Forum Topic

This is NOT Project Fear!

The Operation Yellowhammer document obtained by the Sunday Times and published yesterday (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-deal-brexit-planning-assumptions-the-leaked-operation-yellowhammer-document-797qxkrcm ) , sets out the consequences of a Brexit crash-out and makes clear the foolishness of the whole business:  The return of a hard border in Ireland, which may spark protests, road blockages and “direct action”; Logjams caused by months of border delays could potentially disrupting the fuel supply in London and the South East; Up to 85% of lorries using the main Channel crossings could face delays of up to two and a half days; Significant disruption at ports will last up to three months before the flow of traffic “improves” to 50-70% of the current level; Petrol import tariffs will lead to the closure of two oil refineries, 2,000 job losses, widespread strike action and disruptions to fuel availability; Medical supplies will “be vulnerable to severe extended delays” as three-quarters of the UK’s medicines enter the country via the main Channel crossings; The availability of fresh food will be reduced and prices will rise. This could hit “vulnerable groups”; Etc, etc. This is a hard-headed, realistic assessment of the dangers of a crash-out; it was not produced by covert remainers but was commissioned for the government itself. Michael Gove has tried to rubbish the document, claiming falsely that it is “old” (it’s dated from earlier this month) and that it represents “a worst-case scenario” (it doesn’t: the Times quotes a senior, ie civil service, Whitehall source as saying “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.”) So that’s what Johnson wants us to blunder into - but for what? None of this was even mentioned during the referendum, which underlines the case for a second vote. To quote Clare Noeken: Stop Brexit!
PS: A further unpleasantness has emerged: the Daily Mail reports that Home Secretary Patel wants to end freedom of movement for EU citizens travelling to Britain overnight on October 31 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7367709/Home-Secretary-Priti-Patel-wants-borders-shut-October-31.html ). Fine for the one million EU citizens already registered here but not for the two million plus who are not: what will happen to them? Another Windrush scandal in the making

Richard Carter ● 2641d36 Comments

@RC Project Fear, in overdrive. This is an old document produced by the civil service to work out the absolute worst possible scenarios in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Government have been putting plans in place since 2017 to mitigate these imagined situations. Get a grip fgs.🙄

Sue Hammond ● 2641d

I dread the thought of a no-deal Brexit which Boris is so keen on.  This Operation Yellowhammer document gives irrefutable proof of the dire consequences of a no-deal Brexit, regardless of the spin Gove is trying to give it.  The level of irresponsibility is mind boggling.Priti Patel is well, I really dislike her and the latest news regarding EU nationals living in the UK is totally unacceptable.  She is the limit!!And I agree, a second vote is urgently required because the Government is acting without a mandate.  The vote was to leave, but certainly not a mention of no-deal before the referendum.  And I join in the #StopBrexit! At the very least Article 50 should be revoked and we return to the drawing board and rethink the whole process.  This is common sense.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2641d

"This is an old document...". It's not: as I pointed out, it dates from THIS MONTH. "... produced by the civil service to work out the absolute worst possible scenarios." It is not, as I also pointed out: it's the most realistic assessment of what the public face with no deal. Get a grip fgs and read posts before responding .🙄🙄🙄

Richard Carter ● 2641d

And I note that you have no comment, not even a trademark sneer, on Patel's vicious proposal. A step too far even for you?

Richard Carter ● 2641d

Latest news is that the Yellowhammer report is from the start of this month, there seems to be some economy with the truth ... I suspect there's no ambiguities with Ms Patel, it seems obvious she'd like to starve the whole of the EU into a deal, not just the Irish, although what she's now saying may not be compatible with the "settled status" programme and having up until the end of 2020 to apply in the event of no deal (as stated on the government's web site) - listening to Paul Scully on BBC 24 hour news Freedom of Movement looks a mess; he couldn't say what would happen after end of October to EU citizens resident in the UK but who hadn't completed their settled status applications. I hope all the British senior citizen expats in Spain have invested in winter clothes for when they get returned to the UK after a no deal if EU citizens aren't treated fairly 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 2641d

It is all too unbelievably depressing!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2641d

And this is hard commercial,  business:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-49389152If all EU customers take this stance I can see a few bankruptcies in the UK ...

Michael Ixer ● 2641d

I think it is rather more difficult to dismiss a 19-days old briefing note for the incoming administration as Project Fear.  If it had emanated from an anti-Brexit campaigning group then just possibly it could be challengeable on that basis. In my view none of its authors will be wanting their career to be prematurely terminated by this extreme Brexiteer government so if anything they probably did their best to sugar the pill.  A slightly alarming thought!The government is doing its best to suppress leaks and has instructed local authorities not to comment on their plans to combat the impending chaos, even to the extent of briefing them on how to reject FOI requests. As for Priti Patel one can only hope she has boosted the chances of the promised vote of no confidence succeeding.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2641d

Not necessarily as you report it here Richard - a report commissioned by May to persuade agreement to the vassalage whoops so called withdrawal agreement intended to play to project fear and seems to have been deliberately under researched...https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/politics/2019/08/19/paterson-dismisses-no-deal-dossier-warnings-as-project-fear/“For example, on the delays at the port we asked if they had discussed their expectation with the port authorities of Calais/pas du Nord who had already said that there would be no extra delays at Calais and they said, (after a great deal of shuffling of feet) ‘no’.”“We asked why not and they said they had not been asked to do so. There were other areas where it was clear they had not been asked to get balance but instead dress up previous versions other worst case scenarios.“The whole thing was an attempt to frighten us and didn’t stand up to scrutiny. We have never seen officials look so uneasy under questioning.”

Mike Warman ● 2641d

I am sorry Mike, you are comparing chalk and cheese.  Richard is quoting a three-week old document and you are talking about May.May's administration has gone.  Johnson's administration is here and Gove is desperately trying to spin (as in Blair's spins) the story.I strongly believe it is time for everyone to sit up straight and consider what we have learnt since the referendum, and there is plenty of learning that has been had.If you wish the UK to leave the EU "come-what-may", it is your prerogative.  But please do not close doors to other thoughts. They may, just may, have a lot of substance behind them.  An informed and considered approach is really needed.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2641d

Ivonne that was a comment on the same leaked document by Owen Patterson and Iain Duncan Smith which is why I shared it,  it was likely commissioned under May and finalised after she had leftTheresa May left office on July 24th so 3 1/2 weeks ago so three weeks ago was likely only 2 or 3 days after.My attitude towards brexit has only hardened due to the continual antics of the arch remainers in parliament and how out of touch they are with the country as a whole.  I would have preferred a sensible prime minister, which we discovered May was anything but, to negotiate an arms length exit towards a comprehensive trade deal without the uk being subject to ongoing EU control.  The withdrawal agreement did not offer this, and that, more than anything, made me,and I suspect others, realise that the only real brexit available is towards WTO.As I pointed out with the YouGov poll link on Barbara’s thread  this is becoming a more favoured option, obviously mainly outside of London

Mike Warman ● 2641d

You won’t get more one sided comments than you do from Patterson and IDS.  I had an extended trip to see relatives in NE and NW England. I would say few had changed their minds on either side but there is growing concern about what a no deal exit really means. WTO rules trading with the EU is going to be very bad for our exporters, jobs and most of all for most farmers. I’m now in Scotland where Brexiteers are very thin on the ground indeed.  I see no signs of a majority for Johnson’s do or die exit, far from it.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2641d

Well, Mike, Theresa May resigned as of 7 June 2019 and remained in "office" until her successor was chosen, so no, 3 1/2 weeks ago she was not in power, she was holding the fort.Your stance may have hardened due to "the continual antics of the arch remainers in Parliament and how out of touch they are with the country as a whole."I will agree with you that my initial reaction to the result of the referendum was exactly that, how disconnected London was from the rest of the country.However, and I would say this in capital letters but it would be very rude indeed, the MPs that represent us MUST consider the best interests of the country; that is the basis of a Parliamentary democracy.  It is also a bastion of the Leave campaign to "regain political control", for Parliament to decide.The country voted to Leave, it is up to Parliament to make it happen, always in the best interest of the country.  NOT in the interest of political parties.And no, we cannot yet agree.  I would suggest that a most pragmatic approach would be to stop Article 50, to decide amongst ourselves what is it that we really want and then go forth.  There is no way, or being very crude if not rude, there is not a hope in hell that we will reach such consensus in a matter of weeks.  Let us think what is good for the country before anything else.By the way, and in a very underhand way, are you happy that British Steel has been bought by a Turkish fund?  Facetious? I wholeheartedly agree!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2641d

Agree and also worth stressing that the document was leaked not to any 'leftie bible' but to the Brexit backing Sunday Times whose editors considered it their duty to publish. The Brexit backing Mail likewise published the 'Secret Dossier's claims of chaos

Jane Carter ● 2640d

Step 1 identify the key risks of a clean-breakStep 2 prioritise risks and address accordinglyStep 3 leave the EUThe government has known about the key risks since Day 1 (see Cameron's anti Brexit campaign leaflet) so as long as they are being addressed with sufficient resources and expertise, my only concern is whether or not there enough time to do so before 31st October.

Adam Tripp ● 2640d

Simple, if it had been planned properly over three years. But just looking at the announcement recently about freedom of movement ceasing after October if there's a no deal. Fine, technically that's correct,  no deal, the EU treaty conditions including those on movement cease to apply 1st November. However,  EU citizens have been told they have to end of 2020 to apply for settled status. Question #1: how do immigration officers at point of entry ascertain which EU citizens have rights of entry if they haven't applied or completed their application between 1.11.10 and 31.12.20? It's  been stated there'll be checks on criminal status of EU citizens after October. Not unreasonable but in the event of a no deal technically we lose access to EU databases. Question #2: how will immigration officers determine who from the EU has a criminal record? Question #3: what level of  offences will result in entry being refused? Finally, we're told they'll be no border in Ireland between the EU and UK. Question #4: how do we stop EU citizens  travelling to Ireland and entering the UK via Northern Ireland? Ok, there may be simple answers to these but all this has to be agreed, documented, communicated, systems changed, immigration officers trained - and, ideally, tested or trialled? Imagine there are thousands of these items ... and just over two months to complete them! Perhaps Johnson should stick to playing with buses, apparently it's easy to get a free ride on his new Routemasters: very popular with some kids, I understand 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 2640d

Johnson's letter to Donald Tusk (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/106014/read-full-boris-johnsons) is especially interesting, and one part of it hasn't received the attention it should: it's where he talks about what regulatory regime he thinks we will follow after Brexit: “[After the UK has left the EU] we will remain committed to world-class environment, product and labour standards, [but - a very big but] the laws and regulations to deliver them will potentially diverge from those of the EU.” (Emphasis added). 
That’s hugely significant, because, even if you accept the stuff about remaining “committed to world-class standards” (and I don’t accept it for one minute), any hint of those standards being lower than the EU’s will scupper any chance of a close relationship with the EU in future.
And the real but hidden danger is that the real plan is to scrap the safeguards in the social chapter: maternity and holiday leave, the working time directive, workers’ rights and all the other hard-won safeguards and turn the UL into a bowdlerised version of Singapore-on-Thames. Take back control? But who will be taking back control? There’s serious danger here, and the worry about the immediate effects of a crash-out Brexit are being allowed to disguise the longer-term aim of the right-wingers now surrounding Johnson. Nobody can say we weren’t warned.

Richard Carter ● 2640d

This is definitely project fear 🙂https://newsthump.com/2019/08/20/ending-freedom-of-movement-could-see-santa-barred-from-delivering-in-the-uk-after-brexit/

Michael Ixer ● 2640d

These are your assumptions nothing else and as a  supporter of project fear you wouldn't say anything positive would you. Like you I do not know what the outcome will be but I avoid trying to tell people I am informed as just  like you i'm not.

Andy Pike ● 2640d

"Like you I do not know what the outcome will be"But you were prepared to back an unknowable outcome, in preference to a known set of circumstances? That is quite revolutionary.

David Ainsworth ● 2640d

Andy if you don't know what the outcome will be (and neither do I), how did you know what you were voting for? Leavers have always maintained they knew what they were voting for, so surely you must know the outcome?

John Gorst ● 2640d

Brexit was always about blind faith in this country’s ability to shake off its chains and stand tall in the world. The reality of economic disruption and competing on an unequal playing field against the world's heavyweights such as the EU, the USA and China doesn’t quite fit with the vision.  So we enter a world of denial and a blinkered refusal to face the idea that maybe the whole thing was a bad idea. Oh and where is all that talk of sunlit uplands and dancing unicorns?  Any good news out there?  I’d love to hear it.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2640d

John you are quite right I initially voted against the status quo and honestly expected that remain would win the vote. If I'm honest j wasnt really bothered one way or the other. But the rhetoric and downright insulting response of the remainers has hardened my view in some respects.  I know think that despite all the obvious risks ws shiukd gk fir it but I never ever thought the civil service would allow us to leave and I still don't think we will. Many politicians will rue the day because of their  actions in thwarting the deal and trying to suggest that they really want to support the out vote but are waiting for a perfect deal.  A deal they know no one can achieve. Heh ho que sera sera.

Andy Pike ● 2640d

Someone called Jon Worth posted this to the FB group Cornwall for Europe. I haven't checked its veracity and don't necessarily agree with the assumptions or predictions but it's a good description of the crisis we're in ...

Michael Ixer ● 2640d

Johnson has proved today how superficial he is: he's correct the backstop does compromise the UK's sovereignty. However, the UK willingly delegated some aspects of sovereignty by signing up to the EU, then further diluted it by signing the GFA which works because it fits within the EU legal framework the UK agreed to. We were prepared to sign those treaties because of (a) the benefits of being part of a larger economic, trading and negotiating group and (b) to seek peace in Ireland. Johnson, if he wants to remove the backstop, has to come up with an alternative framework in which the GFA can work. That was the original reason I voted to remain. I suspect the relativity and quantum theory mathematicians I meet would find it easier to devise a unified theory for those than devise an alternative to the backstop. The GFA and EU law are intrinsically linked. The only way for Brexit  to work in the way Johnson and the ERG want is to probably break or renegotiate the GFA in its current form. Signining international treatises dilutes sovereignty, even the WTO requires submitting to international arbitration in the event of disputes.

Michael Ixer ● 2640d

Wow! navigating through all that takes a lot of hard work, I'm not sure I'm up to that. Another way of dealing with it is to look only at the bottom line, which sets out that the cumulative chance of a general election in the autumn is 53 per cent (but, as he says, the result of such an election is even harder to predict).On the other hand, if all this is right (and he's had to make many heroic assumptions about probabilities), the chance of a no-deal Brexit is only 6 per cent, much lower than most other forecasters reckon (something around 50 per cent plus, currently).Or, we could just say that no one has a real clue and let's go on holiday/switch off the news/bury our heads in the sand/think of something - anything - else. For the next few months. And that's looking increasingly attractive right now...

Richard Carter ● 2640d

@Richard. As a general election doesn't necessarily stop a no deal Brexit the overall likelihood could still be greater than 6%, probably over 50%?

Michael Ixer ● 2640d

Michael I agree with you about  the GFA situation. I doubt whether any Brexiteers such as our  current PM give a  flying whotsit about Ireland, North or South, except that he needs the support of the DUP.

Lucille Grant ● 2639d

I hear Johnson is going to go and negotiate with "oomph!", perhaps taking his brain along might be more useful?

Michael Ixer ● 2639d

You'd think someone with the opportunity of a first rate education would have some neurons but Boris is in good company with Trump. Putin must be thrilled.

Lucille Grant ● 2639d

Zac Goldsmith 's father Jimmy ( marry the wealth & hope they die or move on )  stood in Putney in 1997, as his PR people then knew Putney had enough floaters to support Referendum/ Brexit / self interest ! Now 21 year's later - is the seat truly marginal or simply apathetic to facts / truths / fake news etc ?  We had a dodgy labour candidate at last election for Labour/ Indian from A&E Northants who also had been standing at Indian Elections from here whilst who put him here ?  Electorate deserves better! or has Media truly hoodwinked far too much! so we are all simply dumber!

David Thompson ● 2639d

"I hear Johnson is going to go and negotiate with "oomph!""00 mph? Doesn't that mean that Johnson is rather slow-witted?

David Ainsworth ● 2639d

@David. Ha ha. They are ohs but perhaps you're right zeros would have been more appropriate 🙂 But looking at an online definition I wonder what part of it he's using in his discussions with Mrs Merkel:oomph/ʊmf,uːmf/nounINFORMALthe quality of being exciting, energetic, or sexually attractive."he showed entrepreneurial oomph"

Michael Ixer ● 2639d

Sorting the satire from the sublime and ridiculous isn't always easy 🙂https://www.lcdviews.com/2019/08/21/angela-merkel-refuses-boris-johnsons-request-for-asylum-saying-hes-already-in-one/

Michael Ixer ● 2639d

The recent freedom of movement statements don't seem to have been very well thought through ...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49433027

Michael Ixer ● 2638d

Since 2017 Ms Hammond ?That's not what Michael Gove says.He believes very little was done by May and Hammond as they believed their deal would mean such measures would not be needed, and contingencies have only really been devised since he and Johnson took control.Oh and I am pleased to read somewhere else on this site that the availability of your medication will not be threatened or disrupted.I hope that is true of mine.

John Hawkes ● 2635d