According to The Sunday Times:
Britain faces shortages of fuel, food and medicine, a three-month meltdown at its ports, a hard border with Ireland and rising costs in social care in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to an unprecedented leak of government documents that lay bare the gaps in contingency planning.
The documents, which set out the most likely aftershocks of a no-deal Brexit rather than worst-case scenarios, have emerged as the UK looks increasingly likely to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Compiled this month by the Cabinet Office under the codename Operation Yellowhammer, the dossier offers a rare glimpse into the covert planning being carried out by the government to avert a catastrophic collapse in the nation's infrastructure.
I am well aware that the government says that this is all ‘project fear', but this did originate from within the Cabinet Office. It's their ‘project fear' in that case.
I just want to ask a simple question, and that is, suppose that this is right? What if, despite ministerial denials, which so far most people have been all too willing to believe there is supply chain break down post-Brexit, most especially with No Deal, which I now think increasingly likely.
Noone in the UK has lived through a deliberate, government-created food, fuel and medicine crisis.
Likewise, no one in the UK has lived through so deliberate a government-created slaughter of businesses, which I think might well be the biggest long term impact of Brexit because the cash flow crises it will create will send so many businesses under, pro-longing any downturn for much longer than almost anyone else is predicting at present, simply because businesses will no longer be there to recover by early 2020.
And therefore no one really knows how people will react to this situation, which I think will likely happen, and, as I note, be of long-lasting duration.
In that case, this scenario needs real consideration now, not least because it is all too likely to happen. If anyone is scenario planning for it I have not noticed it, at least in the political sphere. Scenario analysis for what might happen before 31 October is one thing, but what happens afterwards?
The questions that need answering, as far as I can foretell are these:
1. How will shortages be managed?
2. How will civil disorder be managed?
3. How will the government survive?
4. What government will succeed this one in the event of chaos that demands change, with no time to hold an election?
5. What will the reaction plan be?
6. How might a reaction plan be delivered?
The brief answers are that the shortages will not be capable of management: only rationing might do that, and that would require more planning than we have time for. Real shortages will follow then, and those least well off will almost certainly be hit hardest: that's the rationing system that the market always imposes.
I think this will result in civil disorder. Parents unable to feed their children do not sit quietly by. I can see no way that the police or army might contain such disorder if it was widespread, not least because their families will be impacted alongside everyone else.
Can a government survive a state of chaos that it has deliberately created? I very much doubt it, even if Johnson did manage to get an election and win on or around Brexit day. I cannot foresee a large majority for him in such an election, even if such a victory were to happen. The swing in sentiment would rapidly move against any government that deliberately delivered chaos to this country, even if it had a majority.
What government should succeed Johnson's in that case? I reiterate what I have said before: political differences would have to be put aside and a coalition would need to be created in the short term. But there would need to be agreement as to limited duration and no actions excepting crisis management.
What will the reaction plan need to be? First: immediate application to the EU for a deal, in response to which they will offer that agreed with May, without a doubt. It may well pass.
Second, emergency bailout funds for failing businesses will be required.
Third, rationing may be necessary.
Fourth, a national reconstruction plan will be required: I foresee the situation being as bad as that.
Fifth, I would suggest that electoral reform would be a necessary response to the crisis: never again should we be left in this situation.
And how might such a plan be delivered? That depends on the courage of the politicians who must craft it. That might require another blog.
But, and this point I stress, given that this scenario is likely to come to pass whoever wins the likely Johnson called October or November election, which will happen before the chaos descends, Labour may consider itself fortunate if it does not win on that occassion. I know it will try to do so, and that is its job, but the truth is this crisis has to hit the Tories and them alone if it is to come to pass. They will have created this mess, which I think will happen. They must pay the price for it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What a pile of empty rhetoric and Remainiac propaganda.
The very fact the author has to trot out the tired old meme “crashing out”
tells you all you need to know about the agenda. Mind you you forgot
to use the word “catastrophe” which your EU masters won’t like one
little bit. We must use the word “catastrophe” at least every hour esp
on the utterly biased BBC.
It’s staggering the lengths people will go to to scupper a democratic
decision for their own ends. Just appalling.
Whatever happens now, will not be the fault of Johnson and his
cabinet. Any chaos we see, any shortages, any job losses, any
business closures, will be the DIRECT FAULT of all the traitorous
Remainiacs inc Tersa May who have for 3 years been actively
obstructing the BrExit process. We’ve had 3 YEARS ! to get ready
to prepare for all these impending shortages, to put in place measures,
agreements, protocols, extra staff . . . all the things we needed to do.
Remainers, EU stooges and the EU itself have collectively worked
to obstruct the whole process, sow doubt in people’s mind about the
whole EU Exit and condition them as far as possible to support the
Remain side in the event a second referendum occurs. 3 years have
been utterly wasted by these undemocratic idiots.
So yes, we might now struggle when we leave. We wouldn’t have had to struggle, but these miserable people have acted in such obstructive
ways that it will now happen. Well done !
Post BrExit we should round up each and every one of these
undemocratic people. Not one of them is fit for government, or fit for
politics of any kind. They should be removed from post and prevented
from ever again being involved in British politics. Their behaviours
have been utterly dispicable and they have collectively demonstrated
that the entire democractic process in this country is in dire peril.
If that turns out to be the case, if a rebellious collective succeed in
scuppering the democratic process, then people will have every right
to take to the streets and cause utter chaos.
This is essentially a war, an invasion by any other name. It’s just that
there are no guns, tanks or bombs. But the UK and it’s democratic
position are being assaulted, by people who would usher in a
totalitarian dictatorship. You might as well have Chairman Mao
stomping into the UK trying to take over!
Project Fear and Project Hysteria have been disgusting blights on
our nation. The government is already preparing and setting up agreements
for the supply of medicines post No Deal BrExit. There won’t be any shortages unless other countries specifically try to punish us for leaving.
That may happen. You may find that France wilfully obstructs customs
and trade movement or our fishing exports. The UK will respond in kind.
The bottom line is simply this.
You are either a UK citizen that supports this country and its democratic
process or you are not. If you are, you respect the referendum decision
and get with the program to make the very best of the BrExit process.
Those that wilfully obstruct the process have no place here. If you are
not going to support democracy and therefore support Dictatorship,
Communism, Marxism or whater, then you are going to have an
enormous fight on your hands from the millions of people who support
democracy and wish to preserve it in the UK.
We are leaving the EU cesspit. If that process is overturned, ignored then
the people will revolt in unprecedented numbers and the farcical rants
of Project Fear citing bits of post BrExit chaos will frankly look like a
picnic!.
No Deal is the only way we will ever be allowed to properly detach from
the EU. Get it done.
So your idea of democracy is to completely suppress those who might have ideas that differ from your own?
And to ’round them up’
Fascism then?
Is that what taking back control means?
I will state straight away that i voted remain and would do so again in the next referendum..that said those who voted to leave did so as a majority of those who bothered to vote..it is however wrong to call them fascists just because they have a different outlook to you..after all the EU is flawed in so many ways and has is the root cause of so much inequality across Europe that there are many many valid reasons why people would choose to leave..they are no more fascist than you are a communist..
You think rounding up and silencing forever people who do not agree with you is not fascist?
What would you like to call it then?
That is what I was referring to
You have to wonder how we will ever reform the centralised Common Agricultural Policy with views like this. If you want to be in the EU you have to at least engage with what’s happening. We have a system based on land area under use or available for use for agriculture. It requires at least 5 times as much land to produce a unit of beef protein or grouse protein than vegetable protein. It is utterly absurd.
Yet pescatarian Christine Lucas who wants to remain in won’t talk about this. Either she is ignorant or malevolent. Remember that remain plus reform is not been on any ballot in the last 5 years.
At least by being out we can design our own scheme, and if the initial design is a bad one, we don’t have to simultaneously change the schemes in 27 other countries to be able to amend our own. Even better if landowner subsidy policies ( for that is what they are ) are devolved to Scotland, Wales, Stormont, and English Regional Authorities then change can be effected even more nimbly.
By the way Arthur’s objection was to the people with an agenda. Ideas are welcome. Conflating the two is a symptom of BDS.
No one, anywhere, pretends that the EU is not in need of reform
It glaringly obviously is
But if you had the slightest concern about the environment you’d realise that this reform is best done in 28 countries
And it could be
With respect, your argument is pure ad hominem nonsense
I suggest Mr Vanian contacts Dominic Grieve MP, or Anna Soubry MP or various other Conservatives (and others) who have had to seek advice or protection from the police for voicing their political opinions and supporting an opinion that was held by 48% of the British polpulation in 2016, and probably well over 50% now.
Some of them were even prepared to support Brexit, but not no-deal or the current toxic Johnson-Cummings Conservative Government. But you can never do enough for Brexit unless you first lay the country waste.
But if you had the slightest concern about the environment you’d realise that this reform is best done in 28 countries
Well that seems to scupper the Green New Deal then which a programme explicitly about what the UK can do to deliver environmental improvements through increased government spending.
As for the other claim that I’m saying that no-one is saying that the EU is not in need of reform. That is patently untrue if you read my comment. What I said was about someone who is not engaging with two facts:
-firstly , remain and reform is not available on any ballot
-secondly, the best known figure in the Green Party isn’t talking about how to deliver it, with or without a mandate ( just look at the Greens’ EU manifesto this year, which would have led any voter to expect them to have voted against the new Commissioner because there was no binding commitment from von Der Leyen to any of their reform demands )
-thirdly, given point one, with an 8% QMV stake in a 28 member organisation, how does she plan to achieve any reform, even if she did engage with its desirability
-fourthly, and this affects you, how is it consistent to reject the devolution of agricultural policy to Scotland, and yet support an independent Scotland
-fifthly, the UK is about 12% of EU supranational income : having a 100% say in all of the smaller unit that is the UK is surely a better deal than having an 8% say in the bigger unit. Nobody is saying the mathematics of power relationships is easy, but that is surely one of the more straightforward opportunities to grasp.
With respect, there was no need to diss me as talking nonsense.
A) You have obviously not noticed the GND is a pan-European movement too. So you are wrong.
b) No law was in a ballot. They never are. So your argument is ridiculous and utterly irrelevant.
Meat is not grown on land that is suitable for growing food crops.
Approx 4% of land worldwide is suitable for growing food crops, whereas approx 22% is suitable for growing meat (food crops can not be grown on forage land). Only 2% of crops are specifically grown to feed to animals (the vast majority of the food crop fed to animals is waste material).
Banning the growing of meat will only decrease the amount of protein available – especially when you consider that animal protein has a human bioavailability of some 92%, and plant protein some 58%.
With respect, that is not now the settled scientific view
But least because you ignore alternative non food based land uses
Peter Reid says:
“Meat is not grown on land that is suitable for growing food crops. ”
I don’t believe that. I would readily agree that some upland pastures which support sheep would be Monstrously difficult to cultivate and there will be other cases where livestock is a more suitable ‘crop’. But in general I don’t believe what you are telling me.
“Approx 4% of land worldwide is suitable for growing food crops, whereas approx 22% is suitable for growing meat (food crops can not be grown on forage land). Only 2% of crops are specifically grown to feed to animals (the vast majority of the food crop fed to animals is waste material).”
If these are global figures they may (may) be correct as averages, but are very unlikely to relate at all closely to UK land use. Besides which with irrigation and polytunnels conserving water use and modifying growing environments the agricultural environment is massively changed.
….I’m not a veggie propagandist, nor even a veggie, I’m in favour of a mixed diet and mixed farming, but mono-culture is the order of the day when money profit rules every economic decision we take.
We need to be very clear what we mean when we speak of ‘intensive’ farming. The expression used to refer to crop output per acre…nowadays it refers to crop output per ‘man’-hour. A very different calculation.
Matthew Johnson refers to:
“…. grouse protein ….”
Love it. Lol. 🙂
And there it is, readers. Brexit unvarnished. Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have successfully ignited the permanently outraged; who are outraged even when they win, because mere ‘winning’ is never enough. Only obliteration of all opponents and opposition counts.
“Whatever happens now, will not be the fault of Johnson and his
cabinet.”
“Post BrExit we should round up each and every one of these
undemocratic people.”
“This is essentially a war, an invasion by any other name.”
I rest my case. They make a desert, and call it peace (Tacitus).
My feelings exactly.
Yes, this blame shifting is now what we all face.
It was always going to be like this – everybody else’s fault when the poo hit the fan. Like tantrum throwing toddlers who refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions.
You should be careful what you wish for Arthur. You sound far too keen on insurrection. No doubt happy for others to do the dirty work while you keep a safe, comfortable distance?
“properly detach from the EU.”
You clearly have not paused from your diatribe long enough to give that idea even a second’s thought.
After a no-deal Brexit we will not sail away into the Atlantic free of all influence from the EU. Economically we will not be detached at all. On the contrary all the problems we currently have will still be there. Negotiations with the EU will still go on. But we will be in an infinitely worse position than we are now without the bargaining power the threat of no deal gave us (if it gave us any.) And with a very unsympathetic EU negotiating team who will have little inclination to help us deal with the self inflicted economic chaos we have created. People like you may be off to Barbados to count your money and have a holiday while the rest of us suffer so it may well not affect you. And I am sure there will be a lot of wealthy expats to keep you company. They will not choose to ‘democratically’ stay with the rest of us and endure the consequences of their folly. And the EU will then take maximum advantage of their new bargaining position and after as many years as they like to take we will end up with the worst of all possible deals. Thanks to fools like you.
Well said
This cris has been engineered – principally by the current Tory leadership….
@Arthur
I think you are barking, Arthur.
Simply ignoring the prospect of impending chaos because you have fallen for a meme of your own preference viz that ‘project fear’ is nothing more than empty scaremongering.
It is a phrase which has been bandied about far too freely as a method of silencing grown-up consideration of possible outcomes.
You apparent belief that if state oppression is sufficiently draconian all will be well, flies in the face of everything that a civilised society is supposed to hold sacred.
Sadly I think you are far from alone in this dangerous view. Indeed it seems to be much in line with the thrust of Brexit ‘thinking’.
I have never heard such an explicit expression of fascist beliefs.
Arthur, my father fought the Nazis at the end of WW2. Likewise, I see it as my duty to fight against fascism now. The difference is that in 1944, the fascists had Tiger tanks and SS stormtroopers. Today they are just pot-bellied louts with laptops. Lucky us!
See you at the barricades!
Arthur, a dazzling display of every possible Quitter cliché compressed into one post with all the shrill hysteria of a panicked gibbon. Complete with spelling errors. 10/10.
Given the thoroughly fascist pallor of your semi-literate, spittle-flecked screed, you’re clearly an enemy of democracy yourself, and therefore a prime candidate for rounding up. Expect the police to be kicking your door in around 3am sometime soon.
I hope they don’t
Arthur’s views are repugnant
But he is entitled to them so long as he does not inflict them on others
Why do we have to entertain the idea that contesting the outcome of the Brexit vote is being undemocratic, Had it been subject to the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission than the funding, especially of the leave campaign, would have been ruled illegal.
We need rules and regulations to conduct ourselves, with consensus, in a civilised way. We do not need government ministers, without parliamentary scrutiny, making decisions on the status of European citizens working in this country.
Beware, people of this country, rather than ‘taking back control’ from those pesky Europeans, we are ceding control to an ‘elite’ in this country who have no wish or desire to further your interest which in, my humble opinion, is best served by remaining in the EU.
We do not have an empire anymore, we are a country of 67 million people and therefore best served by cooperating with those of similar interests in order to maximise our bargaining position and best serve ourselves.
I was born in the early 1950s and only now, in hindsight, can look at the improvements post 1973. Prior to that we still had the damage from WW2 in the city where I now live. It did not disappear overnight but the rebuilding and improvements were part of a process, which I genuinely were a benefit of our economic partnership with the EU, and the economic activity it generated that delivered an optimism that , sadly, I do not feel today.
Why should we inflict so much harm on ourselves that we want to go back to a time when ‘so much suffering was caused by so few’, and to a result that the only benefit will be to the ‘elite’ who will suffer no consequences.
Meanwhile worst case-
1. How will shortages be managed?
Rationing, they will invoke WW2 blitz spirit nostalgia bullshit and the same suspects who went along with Brexit will go along with that nonsense.
2. How will civil disorder be managed?
Army will be deployed, a few shot protestors will be used to terrorise the rest of us into submission (state reaction to riots in 2011 showed they would do what it took, 24 hr courts and prosecutors in tears following orders to jail even the most trumped up cases and brutalised soldiers from our overseas theatres will perform to orders). People will starve and freeze in their homes/shop doorways over winter, given acceptance of food banks it has been demonstrated a lot of the population are ok with the govt starving citizens for political reasons. People subject to the DWP are used to the population not being interested that they are dying. Generally a dangerous tipping point of unrest is if the middle class face food poverty, so if the govt is clever it will ensure this tipping point is not reached, but for those below that social economic status we will be dying out at increased rate that has already been established over decade of austerity.
3. How will the government survive?
Fixed term act means election in May 2022, in meantime they will bribe DUP with more cash, and media/political establishment will encourage more defections away from Labour and probably to Lib Dems who may then side with Tory party on key ‘national unity’ votes. Even if they don’t opposition will be reduced and split.
4-6 n/a
There is nothing special about the UK, other post imperial nations have undergone collapse/despotic regimes, our national arrogance is about to learn this. However the leaders of this catastrophe are all wealthy enough not to suffer any of these consequences. To those of us familiar with austerity on front lines, this just represents even more of the same with a ramped up intensity, welcome to our world. If people had paid attention in 2010, we may never had ended up here.
Please can someone explain to me the zealotry and fanaticism of these people who are so intent on delivering ‘the peoples will’ that they have no care for those of more rational mind, even in their own government, who see the disaster to be inflicted on the people of this country, especially those so ill-equipped to endure it.
Tory Britain, nine years of ‘expansionary fiscal contraction’, or austerity in other words, that never worked, that led to the longest delay to a recovery in the economy for over 200 years , that has hit those on the bottom rungs of society the hardest, public services budgets slashed and wages still lower than eleven years ago in real terms, to name but a few.
Why do people believe the Conservative party is one of economic competence with its history showing the opposite, the party of democratic values when it ignores the notions of representative democracy with a referendum which, legally, could not be mandatory, and that purports to put the interests of its people first when it is rushing into a no deal Brexit?
The smirks of John Redwood, Mark Francois and Andrew Budgen, when they are interviewed on tv as their ‘prize’ appears over the horizon, show a contempt and vile disdain for the people they should care about which smacks of sadism.
“Please can someone explain to me the zealotry and fanaticism of these people?”
If the previous poster ‘Arthur’ is an example then there is no rational explanation. He is either Ricky Gervais having a laugh or he seriously needs help.
‘Likewise, no one in the UK has lived through so deliberate a government-created slaughter of businesses’.
May I suggest that Thatcher actually did this between ’79 and 83/84 before quietly denying that she had ever been into Friedman and Co?
Other than that you are spot on.
And as for that chap Arthur – oh dear – how badly misled he is.
@Arthur
“You may find that France wilfully obstructs customs
and trade movement or our fishing exports. The UK will respond in kind.”
Whose interests do you think that would serve exactly?
This “punishment” rhetoric is straight out of the ERG/Brexit Party book of paranoid propaganda.
If No Deal goes ahead, border controls will apply to the UK as it does for goods and people coming from any other non-EU country without even a PTA.
The UK will have absolutely no special treatment, if anything, it’ll be the only country in the world relying on very poor WTO regulations alone…if you can call them that even.
There won’t be a preferential trade agreement in place on November 1st, so yes, it’ll be crashing out without any safety net at all.
It so happens the UK is an island and most of its freight from the continent goes through ports, Calais & Rotterdam to be precise. Even Raab has realised it by now…
Calais has absolutely no interest in having its port gridlocked, nor does Rotterdam. Both have made extensive and expensive preparations for No Deal. It is costing them an arm and a leg. This utter mess will hurt them and they haven’t asked for this. Calais is not just a French port, it’s a European one, with freight from all over. Same with Rotterdam, which is even more of an international port.
Their governments bent backwards for 3 years to accommodate May and her bunch of lazy and incompetent ministers.
As for that line ” round them up” …I have no idea how old you are, whether you ever opened a History book, what party you vote for, but to me it stinks of fascism, and I will never ever hesitate to use the word when the beast raises its head, as it blatantly and unashamedly does in the UK today.
That ‘obstruction’ is the result of choosing not to have a deal
That is what it means
It means no free movement
We will be choosing that
But apparently it is others to blame for upholding the rule of international law
I believe the No Deal comes from the British Government not willing to accept the Good Friday backstop which was put in place to protect an international treaty at the request of …..the British Government. Arthur and his friends clearly do not understand how the world works. We who have observed the political scene for many years have always been aware that No Deal means chaos. Mrs May’s deal may not lead to chaos, but it is still a worse deal than remaining in the EU. Mr Johnson, even if he did manage a deal, would not be able to make a significant improvement on Mrs May’s, or on remaining.
It is quite clear to me that Mr Johnson and many of his colleagues, either currently or in the near future, are following the fascist line that my parent’s generation thought they had dealt with by 1945. A deal which may have worked in Europe, but is still unfinished business in the UK and the USA.
I’ve just seen this on Twitter:
“Only one nation struck oil, and got foodbanks.”
Sorry England but we’re be getting out of here!
Please, delete ‘be’, then it will make sense.
Thought you were going to say Venezuela
Willie John wrote “Only one nation struck oil, and got foodbanks. Sorry England but we’re be getting out of here!”
While I share your sentiments WJ, it’s not going to be simple to extricate Scotland from rUK. Robin MacAlpine’s excellent book “How to Start a New Country” lays it all out with great clarity. There would have to be a Transition Period, probably of not less than 3 years, during which Scotland has to create its organs of state. It goes without saying that these have to reflect the aspirations of the new Scottish state and not simply replicate the corresponding UK systems and organs. For instance, I suggest that nobody would wish to replicate the current UK Taxation and Welfare systems, so creating new, simpler and more equitable systems will require much time for consultation, decision-making, systems design and implementation.
Similarly, if Scotland chooses to have its own currency (as I hope it will), that new currency is likely to be pegged to the rUK£ for the duration of Transition Period between the decision become independent and Indepence Day to enable an orderly conversion of sterling holdings and agreement of the handling of contracts expressed in rUK£ e.g. mortgages, loans, pensions, investments etc. This need to peg the new currency makes it important for all Scots that the rUK economy performs with stability and, indeed, it will never be in Scotland’s interests to have an unstable country, which is also an important trading partner, as a neighbour.
A three-year Transition Period is an ambitious target, but Estonia managed to do most of that in about 5 years when the Russians withdrew in 1992 leaving it with virtually nothing but its land and its people. Scotland at least starts from a better place: better natural resources, centuries-old legal and education systems, laws that are fully aligned with EU laws, established and diverse business base, an established democratic parliament etc etc.
Independence is a goal worth fighting for, but disentangling ourselves from rUK will take time and won’t be easy; not least because, if rUK crashes out of the EU without a deal, it will be fully occupied with its own mess.
I am biased as my work is reflected in Robin’s book, but I think it’s the best thing to read on this issue
I am in complete agreement Ken.
Hopefully the SG, who have some brilliant minds within their ranks, have been doing their planning..!
So the 63 countries that became independent of Britain shouldn’t have even attempted it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom
Willie John says:
“So the 63 countries that became independent of Britain shouldn’t have even attempted it?”
Where do you get that from, Willie John ? Who suggested that? (Apart from the more rabid Scottish unionists for whom it is an article of somewhat outdated’ quaint, nostalgic imperialist faith.)
Ken recommends Common Weal’s (he attributes authorship solely to Robin McAlpine, but I don’t think that’s right) “How to Start a New Country”. It comes in a full version and a shorter version. The shorter version was long enough for me to get the gist.
Your local ‘Yes Hub’ will almost certainly lend a copy……
Anyone serious about the implications/prospects for an independent Scotland should have read it. Transition away from the union will take time, (3 years is not excessive given what has to be done) and the fewer people who think independence starts the day after a referendum (as soon as the hangover wears off) the more likely is independence to be successful.
There’s a lot of administrative stuff to deal with, without which effectively you don’t have a country.
…..and let’s not forget….the Brexit fans who claim the EU is being awkward about UK withdrawal are being to some extent disingenuous. The Westminster government will/could be REALLY awkward when it comes to separating their precious union. Those in the know know that it will be financially very painful for England; especially an England devoid of the EU cushion.
The English people cheering most loudly ‘good riddance to Scotland’ will be the same element who are so gung-ho about Brexit. I don’t think they know which way is ‘up’. Hey Ho.
Thanks Andy
My thought has for some time been that this country is facing its greatest crisis since 1688. And in that crisis, though (as in the previous one of 1659-60) the armies marched, the cry of “’41 is come again” (and the memories of what followed) deterred worse. Problem now is that when it is cried, it is 1941, not 1641, that is recalled… but the way things are going, perhaps it is 1641 that should be.
“Post BrExit we should round up each and every one of these undemocratic people. Not one of them is fit for government, or fit for politics of any kind. They should be removed from post and prevented from ever again being involved in British politics.” – Arthur says.
Who will do the rounding up, though? “We” is a bit of a vague word. Assuredly, Arthur does not intend mobs of Brexiteers rampaging through the streets, dragging remainer politicians from their homes, flinging them into holding camp pens in the public parks, or football stadiums like Pinovchet did in Chile. No, Arthur surely does not believe in mob rule – he is a democrat – so he presumably believes that there should be some organised force legally established by the government that will do the rounding up on behalf of “we”. There are plenty of precedents, examples from history, where it was necessary for the will of the people, the democratic process, to be defended by eliminating all opposition. A Committee of Public Safety a la Robespierre perhaps, or Marshal Stalin’s MVD, the Herr Hitler’s Gestap……OH no, no, no, not that, that’s not what Arthur meant, of course. That would be putting words into his mouth and misreperesenting him. He, being a champion of democracy, could not possibly contemplate using the inhumane and dictatorial procedures and methods of anti democracy; those are the procedures that doubtless the “evil Nazi Marxist EU scum” would enact. So there must be some other manner Arthur would organise the rounding up. Perhaps have squads of men in white coats take the obviously insane opponents of Brexit off to the asylums. That must be what “we” must do with the people “we” must round up: have opponents of democracy declared insane. Sectioned. Lock them up in asylums to get the treatment they so obviously need. The method has been tried successfully before. In the Soviet Union. Trouble is, how is Arthur going to get the government to put this policy into action? Difficult to see anti-Marxists like Messrs Johnson, or Rees Mogg, or Raab, or Mrs Patel being willing to be quite so determined and proactive, and eager to perform the deeds done by Marxist regimes they abbhor. Maybe, Nigel F and Anne W – she has experience in chaining people to beds. Or Yaxley-Lennon/Tommy Robinson. But I’ll stop here: somebody might be recording this and keeping it for future reference – then come the Brexit revolution – I may end up in the – er – funny farm.
I probably will
The Tories are the party of chaos. They have one primary goal at present: Get away from the new laws which will expose all those tax havens they love so dearly.
Quick summary of the last 20 years. Wars make money for weapon producing countries. Oil is the currency of nations (it used to be gold and coal). The greediest country on earth wants more oil, so it invents a reason to invade Iraq and the UK leader Tory Blair PM jumps aboard the good ship Bush and they spend lots of money they haven’t got… The bankers finance the wars being waged by the USA and the UK, and finally cracks start to appear in the banking system, and there is a huge financial crash that spreads all over the world, and this exposes the corrupt lending practices of all these bankers. Everyone screams… Leaders inject money to keep the banks afloat, but millions lose their life savings and huge corruption has corporations getting public money, and yet laying of 10’s of thousands of people, whilst they pocket the cash and still pay out huge bonuses to management.
Fast forward to 10 years ago and Labour has lost the respect of the nation. The Tories see a golden opportunity, but to make sure it happens they break electoral law and spend 5 times the permitted amount to campaign and basically drown out other voices. They seem organised, so the public vote for them. It is a trick, however, and the Tories know what’s going to happen next, so they fight to do the opposite. They borrow more money than all previous British governments combined, give staggering tax bonuses to the biggest corporations, do a 2 for 1 selling bribe to sell off as much of the NHS as is humanly possible, and cut away as much of the welfare state as possible (without being dragged into the street and hung). The EU knows the ill gotten gains of the bankers is hidden away in Tax Havens, so they pass new laws to get rid of the ability for nations to hide finances away from the international community.
The Tories then lose their minds and react by manufacturing BREXIT. Within a week the huge propaganda machine is under way. Nigel Farage is rolled out in every town hall across the land, and he begins to foster racist hatred for people with foreign accents or brown skin, and blames them for the financial crash and claims (falsely) that we need to take our country back. He makes up lies about not having control over immigration, and makes up numbers to try and fool the illiterati that the “problem” is much much worse than it really is. Immigration from the EU is less than from other countries, and we have always had control over our borders. We also have the legal right to deport any EU citizen, as does every EU member state. The fact that immigrants bring more money to the economy than take from it, is never discussed by the likes of Farage or Cameron. This mantra of taking back control manages to work on the more racist members of society, and the BBC and right-wing media play a huge part in selling this warped view of reality (on behalf of the Tories), and Brexit wins the Referendum on a pack of lies.
Today, we know what they lied about, who did the lying, how they used Cambridge Analytica and social media to spread those lies, and how the same cyber-criminals were involved in manipulating the election in the USA and Brazil. The Americans tried to force a right-wing leader down the throats of the people of Venezuela and various other oil rich nations are under the British and American scopes. Iran, Syria, etc… etc..
We are living in a world run by monsters, who just showed us how little they respect democracy, and how much they are prepared to do, to get the outcome they desire.
The Paradise Papers were a glimpse inside the cookie jar, Wikileaks showed us what they all really think of each other, Snowden showed us how far down the path to a fully Big Brother type state we are, and that really upset the most powerful people on the planet. Our great scientists have shown us what we are doing to the earth can not continue indefinitely, but the most powerful people have not been reacting correctly. I am nearly an old man (50 yrs old) and I have no children, but I worry greatly for all the children who have to inherit the mess we will leave them.
I admit I do not share all your lenses on history
Richard may not share ” all your lenses”….
I do….
Regarding electoral reform, that is something I have spent a bit of time on. There are two types of elections, single winner, and multi winner. Almost every PR system is multi winner and there are better and worse types of PR. In every scenario I have looked at a ballot where you can score each candidate independently rather than ranking them in order gives better results. And actually the worst kind of system is when you have ranked ballot with 3 relatively equal parties in a single winner election. It’s nonmonotonic and it can lead to perverse results like If you do vote your 3rd choice wins, but if you had stayed home your 2nd would have. https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-irv
The simplest and best bang for least effort reform for the UK would be approval voting. You just check all the candidates you approve of. The one with the most total wins.
https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/
Interesting. It’s very clear to me that FPTP no longer works for the UK and it is a straightjacket on the politics of our country.
I live in the Netherlands which has PR and there is a very different political dynamic. Admittedly, that is also about mentality in decision making and governance which is very different to the UK (example – the Polder Model). But to have a more consensual political process you need to have a constitution that can at least facilitate that in theory, which ours cannot.
Assuming that the election results since 2010 are not a temporary blip and that no-overall majority results are here to stay, then we have to move to an electoral model that makes that system work. The status quo is not an option.
Put simply, every vote must count, not just those in marginals. Otherwise, to have your voice heard you’d need to go and move to a marginal seat. Insane.
Agreed
Well, I say switching to approval is the easiest because you just switch to mark all you like from mark 1, no need to draw new districts, you can still hand tally ballots. But the way to switch to the PR version of approval is just to redraw districts that elect 3-5 mps and still use the same ballot and check all you approve of. It gets slightly more complicated when tallying though because you have to re-weight the ballots like so:
Each voter chooses (no ranking) as many candidates as desired. Voters may not vote more than once for any one candidate.
CALCULATION
Add all the votes. Elect the candidate with the most votes in the first round. After each round, use the following formula to reweight the ballots: (1/ (1 + Total Approvals Given to Elected Candidates)). Continue to elect candidates and reweight the ballots each time until all the seats are filled.
Otherwise it would just give 1 party all the seats.
If the Government are not just bluffing about no deal in order to try and get a ‘better’ deal, then I think their strategy for dealing with the post Brexit chaos will be of a similar level of ineptitude, with the same callous disregard for facts, warnings, and objectors.
Public disorder will be seen as an opportunity to teach remainers, working class types, foreigners, lefties etc ‘a lesson’.
There will be no shortage of people radicalised by the far right vision of Brexit that will be prepared to get violent on the streets as well in defence or support of their cause. There will be plenty of these types in the army and the Police as well that will relish in getting violent. The seeds of propaganda legitimising anger and vitriol against objectors have been laid persistently for a sustained period now.
Despite all of that, I don’t necessarily think it will all go the Government’s way. Merely that their response to protest and violence will be to divide, polarise, inflame and bunker down.
But I suspect that the youth of the country will be critical. They’re overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit and will be on the streets with the people affected by the shortages. It could lead to a popular revolution against the Government. But if it gets to that stage it won’t just be the Eton toffs that we’re up against but the US will get involved and crack down on the protests to try and prevent contagion at all costs.
It is clear to me that we are on a “war footing”. How very, very sad. DIG FOR BREXIT NOW!
Two comments. People don’t believe ministers, thus no one is really worried, half think it will still be stopped the other half think what you describe won’t happen (I agree that it will be as you describe). I don’t agree however that the government will be blamed. They control the media and the media will successfully blame the EU or Remainists or immigrants. They will carry on regardless using what force they need .
I don’t believe that the army and police will be willing to impose force
I may be wrong, but I just don’t see it happening
One reason it has come to this is that the UK, politicians and public, have never been wholehearted members of the EU or its earlier versions. Semi-detached. UK myths of our exceptionalism made it impossible for many politicians and citizens to embrace the EU accepting the UK as just one member among many. Hence the opt-outs and Cameron’s preposterous “re-negotiations”.
The compulsive serial liar that is our current PM made a career out of rubbishing the EU with made up stories, and aided and abetted by our media, including the BBC, gave oxygen to him and his fellow liar Farage. It had an effect, especially once the fear of refugees and immigrants gripped the public.
Perhaps if political leaders and “opinion formers” had accepted our diminished status in the world and once we had joined the Common Market campaigned and argued for the benefits of membership of an organisation, which although flawed, like all political projects, was our best way forward in a dangerous world, and was capable of reform and development, given goodwill and determination to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Arthur, I stoppedreadingat the word “Remainiac”. Anyone using such stupid vocab deserves no serious attention.
“One reason it has come to this is that the UK, politicians and public, have never been wholehearted members of the EU or its earlier versions.”
Absolutely right. Brexit did not arrive, ‘ex-nihilo’. It has a history and there has been far too much complacency about our place in the EU since 1973, simply because we were ‘there’. The question is, what contribution did we actually make to it furtherance; other than solely attempting to re-write rules too our own advantage: the future of the EU we actually joined, and the common interests of the the other 27 countries counted for very little. We were “there”, as much to undermine it, as to further it. I am constantly perplexed at Britain’s strikingly obvious lack of self-knowledge. My one surprise is that the Brexiters, in leaving (they think the better to undermine the EU from the outside); are actually strengthening its resolve, its self-awareness and its own sense of the value of unity to the 27 members.
Agreed
John your comment falls below your usual standard. Various EU members have praised the UK for their commitment to helping build the single market. When we joined there were 9 members. We joined to improve trade and jobs and we made that work for us. There was never much interest in Britain for political union or a single currency. British influence was instrumental in securing the entry of the eastern countries after the fall of the iron curtain. It was the whiff of political union under an undemocratic and ossified bureaucracy that was the downfall of voters commitment to the EU. Naturally anyone with a brain would prefer to see the trade benefits of EU membership preserved after exit and that still seems doable to varying degrees with or without a deal by 31 Oct. Pragmatism will out and everyone staying cool would help.
Mr Elspin,
I do not just disagree with your analysis, I reject it; and I have been consistent in the view I have set out. Britain could have shaped the EU from the beginning, and led its development; in 1948 and 1957. It did not just turn the opportunity down, it spurned it; and Britian has failed fully to embrace the European Union from the day we joined. Our tragedy is one of lost opportunity and lack of ambition. I would have thought the culture of Britain’s half-hearted membership was only too obvious. Perhaps your Nelson’s eye is closed Mr Elspin, and your other eye has a mote in it.
It is your analysis Mr Elspin that I suspect relies on the false proposition that Brexit arises unexpectedly from nowhere, or from some aspect of the EU in which we were comprehensively deceived; when it is transparently obvious that we deceived only ourselves. Britain only decided it wanted to join the EU when it was too late to dictate the terms, and joined in 1973 on a calculated false prospectus; that what we joined was only a Common Market (as if Jean Monnet and Franz-Josef Strauss – to say nothing of the many other European thinkers – had never existed). The fallacy of joining only a ‘Common Market’ is quite clear in the formal preliminaries of the Treaty of Rome, if you care to read.
De Gaulle’s sense that we were insincere in 1963 was hard to take, especially if the British perspective insisted on being over-fixated on the past rather than the future; but his judgement of our priorities in Europe was only too acute. Only we believed it was just a trade deal. The European perspective is best summarised – still – by Donald Tusk: it is a Peace Project.
British eagerness to expand the EU rapidly after the fall of the Berlin Wall was much easier to propose from an offshore island, than it was for continental states; and the process entailed both mistakes and economic casualties from the precipitous urgency in the execution; that Britain was only too eager to promote, and from which the EU still suffers (without sufficient appreciation in Britain of the scale of the problem that had been set); I suspect because Britain thought this was the opportunity it could seize politically to redirect the whole EU project by influencing the new entrants in Britain’s political semi-detachment, from behind a veil of sympathetic disinterest. With typical maladroitness that strategy did not work to plan either.
When we chose to leave the EU I noted with distaste the over-eagerness of Theresa May’s British Government negotiating ‘strategy’; rushing round every EU capital in ever more desperate attempts to create brutal splits among the 27. Even if it had worked, the unforeseen consequences of such an outcome for the EU were alraming; too alarming for the 27 countries who are actually commited by geography and politics to living there, no matter what.
Finally, I consider the grotesque absurdity of Brexit is that it leads to a British strategy in Europe of attempting to resuscitate the ‘balance of power’ politics that Britain operated with masterful self-interest in the 19th century, and ended in ruin in 1945. It is a ghastly propect for the future. Brexit demonstrates that in Britain we are like the Bourbons: we learn nothing and forget nothing.
Apologies – Mr Espin of course.
The only thing I don’t agree on entirely is that the unrest will target the govt…I fear the more likely target will be foreigners and people who are generally “other”.
A terrible situation. Our politicians have let us down very badly.
I fear that will also be true
I have been told to expect my house to be firebombed
“Expect your house to be firebombed”.. by who? I am sure there are EDL type extremists out there with really bad designs but, with respect, you are unlikely to be known to them..
Steve says:
” I am sure there are EDL type extremists out there with really bad designs but, with respect, you are unlikely to be known to them..”
Hmmmm….you thnk EDL-type ‘footsoldiers’ follow an agenda of their own devising ?
I’m not sure I do.
gill clark says:
“The only thing I don’t agree on entirely is that the unrest will target the govt….”
Agreed. The government may well be ‘unpopular’, but so what? Governments are always unpopular (with FPTP, unpopular with approximately two-thirds of the electorate)
One thing is entirely predictable (should it come down to issues of social ‘unrest’) the pattern will be of social divisions between the victims whilst the wealthy and powerful elite will be largely unaffected. The elite does not fight in the streets; the elite mobilises cannon fodder to do its fighting as it always has done, be they paid for and liveried (uniformed) or coerced or simply whipped-up into misguided fervour.
The term “fascist” is a go-to word to describe state sponsored violence (among other things), such as was seen in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Pinochet’s Chile, and elsewhere. And the mythology is that us “Anglo-Saxons” (an absurd term to describe the British and certain elements in the USA) don’t do fascism. 200 years ago we had the Peterloo massacre of unarmed civilians. 90 years ago there were tanks and soldiers brought in from England in George Square, Glasgow, on the orders of Johnson’s hero Churchill. We rounded up thousands during the Boer War, many of whom died, the new United States rounded up, hunted down, drove from their ancestral lands and exterminated many of the original inhabitants and they expanded ever westwards. And so on, to Afghanistan, Iraq etc.
We have history. History could repeat itself.
Indeed….
In 2005 John Christensen and I did a SWAT analysis for the then newish TJN.
We decided the biggest risk we faced was fascism.
The risk is much higher now.
I’m appalled to hear that you have been told to expect your house to be fire bombed. Can I ask who gave you this warning and when? Do you know of others in the same position? If so the fact we haven’t heard more detail about such threats with appropriate condemnation for the potential perpetrators and what is being done to tackle them is a scandal.
I was told as maybe the most public Remainer in a fiercely Leave area that I should expect this if Leavers were denied their right.
Was it a threat? No.
Was it sincere from an informed commentator? Yes.
Has it stayed with me? Yes.
“Compiled this month by the Cabinet Office under the codename Operation Yellowhammer…”
Black humour afoot in the cabinet office. Anyone with a bit of ornithological knowledge knows the yellowhammers call as the onomatopoeic plaintive :
“A-little-bit-of-bread-and-no-cheese…”