.
(and as an aside, it's nice to see that the claims from some pro-remain people that were made on this forum that the UK isn't a member of the WTO seem finally to have been accepted as rubbish).
I will reply to the paragraph which lept out at me, since this is about Yellowhammer after all, the rest has been done to death already and who can be arsed repeating the same thing over and over again:
If pro-remain people want to end the idea of project fear it would really help if pro-remain people made the modicum of effort to present a truthful assessment of the situation, rather than providing the distortion of the facts that justifies the concept of project fear.
Yellowhammer is and always has been a government-produced document over post-Brexit outcomes, by definition it can't be "project fear".
"What's the worse that can happen? Write it down, then we can prevent it."
Result: Yellowhammer.
Project Fear: Look at what the Government are saying will happen! Doom! Gloom! Mass deaths!
Bunch of fucking dishonest cunts that keep shouting that they can't trust a word Boris says then repeating lies, lies, lies and lies.
Yellowhammer isn't "project fear" but it's sure as fuck being used within it.
I'm confused, what made you think "brexiteers" are against pen and paper?
The Government in its attempts to assure delivering on the democratic mandate of the people of this country asked the Civil Service to write things down on paper. I suspect they used computer printers rather than pens but substantively it's the same.
I suspect the documents primarily survive in electronic form, but their purpose remains the same: Inform the plans and activities to handle leaving the EU should they refuse to give us a sensible deal.
I don't know anybody that wants to leave the EU that thinks this is a bad idea, so you have left me entirely bewildered.
You misunderstand my post. Allow me to put things in simpler terms for your benefit.
Yellowhammer: sensible
Project fear: proven lies in the past
Project fear use of Yellowhammer: lies, lies and more lies.
Correct use of Yellowhammer: Thank you, could you please explain the actions you are taking as a result of this information?
I hope that helps. As you can see, I am not confusing Yellowhammer and Project Fear.
"Inform the plans and activities to handle leaving the EU should they refuse to give us a sensible deal"
you mean a deal that gives us everything we have now as a member of the eu, but without us having to contribute to it in any way? We have a deal. We spent 2 years on it, or at east the EU did, we had brexit bulldog Davies and his ilk occasionally turning up with a bit of A4. You're quite right though, the deal is nowhere near as good as it could be - its better than no deal by a mile but not as good as staying in.
"Project Fear: Look at what the Government are saying will happen! Doom! Gloom! Mass deaths!
Bunch of fucking dishonest cunts that keep shouting that they can't trust a word Boris says then repeating lies, lies, lies and lies.
Yellowhammer isn't "project fear" but it's sure as fuck being used within it."
Some points that destroy your "argument" -
1. using the words "project" and "fear"
2. the inability to form a sentence without swearing
3 the blind faith and optimism that a proven liar like Johnson somehow has your interests at heart, along with his cabal of the extremely rich who have already relocated large parts of their businesses offshore for easier access to the EU once we fall out of it.
"But as we are constantly reminded, the value of the pound has dropped relative to the Euro since the referendum."
You say that as if it's a good thing. The value of the pound is the market's assessment of the health of the UK economy. The value of the pound's dropping means that the market thinks we're going to be in the shit. Is that really such a good thing?
slow-walking coupled with FUD and outright gummint OBSTRUCTIONISM.
What, is everyone involved in the process a PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE ESTABLISHMENT POLITICAL HACK putting POLITICS BEFORE PUBLIC POLICY???
Business as usual among politicians and bureaucrats, no doubt.
As some might say, SHIT or GET OFF THE POT
"As some might say, SHIT or GET OFF THE POT"
Or, as some might say, putting the interests of the country, an therefore their constituents, ahead of party politics and personal greed, which is all brexit is about. As in, actually doing their job.
By the way, stop using BLOCK CAPITALS as if it somehow makes your incoherent rantings more realistic. It doesn't.
That sound old bloke Nige down the pub was drinking a pint of London's finest, smoking a faaag telling us all how it was all project fear mark 2. Mark his words everything will be fine and suddenly UK trade will go through the roof. Dont worry about little things like data protection regulations, boats to move stuff around etc, this old bloke obviously knew what he was talking about as he used to sell shit on the commodities market and has just spent the last 20 years talking about stuff he has no actual experience of!
One of the jobs of civil servants is to create "green papers", which cover reactions to all sorts of scenarios. Somewhere in the files are similar documents for what might happen when the US invades Germany, or Russia drops a nuke on Beijing, or an asteroid hits London, etc. Yellowhammer, like them, needs to be considered in context.
>That context being, a scenario that our prime minister is seeking to enact. Which is of course what distinguishes it from other catastrophes you propose.
The context being, a scenario that our prime minister is seeking to enact *because his backers have $4.5bn staked on short positions on the pound*. Not including the other £3.7bn linked to others involved in the Leave campaign that did not back financially back Boris for PM.
Everything I've seen to date about Brexit being arranged so people could make a lot of money shorting of the pound seems to be written by well-intentioned people who wouldn't know a VAR calculation if it bit them on the bum. Treat with *extreme* caution unless it's sourced from someone who actually knows about financial markets.
(One example: consider that every short position requires someone else on the other side to be long.)
The government is long, as it has to be. Big mainstream biz has to be long - especially financial biz such as your insurers and pension providers, whose (legally required) reserves dwarf the hedgies. And - not least - a big aggregation of ordinary people hold assets: for example, every homeowner has a few tens or hundreds of thousands in their asset (unless they have a 100% mortgage).
And of course, a lot of rich foreigners hold sterling. Both legitimately - such as holders of FTSE-listed shares or owners of UK companies - and those engaged in laundering money. The latter are prepared to accept substantial losses to get their remaining money out 'clean' - hence various unprofitable carousel businesses such as parts of London's property market and sub-prime art through to pure tack.
Just look back over the past six months or so of Private Eye's investigations into the man who owns the Tory party, and most recently the men recycling money sent notionally in 'aid' to Afghanistan.
a scenario that our prime minister is seeking to enact.
FFS, you just don't get it, do you?
Nobody wants "no deal", and certainly not Boris. The whole reason for leaving is to be able to negotiate our own deals with trading partners, including the EU, what possible gain would there be for anyone from a long-term no deal??
The issue is whether a deal has to be agreed before we leave. Ideally it should, but if the EU won't negotiate a deal that works for both sides, we need to convince them that we'll leave without a deal (and continue to negotiate afterwards) rather than accept a bad deal as the price of being allowed to leave.
Unfortunately those twunts in parliament, by blocking "no deal" as a negotiating position, have given total control to the EU, again. We can now only leave with the EU's permission, and on the EU's terms, which is a disastrous outcome.
I never quite understand why saying 'no deal is not an option' destroys are negotiating position but Boris and the ERG saying 'we want it on the table but of course we won't use it' is apparently Del by levels of brilliant negotiation.
And as for We can now only leave with the EU's permission, and on the EU's terms, which is a disastrous outcome O wow, welcome to the real world. The one we live in, the one of complicated international interactions with rules and consequences. Brexiteers, Fathers for Justice in a St George's flag moaning that it's unfair that their wife got the house the car and half their wages when they never bothered to turn up to the divorce hearing.
"I never quite understand why saying 'no deal is not an option' destroys are negotiating position"
OK, put yourself in the position of EU negotiators. You know that "no deal" will be bad for everyone, including the EU. You know that if you can't agree a deal then no deal will be the result. In that situation, you are inclined to try and reach some sort of agreement.
Now consider that the UK has declared that under no circumstances will it leave without a deal. From the EU side, that means you can stick whatever you like in the deal and the UK can take it or leave it. The UK has already said that "leave it" means staying, which is what the EU wants. Either that, or we leave with a deal that suits the EU and not the UK.
IMO the absolute worst we could do is to not leave at all now. It sends the very clear message to the EU that it doesn't matter what they do now, we haven't got the stomach to stand up to them and leave. So they can effectively do whatever they like that we don't like, knowing that we aren't going to do anything but moan a bit, and we'll be worse off than if we'd never decided to leave.
As it is, yes I believe leaving will be painful. But beyond the short term I believe it will be less painful than staying. Don't forget that what's in this document is, as others have said, just prudent forward planning for the "what if X happens ? what will be the effect ? what measures can we put in place to mitigate the risk of X happening, and if it does, to minimise the effects ?" things. It took around 40 years to reach where we are now - from joining the "common market" to it morphing into the completely different beast the EU is now. It's never going to be a simple or quick task to unpick all the interdependencies - and in some ways, no deal could be the easiest option because at least we'll know exactly where we stand rather that dragging the uncertainty out for years or decades.
And the years of uncertainty, delays, and petty party politics have caused a lot of problems - getting on with it would end the uncertainties.
Yes, I voted leave, and I'd still vote leave if asked again. But we were asked, we voted leave, how on earth is it "undemocratic" not to follow that result instead of asking again because "we didn't get the right (according to the remoaners) result" !
Thing is, the EU looks at what the UK are doing. They know no deal is not going to be passed by parliament, so there's no point in adopting it as a negotiating position.
If we don't leave (which is quite unlikely) and article 50 is revoked, we retain our veto, and work to improve the system from within - the sensible option. It does not mean the EU can stick it to us.
However, the likelihood is some form of leave deal. It won't make anyone happy, it will be a necessary compromise to continue dealing with other countries.
A no deal is likely to lead to people dying (this is not hyperbole : the NHS have run trials on obtaining medicines in no deal scenarios, they failed) and businesses going under.
The issue, as you should be aware, is that fulling the leave result within the government's 'red lines' is all but impossible. At the moment I suspect the government will end up sticking a border down the North Sea.
we retain our veto, and work to improve the system from within - the sensible option. It does not mean the EU can stick it to us.
You have got to be kidding! If we withdraw article 50 now the EU will never take us seriously again. They'll ignore our veto because they know that when push comes to shove we'll cave in, they'll force us into the euro knowing that whatever noises we make about refusing it will just be bluster. They'll vote to cancel the rebate, assuming that Westminster will never agree to fight.
As to improving the system from within, that hasn't worked during the past 25 years, there is zero chance that we could do it in the next 25.
Only because David Cameron was too thick or too blinded by his own Glory of Epic Magnificence to comprehend that the EU has its own interests too; Interests, which to the EU at least are much more important than preserving the (imaginary) unity of the British Tory party to keep Labour out.
AFAIK -
The concept that the EU also has interests STILL hasn't been fully internalised on the UK side.
"Only because David Cameron was too thick or too blinded by his own Glory of Epic Magnificence to comprehend that the EU has its own interests too"
...and so convinced of his own superiority that he failed to understand that the populace hated him and his government's policies so much that enough of them would vote against whatever position he took to give him a slap in the face that he would lose.
Cameron, got an exception from ever closer union written into the treaties.
He failed to sell his achievement, as frankly he was shit as a salesman, as he was as PM.
It made no difference, he could have agreed hot and cold running chambermaids for every leave voter, they still wouldn't be happy.
"A large factor in the referendum was that David Cameron went to the EU, asked for very little and got told to fuck off.
That's the EU's explicit stance on any attempts to reform, so I'm fully in favour of fucking off."
What did he actually ask for, do you know?* And this nonsense that the eu can ignore our veto as if we weren't members of the eu at all, people have no idea how the eu works. Every member has equal rights within the union - they cannot dismiss or ignore a member state as it would contravene everything they stand for. Britain HAD a disporoportinately large voice in the EU parliament, until we elected halfwits like UKIP and Brexit Party, we voted FOR EU legislation about 97% of the time, only voting against such evils as food labelling and tax loophole closure. I'm really stumped why people, who are otherwise apparently sane, want to leave the eu based on a series of well know and disproved lies.
* just in case - a reduction in red tape, the ability to avoid financial aid to an EU member state (which we already had re Greece) a level playing field (how charmingly etonian) regarding financial services (mainly to reassure the French bout the UK financial markets avoiding Eu banking regulations), reduction of benefits paid to migrants (or a delay in their qualification for benefits) and an opt out of the EU labour laws. In other words, stuff we already had, a few attempts to avoid banking laws and tax scrutiny, and the right to screw over our workforce. Most of these were agreed to at least some extent. Terrible, isn't it?
Thing is, the EU looks at what the UK are doing. They know no deal is not going to be passed by parliament, so there's no point in adopting it as a negotiating position.
That's one theory. Another is that the clock ticks over to Nov 1st and Labour still hasn't decided on a deal. It doesn't know what it wants, it doesn't like the previous EU/May deal and thus it's up to government to do something!
Which obviously has excluded forming a new government to take control of the negotiating and either win a beter deal, or call the whole thing off. And to make things worse, by forcing the Yellowhammer and other docs, Jeremy 'Yellowbelly' Corbyn has essentially exposed our hand to the EU. It's a very odd kind of negotiation, akin to playing poker when your hand is exposed and your opponents concealed.
But it's also possible that the EU could refuse an extension, in which case the Benn Act is irrelevant and we leave October 31st.. And potentially avoid stuff like this-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49674176
The European Central Bank has unveiled fresh stimulus measures to bolster the eurozone, including cutting a key interest rate.
The deposit facility rate, paid by banks on reserves parked at the ECB, was already negative, but has now been cut from minus 0.4% to minus 0.5%.
The ECB also said it was re-starting quantitative easing. It will buy €20bn of debt a month from 1 November.
Yey! NIRP! Banks pay the ECB to lend the ECB money! Which the ECB can then lend to BMW & Mercedes Finance to pay BMW & Mercedes for cars, thus saving the Germ.. I mean European auto industry! Siemens, EDF and various other EUrocorps are also the receipients of the ECB's largesse.
Hi, so seems from our earlier discussion that the delays at our ports predicted by Queue theory, seem to also feature in the YellowHammer docs.
Could you perhaps remind me what the benefits of doing this are again please, before we resume nitpicking about how Brexit is the end of days / totally kushty / somewhere in the middle, but still really poor judgement.
Hi, so seems from our earlier discussion that the delays at our ports predicted by Queue theory, seem to also feature in the YellowHammer docs.
Why would that suprise you? YellowHammer is a compilation of the various work strands from Nicholls wrt to health, plus other work packages looking at other possible impacts. So it also mentions things like implementing a no-tariff system to simplify paperwork requirements, and booking an 'express' delivery system to ship time-sensitive stuff like isotopes and insulin.
So it presents solutions, as well as problems.. unlike the Remnants who just seem convinced that the sky is falling, and only the EU can save us.
Could you perhaps remind me what the benefits of doing this are again please,
Well, there's the potential £270m-ish a week that we'll no longer have to hand over to Brussels, we'll be able to keep any import tariffs we might decide to levy, we won't be dependent on EU's energy 'policy', and most importantly.. Marmite might be saved.
Why would that suprise you? YellowHammer is a compilation of the various work strands from Nicholls wrt to health, plus other work packages looking at other possible impacts. So it also mentions things like implementing a no-tariff system to simplify paperwork requirements, and booking an 'express' delivery system to ship time-sensitive stuff like isotopes and insulin.
What solutions are presented in the five pages thus released?
Well, there's the potential £270m-ish a week that we'll no longer have to hand over to Brussels, we'll be able to keep any import tariffs we might decide to levy, we won't be dependent on EU's energy 'policy', and most importantly.. Marmite might be saved.
270M a week is misleading.. Of the remaining £276m a week which we send to the EU, we receive a certain percentage back in subsidies and to fund regional projects. When you take into account everything we receive, our contribution to the EU is £161m a week. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36470341
The important figure to note is that it is 0.6% of spending, and that according to the BoE Brexit has cost 74Billion at time of writing, which is 440M a week of lost growth. https://costofbrexit.netlify.com/
Loosing 440M to save 161M or even 350M is not a good deal.
Please try again.
benfits from EU membership, we
Marmite is surely very stockpile friendly..
The important figure to note is that it is 0.6% of spending, and that according to the BoE Brexit has cost 74Billion at time of writing, which is 440M a week of lost growth. https://costofbrexit.netlify.com/
I somehow doubt that's a reliable source. But although one can quible about nett vs gross payments to the EU, rebates, and whether the EU's generous funding of stuff like big signs saying 'Funded by the EU' is good value or not.. The point remains that post-Brexit, it would be up to the UK where to spend the money. Surely that's democratic?
It'd also mean not having to worry about EU state-aid rules when looking to bail stuff out, or invest.. Which our competitors don't tend to worry about as much as we do. So the ECB bailing out say, EDF so they can screw us on the cost of Hinkley.. That kind of thing may reduce UK energy costs, and make data centres more attractive.
As for the cost.. Well, that was all part of Project Fear. Supermarkets would be stripped of avocados, quinoa, and all that would be on the shelves would be mishappen turnips and mangold wurzels.. Voting leave would cost billions, and lead to plagues, famines, locusts and a shortage of au pairs.
But oddly, UK economic growth has been outperforming the Eurozone and the likes of Germany, France etc.. How can this be?
Marmite is surely very stockpile friendly..
Only if it doesn't collapse. Then you have a rather icky mess. But the EU Salt Reduction Framework is one of those quintessentially EU things, ie pretty much pointless. Warn people about salt, but hands off our salt! See, the thing is salt has long been used as a preservative, so fine delicacies like salt cod. So there's no need to fsck with that because there's already an alternative, ie cod. Plus saying 'reduce salt by 16%' might mean it's no longer a preservative, as well as the product being bland. So people add more salt anyway. Or there's the EU's nutritional guidelines in general, which recommend excessive amounts of carbohydrates. And oddly, we have obesity and diabetes 'epidemics', which are linked to carb consumption.
Or there's the previous example of the EU going nuts for biofuels. Sustainable, green fuel created by paying farmers to grow fuel crops for vehicles instead of animals, or humans. Imagine their suprise when that resulted in food shortages and price increases!
So the biggest positive for Brexit is although we'll still end up with an idiocracy (eg UK energy policy), they'll at least be OUR idiots, and only in post until they can be voted out.
It'd also mean not having to worry about EU state-aid rules when looking to bail stuff out, or invest.. Which our competitors don't tend to worry about as much as we do. So the ECB bailing out say, EDF so they can screw us on the cost of Hinkley.. That kind of thing may reduce UK energy costs, and make data centres more attractive.
So your saying that being in the EU allows the ECB to bail out the EDF Électricité de France, the French State owned Electric provider, but we need to leave it because "EU state-aid rules"..
I don't think that there are any rules preventing us from supporting our industries, what the rules say are https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-369_en.htm.
The TL;DR part is you have be fair, so if there some grant for wind-energy, any company can apply for the grant, not just the company owned by my mates. Seems fair to me, could you expand on the issues that you have with state-aid.
I somehow doubt that's a reliable source. The source figure comes from the BoE and tbh, I think our central bank is fairly reliable, the calculator is simply multiplying a base figure by elapsed time.
Lets check that figure, seems that it's been 39 months since june-2016.
(((440,000,000 * 52) / 1,000,000,000.0) / 12.0 ) * 39 = 74.36 Billion - since ref
((440,000,000 * 52) / 1,000,000,000.0) / 12.0 ) = 1.9 Billion a month
((440,000,000 * 52) / 1,000,000,000.0)) = 22.8 Billion a year
Seems right to me, but please point out the error in my working.
But although one can quible about nett vs gross payments to the EU, rebates, and whether the EU's generous funding of stuff like big signs saying 'Funded by the EU' is good value or not..
The quibble, is the UK's financial benefit from EU membership, exceeds the membership fee.
You have cited this as as a Brexit Dividend, clearly the calculation shows we will be losing money when we leave, so I respectfully submit that loosing money is not a benefit.
The point remains that post-Brexit, it would be up to the UK where to spend the money. Surely that's democratic? The UK is free to spend money as it chooses, now which is why we chose not to spend money on lifting people out of poverty, http://europeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/files/2019/01/EM_14699_18.pdf (Excuse letter from V.Atkins) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-lxiii/30104.htm (Record of the rationale and failure to spend)
Brexit will not change this, and in any case democracy has nothing to do with the point at hand, which I remind you, was the benefit of Brexit giving us our membership fees as money to reallocate.
I think this is fairly clear proof, we'll not have that cash for spending, as we will be down over 270 million each week in the net case (440-161) and 90 million a week in the best case (440-350).
Seems right to me, but please point out the error in my working.
Nothing wrong with your working, and it's probably the same kind of financial forecasting used by WeWork, Uber, Lyft etc. One of them even used a slide showing unicorns tripping merrily up an exponential growth forecast. But it's a common trick, and relies on making assumptions.
But again, previously the BoE predicted a massive crash if we voted Leave. Which we did, but the crash didn't happen. A better comparison might be to compare economic growth post-Leave with the Eurozone or some of the other EU members.. And the UK's been outperforming them.
Problem with your assumption would be who's providing investment to generate £440m/month, where that investment is going, and whether it can really generate any economic growth.. Which is the problem the other unicorns have encountered pre/post IPO..
I think this is fairly clear proof, we'll not have that cash for spending, as we will be down over 270 million each week in the net case (440-161) and 90 million a week in the best case (440-350).
Nope. One is a real cash saving, ie money we're not passing to the EU and can invest in the UK instead, the other is entirely imaginary. Then what kind of economic benefit/growth we could gain from using that money. The EU/ECB's demonstrated over the years that simply printing money doesn't magically create economic benefit (except for the recipients) and is more likely to generate bubbles, inflation and a large & painful crash when that bubble finally bursts.
I guess a simple example would be if I set up an EUPatreon. Pro-EU fans give me $350/month. I give you back say, £70.. But with conditions regarding how you spend some of that money. I promise to invest that money in supporting the local economy. Sound like a good deal?
Nothing wrong with your working, and it's probably the same kind of financial forecasting used by WeWork, Uber, Lyft etc. One of them even used a slide showing unicorns tripping merrily up an exponential growth forecast. But it's a common trick, and relies on making assumptions.
I accept that all financial forecasting is a bit woo, however, there are measurable economic indicators, and the point remains that according to *our* central bank, Brexit is costing us money in lost growth.
Surely as a Brexiteer, you are in favour of our institutions since you are proposing we rely exclusively on them for governance.
But again, previously the BoE predicted a massive crash if we voted Leave. Which we did, but the crash didn't happen. Osborne's punishment budget, some of the other harbingers of economic Armageddon, call that out, fair enough.
Carney is quoted as “A vote to leave the EU could have material economic effects – on the exchange rate, on demand and on the economy’s supply potential – that could affect the appropriate setting of monetary policy,” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/12/bank-of-england-keeps-interest-rates-on-hold-as-brexit-fears-bite In other words, the pound will slide(tick), it might be harder to hire skilled people (tick), business will put off spending (tick), some people will lose jobs due to margins making some industrial sectors with razor thin margins, unviable, so the BoE might have to take steps to mitigate that.
BoE has been fairly even handed, and admonishing them for working to mitigate what issues where predicted is unfair.
A better comparison might be to compare economic growth post-Leave with the Eurozone or some of the other EU members.. And the UK's been outperforming them. The pound has dropped quite a bit since the referendum, that's not an external vote of confidence in our economy.
Problem with your assumption would be who's providing investment to generate £440m/month,
That's not what the 440/M a week relates to. I do £10 of coding for you. I take £10 and spend it on beer. The pub pays the barman £4 and the brewery £5, keeping £1. That's an economy of £30.
He's saying, I won't get the work, so I don't go to the pub, so the barman gets the sack, but you keep your tenner in your pocket. That's basically what's predicted in the Yellowhammer document but with fuel refineries rather than pubs.
where that investment is going, and whether it can really generate any economic growth.. Which is the problem the other unicorns have encountered pre/post IPO..
As a floating currency issuer, we can print and lend ourselves unlimited amounts of money, that's not the same as companies. Our money is backed by promise to redeem government issue debt, which has not been broken in 300 years. Companies are not countries and cannot usefully be compared where economic investment is concerned. As one small example Governments can borrow at interest rates simply unavailable to companies.
Nope. One is a real cash saving, ie money we're not passing to the EU and can invest in the UK instead, the other is entirely imaginary. We did invest it, in getting a handsome return on our membership fees, that's literally why we joined, as it made us a return on investment.
Then what kind of economic benefit/growth we could gain from using that money. The EU/ECB's demonstrated over the years that simply printing money doesn't magically create economic benefit
The limiting factors of an economy are it's real resources, time, land, skilled people etc.
Increasing the money supply, and reducing the money supply through taxation is a good thing.
It's how inflation is managed, as a floating currency issuer - BoE is not the in the same position as the ECB. We are able to effectively recycle surplus, so a loaf of bread in the supermarket is roughly the same price in London and Bristol. But not the same in Germany and Holland. That is a Euro problem not an EU, problem and we opted out of Euro.
(except for the recipients) and is more likely to generate bubbles, inflation and a large & painful crash when that bubble finally bursts. The financial system as a whole is frankly weird and unstable, but no-one actually has a better idea, or if they do, it's not widely known. Until that changes, High Wage, High Tax economies seems to offer the best quality of life for the participants.
Inflation in and off itself, is not a bad thing.
I guess a simple example would be if I set up an EUPatreon. Pro-EU fans give me $350/month. I give you back say, £70..
A better example is I chip in £350 towards the costs of generating £440 because, I'm making 25% on my investment, with a return of £90 a week. So each month that I participate defrays the expenditure for another week, assuming reinvestment of the dividend, meaning after 4 years and, 4 months. I've recoupled an entire years contributions in profit. That's a healthy return on investment.
But with conditions regarding how you spend some of that money. I promise to invest that money in supporting the local economy. Sound like a good deal?
Yes.
Carney is quoted as “A vote to leave the EU could have material economic effects – on the exchange rate, on demand and on the economy’s supply potential – that could affect the appropriate setting of monetary policy,” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/12/bank-of-england-keeps-interest-rates-on-hold-as-brexit-fears-bite In other words, the pound will slide(tick), it might be harder to hire skilled people (tick), business will put off spending (tick), some people will lose jobs due to margins making some industrial sectors with razor thin margins, unviable, so the BoE might have to take steps to mitigate that.
Yup. And yet the economy has still grown compared to the Eurozone. So a lot of that stuff isn't anything the BoE can actually influence, other than as part of 'Project Fear'. Hiring policy is political, ie how government decides to issue work visas. Businesses may have put off spending due to the 3yrs of uncertainty around Brexit, because our politicians are incapable of making a deal, or deciding there is no deal.
Currency's more fun. So the pound fell. And any susbequent fall, no matter how tiny is duly trumpeted by the Grauniad, BBC etc as signs of armageddon. Not benefiting exporters, or dollar strengthening. Margins are also fun. So currently the EU sets import tariffs on stuff, sometimes 20-40% or more. If those tariffs are removed, that stuff becomes 20-40% cheaper, boosting margins. Which might mean more manufacturing investment, and more jobs. Or just cheaper 5G networks because of lower tariffs on the tin. Or even cheaper datacentres for the same reason. But no change to the cost of EU-originated stuff, unless the EU decides to set export tariffs.
UK exports to the EU could be more challenging, but oddly, there's this stuff-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
Lots of FTA's with non-EU members.. Yet apparently it would be impossible for the UK, as would WTO or GATT trading. But it's also one of the reasons why people started to question the benefits of EU membership. After all, it started as a simple trading club, ie the Common Market, then over time, morphed into the current Federalist super-state.
That's not what the 440/M a week relates to. I do £10 of coding for you. I take £10 and spend it on beer. The pub pays the barman £4 and the brewery £5, keeping £1. That's an economy of £30.
Err.. nope. Or it may be if you're WeWork's CFO, or governor of the Bank of Zimbabwe. It is a good example of the perils of marketing (see Bill Hicks) or financial engineering though. But it's still an economy of £10. You can't just magic £20 out of thin air, unless you want to have a long chat with fraud investigators. A better example might be consulting. You're the EU. I pay you £10, that generates £3 of value for me in the UK. The remaining £7 was spent keeping Junker's drinks cabinet stocked, but has left the UK's economy.
Err.. nope. .. But it's still an economy of £10. You can't just magic £20 out of thin
air, unless you want to have a long chat with fraud investigators.
Err, Yes,
(C)ash = value of cash
(A)ssets = value of assets
(S)ervices = value of services
(E)conomy = (C+A+S)
You have all the cash, E=(C=10, A=0, S=0)
You value an asset at £10, creating the asset market, with an exchange potential of £10.
I value a service which produces that asset at £10, creating the service market, with an exchange potential of £10.
As asset value to you, is same as service value to me, they cancel out, in that there is no value created by me in performing the service, until realised into the asset.
However you have an asset valued at £10, A=10.
I have your cash, E=(C=10, A=10, S=0.)
The pub values the labour of the barman at £4, increasing the service sector, to an exchange potential of £14.
The brewer values the beer at £5, increasing the exchange potential of our asset market to £15.
I exchange my cash for the beer I value at £10.
E=(C=10, A=20, S=0)
Bar exchange my cash for a service valued at £4.
E=(C=10, A=20, S=4)
Bar exchange my cash for an asset valued at £5.
E=(C=10, A=25, S=4)
Total amount of cash in circulation doesn't change.
But value is created via goods and service exchanges, it's the same tenner doing the rounds but that is purely a token for exchange. The pub created £1 by exchanging £9 of services and goods for £10, you might phrase that as the £1 was the cost of borrowing the funds to employ the barman, and stock the beer.
You are correct however, its an E of 40 not 30.
The moral of the story, is I need to stop drinking in expensive pubs, and the barman needs a raise.
One of my snacks is terribly bad for you. Take some bread, butter liberally (while watching fox news if it makes you feel better) Sprinkle with plenty of salt. Grill until golden brown and crispy.
Guidelines for production of processed food are not any threat to my salty toast.
No-one is saying, I cannot have fried plantain, fried halumi, fried onions and mushrooms for breakfast with my salty toast.
I'm not allowed to claim my tasty diet is healthy, but I can still eat what I like, so I fail to see what issue you could have with food labelling or EU Salt Reduction Framework is one of those quintessentially EU things, ie pretty much pointless. Warn people about salt, but hands off our salt! I must have missed the EU commisar preventing me from eating my second round of salty toast. (Try it, it's good)
See, the thing is salt has long been used as a preservative, so fine delicacies like salt cod.
Preserving fish using salt is not the same thing as adding sodium to processed food, like soup, sauces etc.
So there's no need to fsck with that because there's already an alternative,ie cod.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/salt_report1_en.pdf
The only member state that has any rules on salt and fish is Latvia, and this appears to be the only salted fish export - http://www.foodlatvia.com/product/salted-herring-large.
Plus saying 'reduce salt by 16%' might mean it's no longer a preservative,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50952/table/ch4.t2/?report=objectonly There is a multi-factor pathway for preserving food. The amount of salt is part but not all of that process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50952/
as well as the product being bland. So people add more salt anyway. So people can *choose* to add salt after the fact if desired, so what's the problem with trying to reduce the 95% of sodium intake coming through our diets.
And oddly, we have obesity and diabetes 'epidemics', which are linked to carb consumption.
We work too many hours, live in cramped conditions and eat heavily processed food. We eat massive amounts of sugar and salt. Yes, we have bad diets, but it's getting better, thanks to the regulations that the UK helped draft, voted in favour of and is implementing using our democratic process.
Or there's the EU's nutritional guidelines in general, which recommend excessive amounts of carbohydrates. Again with the guidelines, is the existence of advice, which you ignore with gay abandon, really such a burden that we must leave the EU. Having left, will you still be ignoring the advice, and if so, are you seriously pitching EU's nutritional guidelines in general as a benefit of leaving, because so far you've yet to demonstrate a credible motive that stands up to scrutiny.
If we don't leave (which is quite unlikely) and article 50 is revoked, we retain our veto, and work to improve the system from within - the sensible option. It does not mean the EU can stick it to us
Err, but. Slight problem: We don't actually want the UK to 'improve' anything, thank you very much.
We don't want to become more like 'you' because that is what 'improve' would look like to the UK. We don't want a 'Markets Only' EU without any social cohesion, We don't want your 'Common Law' system, your tax havens, and we especially do not want the British Way of transactional politics.
Especially so after seeing the royal mess that the British "world improvers" has made of Brexit!
How very dare you!
We haven't made a mess of Brexit, it only looks like that from afar (and up close).
We have a fine tradition of only allowing the finest[1] minds to lead our country.
We have the best language schools in the world, unfortunately those pesky forr'ens persist in pretending not to speak the Queen's English (G'awd bless her), now matter how slowly, we shout at them, no wonder we're leaving NAFTA, bunch of mugs.
[1] Finest - 2. Very small in size - https://www.thefreedictionary.com/finest
@ Simon Hobson
Your entire argument is based on the Leave assumption that there's the EU and there's us. This is a false premise. Until October 31 (according to the current schedule) we are part of the EU. Let me state that again. It's not the EU and us, it's us as part of the EU.
Have we maybe not, to your way of thinking, had quite our fair share of influence in the EU? If not, maybe that's been due to the refusenik MEPs that we've all too often voted to send to the European Parliament.
it's unfair that their wife got the house the car and half their wages when they never bothered to turn up to the divorce hearing.
Whereas we've turned up for the hearing, only to discover that the wife is the judge and our lawyer has already told her that we're unwilling to fight for the house.
it's unfair that their wife got the house the car and half their wages when they never bothered to turn up to the divorce hearing.
Whereas we've turned up for the hearing, only to discover that the wife is the judge and our lawyer has already told her that we're unwilling to fight for the house.
We voted to give an incumbent a slap, over an issue only cranks cared about, now we'll have a BoJo vs Corbyn GE, for control of the smoking ruins of our society.
WTF
"we need to convince them that we'll leave without a deal"
And so what? Is this supposed to scare the EU into compliance? "Oh no, the Mighty British Empire won't play with us anymore, we're doomed!"? The UK has never been a very constructive member anyway, always trying to eat the raisins out of the pudding. The current Brexit tantrum is just more of that (mixed with illusions of grandeur): "Gimme more, more, or I'll hold my breath!". :-p
Is this supposed to scare the EU into compliance?
Compliance? With what?
It's supposed to show the EU that we expect a fair deal that benefits both the UK and the EU, and that if we don't get a fair deal we'd prefer to leave first and negotiate later, which will be more difficult for both sides, rather than be steamrollered into a deal that only works for the EU as the price for being "allowed" to leave.
You got exactly the deal you lot asked for, with all of those British "red-lines" embedded in it. It not the EU's problem that now you don't want it after all.
This only tells the EU that the UK team was obviously not authorised to negotiate after all - so the UK cannot be trusted to stick to *any* agreement offered, so why spend ones time offering anything else, which will only be rejected too?
And, You can leave on the 31'st (or not), deal or no deal, no permission from the EU is needed! It is only yourself that are stopping you!
I think it's reasonable to suggest that we didn't ask for a deal that included being permanently forced to follow EU trade rules with no ability to influence or change them.
Theresa May's inexplicable agreement to that is merely the cherry on the top of the iced shit pile she called negotiating. The rest of us certainly weren't up for it.
1. That we are deliberately making things worse for our currency and nation, is not the fault of the EU.
2. We got offered a fair deal given the negotiating objectives ( the right wing lines).
3. We leave with no deal, we go from some chance to keep some of the good, to being on the outside, and we will twist in the wind with no leverage, and the same issues as now.
Given that all parties to the Good Friday Agreement are able to participate in the negotiations for the UK leaving the EU there's absolutely no inherent reason that changes to the Good Friday Agreement can't be included.
Well, assuming people actually want peace in Ireland. Seems the terrorists aren't interested in that, given the recent number of bombs being found.
When did the USA become part of the Brexit negotiations with the EU?
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that the Good Friday Agreement was only signed by Ireland and the UK, it's actually an International Treaty, one that was also signed by the USA. Their bit says they promise to stop funding the IRA. That's the reason the Democrats turned round and said they'd veto any trade agreement between the UK and the USA in the event of the GFA being breached. I don't know about you but it's bad enough with Al Quaeda bombing the UK, I certainly don't want the far more effect IRA bombing the UK again. I had enough near misses back in the 80s and 90s.
"I've spent enough of my life dodging IRA bombs that they just don't scare me."
I've spent enough of my life dodging IRA and Prod bombs - and seeing the consequences at far too close hand. I definitely don't want to see all that return, even watching from a hopefully safe distance.
it's actually an International Treaty, one that was also signed by the USA.
Complete nonsense, have you actually read it? I have. It states "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND"
Their bit says they promise to stop funding the IRA
Also nonsense. The USA never officially funded terrorism, no way would it sign an agreement admitting that it had.
I certainly don't want the far more effect IRA bombing the UK again
No one does, but if they start again it will be their responsibility. Using it as a threat to justify a political position is shameful.
The talks were chaired by George Mitchell, it was a Clinton administration policy to get an agreement, and the US became known as the guarantor of the GFA. Mitchell also said it couldn't have been done without the EU.
More than happy to admit when I get something wrong. Doesn't change the original post as the USA were party to the talks and the agreement would not have been signed without their help. As I've also stated elsewhere, the GFA is important, even more so now in a potential No Deal scenario. It lays down specific legal requirements for both sides, agreed by all parties involved. Ironically the one thing that would keep the GFA alive in spirit is a united Ireland, something that the DUP would never allow. Northern Ireland is certainly more peaceful now than it was while I was growing up, but it's not the idyllic backwater the tourist industry would have you believe. There's a feeling that elements from both sides of the sectarian divide would like a return to the Troubles, that they have unfinished business.
Also my post may have given a misleading impression that the US Government was funding the IRA. This is incorrect. The US funding of the IRA was through a complicated series of charity donations. Quite famously at the time a charity linked to McDonald's in the USA was falsely traced to IRA funding. The reality though was that US citizens were funding the IRA through a "charity" called NORAID. This was through both direct donations and from donations from other legitimate charities. This funding continued even after the GFA was signed, and only stopped after 9/11, when the immediate consequences of terrorism was felt by the source of most of the donators to NORAID, New Yorkers.
> Ironically the one thing that would keep the GFA alive in spirit is a united Ireland, something that the DUP would never allow.
The DUP represents 250K people - it's tiny, they only mattered because of the 10 seats which upheld the UK administration. They no longer have a use given the loss of double that number of Tories.
Read Article 1 of GFA - even with a Brexit reversal a border poll and unification is probably only a year or two away. At its conception unification was only a generation away - it's why (and people seem to forget) the DUP fought so hard against the GFA and were the only party to oppose it - but back then (as thankfully again now) they didn't matter.
"there's absolutely no inherent reason that changes to the Good Friday Agreement can't be included."
Removal of all border installations, including customs posts, was an integral feature of it. That was facilitated by both the Republic & the UK, and hence N Ireland, were both in the EU.
If you mean there's no inherent reason not to break it then you're correct. That apart, we're left with the usual situation of Team Brexit insisting on that a set of mutually incompatible requirements can be resolved.
Nobody wants "no deal", and certainly not Boris.
To believe that requires a good deal of trust in Boris. A number of people ranging from several people who have served alongside him in cabinet to former editors who he has worked for have seen fit to not trust him. Perhaps it would be wise to take a lead from them.
I presume most people here have worked on IT projects, and know how much can go badly wrong because of inadequately detailed planning and be a nightmare to manage on even the most trivial new systems. Then there's the fact that all transport, trade and finance is run on IT systems, most of which have rules, regulations, accounting, etc deeply baked into them and few of these outside really big companies who trade globally with both EU and non EU companies will have the facilities to manage them. The extremely late decision on what's going to happen due to political game playing will mean that few systems are prepared on time, and all the unforseen problems that emerge are going to screw things up as much in businesses and HMRC as any big queue of lorries on the roads near ports will do for transport. This won't have the impact in the public mind as the pictures on the news of physical disruption will, but it will be just as severe for many people. IT job recruitment may be about to to become much more interesting if companies need to recruit in a panic for emergency system changes, and big contract rates might be available but I would be personally cautious of all the badly managed, stressed out working conditions that might be encountered in order to get them.
However if prices really do go up severely, and other jobs become scarcer (e.g. City finance due to relocations to EU) then the need to accept such work might increase.
Then there's the fact that all transport, trade and finance is run on IT systems, most of which have rules, regulations, accounting, etc deeply baked into them and few of these outside really big companies who trade globally with both EU and non EU companies will have the facilities to manage them.
The insistence on a 'deal' makes the situation worse. Currently systems need to know if you're inside/outside the EU. The majority of the world is outside, and yet manages to trade with it. So in some ways, no deal makes it easier. We'd be a 3rd party trading nation and that's the reasonable worst case assumption.
It shouldn't be that more difficult than assessing the impact of say, the last couple of years of EU/US/China/Russian trade disputes and tariff wars and adapting accordingly. Which is one of those things people ignore, ie the impact of the EU sanctioning Russia and thus losing billions in trade, along with compensating businesses that previously relied on exports to Russia, and the fraud that went with it.
But one of the most positive aspects of Brexit is Marmite should be safe from this-
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/salt_report_en.pdf
The Framework set a benchmark of a minimum of 16 % salt reduction over 4 years for all food products, also encompassing salt consumed in restaurants and catering. So whilst our Navy is busy stopping Danes hoovering up our sand eels to turn into salmon feed, we'll be able to use the distraction to smuggle essential supplies of Marmite to our EU expats.
Which of the 4 remaining Royal Navy vessels is going to protect us from the Vikings? One of them's chasing dinghies in the channel, one of them is hiding behind a US aircraft carrier in the gulf, one is mopping up after Dorian and the other one is sailing about the China seas with the US marines onboard. I guess we could use submarines, disguised as herring.
Trust me, I'm all for singing "always look on the bright side of life" when things go wrong. But to sing it before the disaster when it can be averted and the implications are being spelt out to you. I see no difference between Brexit and drinking and driving. And no, I'm not Brian
...very bad news for cloud providers and for pretty much every technology company, all of which would have to consider whether to implement controls on the flow of personal data between the UK and Europe
Anyone who's seen what effect DPA (2018) and the GDPR have had on BAU operations on commercial* organisations in the UK will know that a substantial fraction will consider it for five minutes, then shrug and go about their business.
Whether orgs in the EU27 take the same approach remains to be seen, of course, but I really doubt many will cut links to suppliers, customers, parent orgs or subsidiaries in the UK on Nov 1st. Not because of data protection issues, anyway. (Because they're sick of our shit? Yeah, maybe)
As much as I am a remainer, think that Cameron was stupid, that this whole Brexit nonsense has taken on a sickly corrupt tinge, many of us on the continent are looking at Brits thinking what the fuck have they been putting in the water. It's like you're in a daze. Rise up, revolt, did Huxley teach you nothing (hoping you've read Brave New World)?! Do you all want to lie in the bed the Tories have created for you?
Sadly the whole thing is probably a demonstration of such aphorisms as:
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" (Churchill)
"If you think the average person's a bit thick, half of them are a lot worse than that". (Anon)
Or in an attempt to be more conciliatory, "Remain was a vote based on experience and reason, leave, a vote based on emotion". (Zog_but_not_the_first)
What's the way forward? Dunno.
It's like you're in a daze.
I think most people are severely shell-shocked by a never ending stream of Neo-Liberal and NPM "reforms", inflicting enough misery and disaster to block any higher order thinking on anything else than immediate things like: "Can I afford to get ill", "Will I have a pension before I die", "Will my children get knifed on their way to school", "will I ever get a steady job", "if I lose my car, I lose my job", "do we have enough to feed the children this week", "what is the police sees this rant I posted while I was drunk" ....
Leaving politics aside and getting back to the subject of the article, I've been actively campaigning up to ministerial level and advising on this data transfer problem for over a year, but nobody in official circles seems so far to have considered it a high priority. Indeed data protection as a whole seems to have consistently remained low on the agenda to date. As late as yesterday, someone at the ICO told me they don't yet even know the how leaving the Union will affect existing complaints that are still being considered when the transition occurs.
All the (typically vague) advice so far published is UK-centric, apparently assuming that we will still be the judges of compliance after we leave the Union. The reality is the exact opposite. The European parties to data transfers will be the arbiters of compliance as the relevant legislation is theirs. However closely it is "aligned", our UK GDPR will merely be irrelevant third country law until (unless) the UK is granted adequacy.
It's worth noting that at least one competent legal source has identified half a dozen specific instances where the existing controller/processor standard contractual clauses (created in 2010) are non-compliant with the GDPR. This means additional contractual obligations will have to be written into every controller/processor contract, and this is only one of the many issues to be resolved by each business individually, so far without any official guidance other than vague optimistic generalities.
What businesses (particularly small businesses) need ands have needed since day one are simple clear statements of specific actions to take and how to implement them - but it's already almost too late.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
