BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
KingstonGraham wrote:If there's a chance that any deal being put to parliament is because of a loophole to allow no deal to happen, how should those who do not want no deal approach it? And for those who think it is good that the executive (who are now a minority government) is trying to find loopholes to get around parliament - can you explain why that is good in principle without mentioning the referendum result?
I would presume the justification is that the way the law came into existence is a bit ropey, so all is fair in politics and loopholes.0 -
David Trimble on the backstop not being in line with the GFA/BA.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... ement.htmlThe Commission certainly has expertise in what is required to ensure the integrity of the internal market, but it does not have the expertise to make a judgment on what does or does not uphold the Belfast Agreement. It does not have, nor should it claim to have, the authority to decide upon this.
Here lies the problem right at the heart of the failure of the Brexit talks. The Commission alone, on behalf of the EU27, is negotiating the terms of the UK’s withdrawal; yet the subject matter on which we are all stuck is an area that is not entirely within the jurisdiction of the EU. The EU recognises in its original negotiating guidelines of 2017 the bilateral arrangements between the UK and the Republic of Ireland; these include the Agreement – an international treaty between two sovereign states which allows no third party arbitration and no alteration without the approval of both governments and, where necessary, that of the parties in Northern Ireland too.0 -
Well you learn something every day.briantrumpet wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowhammerbobmcstuff wrote:
Basically everyone?Stevo 666 wrote:
No idea. Who is saying it was renamed?Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Don't think so. A feasible worst case scenario is just that. Not sure exactly what you mean by a 'base case'?Shirley Basso wrote:
Isn't this incorrect.Stevo 666 wrote:
Very true.Mr Goo wrote:Yellow Hammer document is a bureaucratic 'Worst Case' scenario without any mitigation should we leave EU without deal.
Pre take off safety videos on planes are worst case scenarios with mitigation. And we continue to fly on planes.
Some people seem to think it is some sort of accurate prediction of the future by a government they usually claim cannot organise a p1ss up in a brewery.
Its the base case scenario as per the leaked document which has been retitled for the release.
I thought it got renamed to worst case to make it more palatable?
The point that we all know is that the people who are actually looking at the impacts in the civil service all conclude it’s net shades of bad.
It’s disappointing that trust in the civil service was that fickle.
In any event and as mentioned above, reasonable worst case scenario planning is a pretty standard approach. We do it.
It is the same document as was leaked in August but with a different title...The Sunday Times, according to The Observer, said that a senior Whitehall source said "This is not Project Fear, this is the most realistic assessment of what the public face with no deal. These are likely, basic, reasonable scenarios – not the worst case."
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The forecasts weren't written by 'the government', merely published by them, with a misleading title.Stevo 666 wrote:
Well you learn something every day.briantrumpet wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowhammerbobmcstuff wrote:
Basically everyone?Stevo 666 wrote:
No idea. Who is saying it was renamed?Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Don't think so. A feasible worst case scenario is just that. Not sure exactly what you mean by a 'base case'?Shirley Basso wrote:
Isn't this incorrect.Stevo 666 wrote:
Very true.Mr Goo wrote:Yellow Hammer document is a bureaucratic 'Worst Case' scenario without any mitigation should we leave EU without deal.
Pre take off safety videos on planes are worst case scenarios with mitigation. And we continue to fly on planes.
Some people seem to think it is some sort of accurate prediction of the future by a government they usually claim cannot organise a p1ss up in a brewery.
Its the base case scenario as per the leaked document which has been retitled for the release.
I thought it got renamed to worst case to make it more palatable?
The point that we all know is that the people who are actually looking at the impacts in the civil service all conclude it’s net shades of bad.
It’s disappointing that trust in the civil service was that fickle.
In any event and as mentioned above, reasonable worst case scenario planning is a pretty standard approach. We do it.
It is the same document as was leaked in August but with a different title...The Sunday Times, according to The Observer, said that a senior Whitehall source said "This is not Project Fear, this is the most realistic assessment of what the public face with no deal. These are likely, basic, reasonable scenarios – not the worst case."
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.0 -
I thought the Yellowhammer assumptions are what our mitigation planning is based upon. Why is nobody asking to see the proposed mitigation?0
-
Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
Fundamental issue remains that the civil service sees no deal brexit as net really bad for most things that are touched by Brexit and the reaction from people like Goo is to dismiss it as a political calculation.
Need I remind you about this article: https://www.ft.com/content/534e108a-465 ... a37d002cd3
Written in March this year
In case it's not obvious, the closer you are to zero the better the prediction.0 -
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well, as Mr Trumpet says below your post it is just published by them.Stevo 666 wrote:Well you learn something every day.
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
But I was not really implying anything about the contents with my comments, the only thing I was really pointing out was the way the government cheekily (IMO) changed the name to make it sound less bad.
It sounds like a reasonable assessment to me, it's in line with more or less everything else we've heard anyway, but then I am not an expert.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
What?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
It's quite unusual for the government to go explicily against the advice of civil servants. Even rarer when the conclusion of the work the civil service does is directly opposed to the strategy the government is pursuing. But that is the circumstance we find the government in.
But you also know this.0 -
Glad your mind reading classes are going well Rick.Rick Chasey wrote:But you also know this."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Glad your mind reading classes are going well Rick.Rick Chasey wrote:But you also know this.
Either that or you're thicker than I thought.0 -
If you haven't noticed, the civil service and the current government are diverging rather markedly in their views. If, like me, you know someone in the civil service who is trying to deal with the, shall we say, 'challenges' of staying true to their oaths as civil servants whilst serving their current political masters, you'll know that it's not a happy situation at all: when civil servants are taking advice on how not to be held liable for courses of action they are being directed to take which might be illegal, you can guess they aren't a happy group of people.Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.0 -
I may well know some of these things but you are being a bit presumptuous. Just saying...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Glad your mind reading classes are going well Rick.Rick Chasey wrote:But you also know this.
Either that or you're thicker than I thought."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the civil service and the current government are diverging rather markedly in their views. If, like me, you know someone in the civil service who is trying to deal with the, shall we say, 'challenges' of staying true to their oaths as civil servants whilst serving their current political masters, you'll know that it's not a happy situation at all: when civil servants are taking advice on how not to be held liable for courses of action they are being directed to take which might be illegal, you can guess they aren't a happy group of people.Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
Well then we should sack them all and replace them with true believers!
Sounds like a sensible system of government to me...0 -
Well, it's working out well for Trump and the US so far...bobmcstuff wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the civil service and the current government are diverging rather markedly in their views. If, like me, you know someone in the civil service who is trying to deal with the, shall we say, 'challenges' of staying true to their oaths as civil servants whilst serving their current political masters, you'll know that it's not a happy situation at all: when civil servants are taking advice on how not to be held liable for courses of action they are being directed to take which might be illegal, you can guess they aren't a happy group of people.Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
Well then we should sack them all and replace them with true believers!
Sounds like a sensible system of government to me...0 -
In case you missed it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -break-law0
-
Stevo 666 wrote:That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
What has its reliability or otherwise got to do with anything. The points are that something has come out of Govt that suggested Project Fear may well have been entirely justified and that the Govt have borrowed Trumps sharpie and scrawled out "base case" and replaced it with "worst case".
Whether the report is going to prove accurate or not isn't exactly the point.Faster than a tent.......0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the civil service and the current government are diverging rather markedly in their views. If, like me, you know someone in the civil service who is trying to deal with the, shall we say, 'challenges' of staying true to their oaths as civil servants whilst serving their current political masters, you'll know that it's not a happy situation at all: when civil servants are taking advice on how not to be held liable for courses of action they are being directed to take which might be illegal, you can guess they aren't a happy group of people.Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
Well then we should sack them all and replace them with true believers!
Sounds like a sensible system of government to me...
That was indeed how it was done a few centuries ago. It worked beautifully, the civil servants followed the instructions of the government and had a splendid opportunity to make their fortunes before being booted out and replaced by another set of opportunists.0 -
Or having their heads cut offRobert88 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the civil service and the current government are diverging rather markedly in their views. If, like me, you know someone in the civil service who is trying to deal with the, shall we say, 'challenges' of staying true to their oaths as civil servants whilst serving their current political masters, you'll know that it's not a happy situation at all: when civil servants are taking advice on how not to be held liable for courses of action they are being directed to take which might be illegal, you can guess they aren't a happy group of people.Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
Well then we should sack them all and replace them with true believers!
Sounds like a sensible system of government to me...
That was indeed how it was done a few centuries ago. It worked beautifully, the civil servants followed the instructions of the government and had a splendid opportunity to make their fortunes before being booted out and replaced by another set of opportunists.0 -
So, Johnson: on a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious is it that every single word that comes out of his mouth these days is a dog whistle to the voters he's hoping to entice from the BP, and only them? And that that is the sum total of his (Cummings') strategy?0
-
Is there a possibility that BJ's refusal to accept an extension can be equally interpreted that the deal will be forced through.
Effectively kick the can down the road on the backstop. i.e. deal with that if and when it becomes likely.
Is he playing both hands like TM. Trying to force Eu to bend while simultaneously making the May deal more palatable to HoC? Same tactic, just presented very differently?0 -
bompington wrote:So, Johnson: on a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious is it that every single word that comes out of his mouth these days is a dog whistle to the voters he's hoping to entice from the BP, and only them? And that that is the sum total of his (Cummings') strategy?
Polls would suggest it's working as per my posts earlier.0 -
Pretty much the only votes he can win from the corner he's wedged himself into?bompington wrote:So, Johnson: on a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious is it that every single word that comes out of his mouth these days is a dog whistle to the voters he's hoping to entice from the BP, and only them? And that that is the sum total of his (Cummings') strategy?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
Or having their heads cut offRobert88 wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
If you haven't noticed, the civil service and the current government are diverging rather markedly in their views. If, like me, you know someone in the civil service who is trying to deal with the, shall we say, 'challenges' of staying true to their oaths as civil servants whilst serving their current political masters, you'll know that it's not a happy situation at all: when civil servants are taking advice on how not to be held liable for courses of action they are being directed to take which might be illegal, you can guess they aren't a happy group of people.Stevo 666 wrote:
I see, so when the government does bad stuff they get blamed even where the civil service are heavily involved (and the civil service are servants of the government in case you hadn't noticed). But when it suits you, it was the civil service who did it. Okay...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
That said, this is a forecast from a government who many say can't organise a p1ss up in a brewery and yet here, their 'base case' is now being taken as somehow being a reliable indicator. You can't have it both ways.
Civil service wrote it, but you know that.
Well then we should sack them all and replace them with true believers!
Sounds like a sensible system of government to me...
That was indeed how it was done a few centuries ago. It worked beautifully, the civil servants followed the instructions of the government and had a splendid opportunity to make their fortunes before being booted out and replaced by another set of opportunists.
As I said, it worked beautifully.0 -
I love this picture.0 -
pretty much my view, he's presenting the "no-deal" option as a threat to EU when it's actually a threat to parliament.morstar wrote:Is there a possibility that BJ's refusal to accept an extension can be equally interpreted that the deal will be forced through.
Effectively kick the can down the road on the backstop. i.e. deal with that if and when it becomes likely.
Is he playing both hands like TM. Trying to force Eu to bend while simultaneously making the May deal more palatable to HoC? Same tactic, just presented very differently?0 -
Is BJ genuinly so stupid as to prop his folder open to photograph or is he clever enough to do that deliberately.Robert88 wrote:
I love this picture.
Is he just "playing the fool"?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:bompington wrote:So, Johnson: on a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious is it that every single word that comes out of his mouth these days is a dog whistle to the voters he's hoping to entice from the BP, and only them? And that that is the sum total of his (Cummings') strategy?
Polls would suggest it's working as per my posts earlier.
If he wins a general election with 35% of the vote, he will treat it as if it is a referendum win for no-deal.0 -
darkhairedlord wrote:
Is BJ genuinly so stupid as to prop his folder open to photograph or is he clever enough to do that deliberately.Robert88 wrote:
I love this picture.
Is he just "playing the fool"?
err.. Johnson doesn't 'play' the fool.0
