Brexit!

[Wortho]

3 hours ago, Gordon the Great said:

Great reply, there are none so blind........................

So you deny their terrorist sympathies.......

[StanSP]

 

'smooth transition' 

 

'UK will absolutely thrive after leaving EU'

 

More buzz words but not actually giving any information out. Granted there's time-restrictions but it's all we ever seem to hear. Never actually any substance on what they think is going to happen. 

 

Edited 11 September 2019 by StanSP

[TheUltimateWinner]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

 

Literally have no idea what is going to happen next, everything that happens appears to be unprecedented compared to the history books. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

'smooth transition' 

 

'UK will absolutely thrive after leaving EU'

 

More buzz words but not actually giving any information out. Granted there's time-restrictions but it's all we ever seem to here. Never actually any substance on what they think is going to happen. 

 

I think they've worked out enough people will lap it up so it doesn't really matter. So, so depressing.

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, TheUltimateWinner said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

 

Literally have no idea what is going to happen next, everything that happens appears to be unprecedented compared to the history books. 

Irony that a decision can overrule a previous decision that went before it

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

'smooth transition' 

 

'UK will absolutely thrive after leaving EU'

 

More buzz words but not actually giving any information out. Granted there's time-restrictions but it's all we ever seem to here. Never actually any substance on what they think is going to happen. 

 

I think in normal circumstances that would be correct to not release all information on a piece of legislation, but when it is on the back of a referendum and is highly likely to go to another referendum it just feels like they are deliberately hiding stuff from the public.

[lgfualol]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Most of us ARE CONCERNED already, this should make everyone much more concerned

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I think they've worked out enough people will lap it up so it doesn't really matter. So, so depressing.

What they have worked out is that if you tell everyone it is going to be a disaster it will probably be a disaster, and if you keep it low key and mitigate then it won't be.  Panic buying anyone?

Be honest - you know very well what this motion is trying to achieve it maximum chaos to try and force revocation of article 50.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Most of us ARE CONCERNED already, this should make everyone much more concerned

Most people aren't even paying attention my friend.  We are in a minority.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

What they have worked out is that if you tell everyone it is going to be a disaster it will probably be a disaster, and if you keep it low key and mitigate then it won't be.  Panic buying anyone?

Be honest - you know very well what this motion is trying to achieve it maximum chaos to try and force revocation of article 50.

If that were the case then why would a government which is pro-Brexit (and apparently pro-No Deal if it comes down to it) produce such documents if their contents, should they be leaked or made publicly available, were designed to massively undermine the credibility of the thing they're trying to achieve in the first place? Unless you're trying to tell me the Johnson government is in on this alleged conspiracy to revoke A50 too?

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

'smooth transition' 

 

'UK will absolutely thrive after leaving EU'

 

More buzz words but not actually giving any information out. Granted there's time-restrictions but it's all we ever seem to hear. Never actually any substance on what they think is going to happen. 

 

It's all guesswork or bluster... nobody has the faintest idea in reality. These yellowhammer papers will be written by loads of people who would rather err on the side of caution and will in all probability paint a far worse picture than anything that will happen.

 

Just stockpile beans, flour and yeast and buckle up for the ride.

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

If that were the case then why would a government which is pro-Brexit (and apparently pro-No Deal if it comes down to it) produce such documents if their contents, should they be leaked or made publicly available, were designed to massively undermine the credibility of the thing they're trying to achieve in the first place? Unless you're trying to tell me the Johnson government is in on this alleged conspiracy to revoke A50 too?

The civil servants produced it as I understand, and they are quite pro remain.  Anyway it wasn't intended for public use, but to help government departments see the risks.

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Anyway it wasn't intended for public use, but to help government departments see the risks.

Then what would the government plan to do about it...? 

[Babylon]

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The civil servants produced it as I understand, and they are quite pro remain.  Anyway it wasn't intended for public use, but to help government departments see the risks.

I'd say it's because most don't want to be painted as the person who said it'll all be fine and dandy and world war three erupts because of it. Nobody cares if they say it could be bad and it turns out well... because everyone will just be happy they don't have to send their 7 year old up the chimneys to make ends meat. 

[Footballwipe]

25 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The civil servants produced it as I understand, and they are quite pro remain.  Anyway it wasn't intended for public use, but to help government departments see the risks.

That's it. Document comes out which isn't sympathetic to Brexit, switch to the default position of questioning the integrity of the authors. Standard way, this. Farage is out accusing "judicial interference" when a court ruling doesn't go his way earlier today too.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

The civil servants produced it as I understand, and they are quite pro remain.  Anyway it wasn't intended for public use, but to help government departments see the risks.

The plan was initially devised by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, but the COBRA Committee has been responsible for Yellowhammer since March. Plenty of time for top Ministers to make the document less panicky and stop this conspiracy to cause chaos if they felt it warranted it then...

 

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-military-steps-up-preparations-in-case-of-no-deal-11671941

[Jon the Hat]

 

45 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

The plan was initially devised by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, but the COBRA Committee has been responsible for Yellowhammer since March. Plenty of time for top Ministers to make the document less panicky and stop this conspiracy to cause chaos if they felt it warranted it then...

 

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-military-steps-up-preparations-in-case-of-no-deal-11671941

Fortunately it appears they took it as intended, and worked on mitigation rather than wasting time editing an internal private document.

[Jon the Hat]

49 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

That's it. Document comes out which isn't sympathetic to Brexit, switch to the default position of questioning the integrity of the authors. Standard way, this. Farage is out accusing "judicial interference" when a court ruling doesn't go his way earlier today too.

I am not questioning their integrity, I was responding to "why would a pro-brexit government produce a document which could cause panic".  They were no doubt asked to document all the risks, and did so.  Since then, they have been no deal planning to give us confidence that they won;t all come about.  Some will no doubt.  Still, publishing this would be counterproductive, and the MPs who voted to do so are being deliberately difficult.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

Fortunately it appears they took it as intended, and worked on mitigation rather than wasting time editing an internal private document.

 

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

I am not questioning their integrity, I was responding to "why would a pro-brexit government produce a document which could cause panic".  They were no doubt asked to document all the risks, and did so.  Since then, they have been no deal planning to give us confidence that they won;t all come about.  Some will no doubt.  Still, publishing this would be counterproductive, and the MPs who voted to do so are being deliberately difficult.

 

But the document has constantly evolved since it was first produced, according to James Cleverley, meaning someone's been updating it since COBRA took the project over.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-latest-no-deal-boris-johnson-yellowhammer-james-cleverly-a9071301.html

 

And come on, you were questioning the integrity of Yellowhammer's initial authors - otherwise why bring up the fact they are allegedly "quite pro-Remain"?

[Footballwipe]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I am not questioning their integrity, I was responding to "why would a pro-brexit government produce a document which could cause panic".  They were no doubt asked to document all the risks, and did so.  Since then, they have been no deal planning to give us confidence that they won;t all come about.  Some will no doubt.  Still, publishing this would be counterproductive, and the MPs who voted to do so are being deliberately difficult.

 Okay, keep telling yourself that.

 

Discourse (on both sides) is going to die even quicker than it already is because people are so quick to become paranoid, shrug off and dismiss anything negative on the side they believe. It doesn't conform to their view so it must be authored by "a remainer," a negative poll about Corbyn and "The MSM are desperate to get rid of him, YouGov is Tory."

 

Is it considered a weakness to say okay, this document has some worrying information. It'd be good to get to the detail of this, how could we address this? How accurate is it and what can be done for stakeholders to alleviate any impacts should they come to fruition.

 

Instead it's LALALALALALA REMAIN AGENDA REMAIN AGENDA LALALALALALALA. I wouldn't mind but if (I said if, theoretical if, sorry if that makes me a traitor) it does go belly up when we leave I suspect people behind the leaving the EU will try and shrug off any responsibility they shouldered getting us to that point.

[Finnaldo]

This topic could probably use something a bit more lighthearted:

[Wortho]

14 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

This topic could probably use something a bit more lighthearted:

That is funny 

[bovril]

I've been on holiday for the last week and every time I get back to the hotel after a long walk in the mountains something monumental has happened.

 

Now I'm waiting for a train back to the UK and wondering what laws I'll ignore first when I get back. 

[StanSP]

The Brexit Icarus

 

They're like a fvcking parody of themselves these days. Icarus was the one that flew too close to thing that it wanted, against sage and wise advice, then crashed and burned to his death, right? 

 

There's no freedom at all in the Icarus story with how it ends ffs

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

The Brexit Icarus

 

They're like a fvcking parody of themselves these days. Icarus was the one that flew too close to thing that it wanted, against sage and wise advice, then crashed and burned to his death, right? 

 

There's no freedom at all in the Icarus story with how it ends ffs

Read the article.....