The Yellowhammer document is here. This, to remind, is the UK government’s assessments of the worst case given a no-deal Brexit.
I haven’t quite finished wrestling with it, but I’m going to post it and if any comments please do so via the right hand side.
Trigger warning: I’m a Brexiteer and so that bias will come through. Thing is, though, the more I look at the implications of a clean Brexit (aka no-deal Brexit) the less I see of alleged problems. The innumerable problems — “crashing out”, “chaos”, etc — that the Remainers bang on about (hence “Remoaners”) I just don’t see.
How is it that no-deal Brexit has come to seem so poisonous? It’s not the case that there was “no mandate” for no-deal Brexit. The question answered in the referendum means there’s a mandate precisely for a no-deal Brexit.
Looking at the YH document, which is the very worst that civil servants — Remainers to a servant — can predict, there’s little to fear. Yet I’ve seen no analysis even as cursory as mine, let alone detailed analysis, refuting this worst case. I would have thought Dominic Cummings & co should put out at refutation to Yellowhammer. It’s easy to do because it’s a risible document. But what do I know? Cummings is the strategist-in-chief. Perhaps he feels people are too locked into their positions to be swayed by facts (surely true).
My comments…
Introduction
“The relationship between the UK and the EU as a whole is unsympathetic, with many Member States (under pressure from the Commission) unwilling to engage bilaterally....”. Isn’t this telling? That the EU expressed desire, at the time of the UK vote, to deal with the divorce like grown adults, is just so much nonsense. The can’t help but be spiteful. And make sure other MS don’t go the same route. Is that a fit and proper organisation to be member of? One that is so afraid of its own members’ perhaps wanting leave that it punishes the one who does.
“EU Citizens living in the UK can retain broadly all rights and status that they we’re entitled to prior to exit from the EU...”. Now that it good of the UK, especially since the balance is very much in favour of the EU. There are 3.7 million EU citizens in the UK and they can rest easy. As for the 784,900 UK citizens living in the EU, they have been given no such assurance from the spiteful EU. Over time, though, after Brexit, one should expect that the power of reciprocity and simple fairness ought resolve this.
For hard core nerds it’s worth looking at the vid “Brexit Behind Closed Doors”. Breathtaking the distinct and arrogance and sheer I’ll will in the side of EU negotiators and how UK negotiators were just pwned.
“Public and business readiness for a no-deal will remain at a low level...”. The reason they are at a low level is that the Remainer Theresa May didn’t even allow civil servants to begin preparation. And even now they are dilatory. That said, preparations have speeded up since Boris’ election.
What does “Public” readiness mean? Surely it simply means going through the “Non-EU Nationals” channel at immigration.
“Business” readiness, is another thing. The main issue being at the borders, especially Calais. And as I showed the other day, these are not at all the big drama that they’ve been painted by Remainers. Readiness for them means making sure the online forms are completed. To pretend that they are otherwise is simply duplicitous nonsense.
“Mitigation” is the name of the game and it’s happening even within the EU, and even in spite of the spite of EU officials.
“... severe weather, flooding, and seasonal flu could exacerbate a number of impacts...” Yeah, right. And so?...
Key planning assumptions
1. “.... 31 October is a Thursday.. which is not to our advantage...”. Goodness me, but this does seem to be rather stretching it... Come on!
2. “In a small number of instances where the impacts of Brexit would be felt negatively in the EU as well as in the UK, Member States may act in way [sic] which could also benefit the UK...”. I'm not sure what to make of this. If the impacts are small for the EU, why are they being so obstructive?
Contrast this EU attitude with the UK’s granting unilateral rights of all 3.7 million EU citizens to stay in the UK.
3. About HGVs and Calais. I’ve already noted: the French port authorities have repeatedly said that claims of “chaos” at the border are “La Bullshit”. (I’ll take their word for it that “bullshit” is feminine).
4. About EU and UK citizens travelling to and fro. Again, this is nonsense. A bit more (or maybe less) time at the border is all it will mean. That’s been the case for we non-EU citizens all these years, and we’ve somehow managed.
5. “Demand for energy will be met and there will be no disruption to electricity or gas interconnectors.”.
6. Medicine Supplies: Talks of “pre-mitigation” impacts on supplies of medicines. But, as noted, mitigation measure have been taken, and the fear of “chaos” is “la bullshit”.
7. Fresh food supplies: as per medicine supplies, the worst case is “pre mitigation”. But, as noted, mitigation measure have been taken, and the fear of “chaos” is “la bullshit”.
“Public water services are likely to remain largely unaffected due to actions now being taken by water companies.” Good-oh. Interesting that the fact that mitigation measures are taken into account here, and yet are ignored in the case of HGVs and Calais. I guess that’s because different departments of government have contributed different parts of this document.
8. “Some cross-border UK financial services will be disrupted.” But most won’t. The financial media analyses I’ve seen are pretty phlegmatic. London will remain a magnet.
9. “The EU wil knot have made a data decision with regard to the UK before exit....”. I’m not sure what this means. Something about disruptions to the flow of data, but it doesn’t strike me as a huge issue, and certainly has not got any media attention.
10. Law enforcement data and information sharing between UK and EU will be disrupted.” Yet I’ve seen elsewhere that there are mitigation measures in place or nearly so.
11. “UK nationals will lose their EU citizenship and, as a result, can expect to lose associated rights and access to services over time...”. The UK, by contrast, is to allow all EU citizens in the UK to maintain all their rights. This has got to be an issue of reciprocity, especially since the balance is very much in EU favour: 3.7 million EU citizens live in the UK whereas only 784,900 UK citizens live in the EU.
12. Gibraltar. I’m sorry I’ve just got a bit too tired to consider this one....
13. “Protests... may take place...”. Ok, and?
14. “Regional traffic disruption...” This is the same issue as the HGV, and the “delays”, etc, are pre mitigation, when mitigation has already been made.
15. Redacted
16. "A small minority of insurance payments ... may be delayed.”. Oh dear....
17. “Low income groups will be disproportionally affected by any price rises in food and fuel.”. OK, I’m gonna give you that one.
I haven’t quite finished wrestling with it, but I’m going to post it and if any comments please do so via the right hand side.
Trigger warning: I’m a Brexiteer and so that bias will come through. Thing is, though, the more I look at the implications of a clean Brexit (aka no-deal Brexit) the less I see of alleged problems. The innumerable problems — “crashing out”, “chaos”, etc — that the Remainers bang on about (hence “Remoaners”) I just don’t see.
How is it that no-deal Brexit has come to seem so poisonous? It’s not the case that there was “no mandate” for no-deal Brexit. The question answered in the referendum means there’s a mandate precisely for a no-deal Brexit.
Looking at the YH document, which is the very worst that civil servants — Remainers to a servant — can predict, there’s little to fear. Yet I’ve seen no analysis even as cursory as mine, let alone detailed analysis, refuting this worst case. I would have thought Dominic Cummings & co should put out at refutation to Yellowhammer. It’s easy to do because it’s a risible document. But what do I know? Cummings is the strategist-in-chief. Perhaps he feels people are too locked into their positions to be swayed by facts (surely true).
My comments…
Introduction
“The relationship between the UK and the EU as a whole is unsympathetic, with many Member States (under pressure from the Commission) unwilling to engage bilaterally....”. Isn’t this telling? That the EU expressed desire, at the time of the UK vote, to deal with the divorce like grown adults, is just so much nonsense. The can’t help but be spiteful. And make sure other MS don’t go the same route. Is that a fit and proper organisation to be member of? One that is so afraid of its own members’ perhaps wanting leave that it punishes the one who does.
“EU Citizens living in the UK can retain broadly all rights and status that they we’re entitled to prior to exit from the EU...”. Now that it good of the UK, especially since the balance is very much in favour of the EU. There are 3.7 million EU citizens in the UK and they can rest easy. As for the 784,900 UK citizens living in the EU, they have been given no such assurance from the spiteful EU. Over time, though, after Brexit, one should expect that the power of reciprocity and simple fairness ought resolve this.
For hard core nerds it’s worth looking at the vid “Brexit Behind Closed Doors”. Breathtaking the distinct and arrogance and sheer I’ll will in the side of EU negotiators and how UK negotiators were just pwned.
“Public and business readiness for a no-deal will remain at a low level...”. The reason they are at a low level is that the Remainer Theresa May didn’t even allow civil servants to begin preparation. And even now they are dilatory. That said, preparations have speeded up since Boris’ election.
What does “Public” readiness mean? Surely it simply means going through the “Non-EU Nationals” channel at immigration.
“Business” readiness, is another thing. The main issue being at the borders, especially Calais. And as I showed the other day, these are not at all the big drama that they’ve been painted by Remainers. Readiness for them means making sure the online forms are completed. To pretend that they are otherwise is simply duplicitous nonsense.
“Mitigation” is the name of the game and it’s happening even within the EU, and even in spite of the spite of EU officials.
“... severe weather, flooding, and seasonal flu could exacerbate a number of impacts...” Yeah, right. And so?...
Key planning assumptions
1. “.... 31 October is a Thursday.. which is not to our advantage...”. Goodness me, but this does seem to be rather stretching it... Come on!
2. “In a small number of instances where the impacts of Brexit would be felt negatively in the EU as well as in the UK, Member States may act in way [sic] which could also benefit the UK...”. I'm not sure what to make of this. If the impacts are small for the EU, why are they being so obstructive?
Contrast this EU attitude with the UK’s granting unilateral rights of all 3.7 million EU citizens to stay in the UK.
3. About HGVs and Calais. I’ve already noted: the French port authorities have repeatedly said that claims of “chaos” at the border are “La Bullshit”. (I’ll take their word for it that “bullshit” is feminine).
4. About EU and UK citizens travelling to and fro. Again, this is nonsense. A bit more (or maybe less) time at the border is all it will mean. That’s been the case for we non-EU citizens all these years, and we’ve somehow managed.
5. “Demand for energy will be met and there will be no disruption to electricity or gas interconnectors.”.
6. Medicine Supplies: Talks of “pre-mitigation” impacts on supplies of medicines. But, as noted, mitigation measure have been taken, and the fear of “chaos” is “la bullshit”.
7. Fresh food supplies: as per medicine supplies, the worst case is “pre mitigation”. But, as noted, mitigation measure have been taken, and the fear of “chaos” is “la bullshit”.
“Public water services are likely to remain largely unaffected due to actions now being taken by water companies.” Good-oh. Interesting that the fact that mitigation measures are taken into account here, and yet are ignored in the case of HGVs and Calais. I guess that’s because different departments of government have contributed different parts of this document.
8. “Some cross-border UK financial services will be disrupted.” But most won’t. The financial media analyses I’ve seen are pretty phlegmatic. London will remain a magnet.
9. “The EU wil knot have made a data decision with regard to the UK before exit....”. I’m not sure what this means. Something about disruptions to the flow of data, but it doesn’t strike me as a huge issue, and certainly has not got any media attention.
10. Law enforcement data and information sharing between UK and EU will be disrupted.” Yet I’ve seen elsewhere that there are mitigation measures in place or nearly so.
11. “UK nationals will lose their EU citizenship and, as a result, can expect to lose associated rights and access to services over time...”. The UK, by contrast, is to allow all EU citizens in the UK to maintain all their rights. This has got to be an issue of reciprocity, especially since the balance is very much in EU favour: 3.7 million EU citizens live in the UK whereas only 784,900 UK citizens live in the EU.
12. Gibraltar. I’m sorry I’ve just got a bit too tired to consider this one....
13. “Protests... may take place...”. Ok, and?
14. “Regional traffic disruption...” This is the same issue as the HGV, and the “delays”, etc, are pre mitigation, when mitigation has already been made.
15. Redacted
16. "A small minority of insurance payments ... may be delayed.”. Oh dear....
17. “Low income groups will be disproportionally affected by any price rises in food and fuel.”. OK, I’m gonna give you that one.
