Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
polysmut
Parliament would need a speaker.
Click to expand...

Touring Mars
It wouldn't need a PM, but it would require a sitting Government... it's also hard to see how any legislation could be passed without a Government either.

I don't know exactly what all the possibilities are, but it seems likely that the PM would try something like this, or perhaps even holding a vote of no confidence in his own Government...
Click to expand...

Fair enough, what a mess... guess we'll have to find out what the crack is next week after the Supreme Court ruling? Maybe they'll be back in and back to getting nothing done? :lol:
 
Touring Mars
Italy, the world's 8th largest economy, has seen practically no growth for 20 years... Greece has been virtually ruined and is now effectively an EU debt colony for at least the next half a century... youth unemployment in Spain, Italy and Greece is staggeringly high (at 30, 30 and 40% respectively - Germany is just 5% and the UK and Ireland are both at 10% for comparison).

There is no doubt that the EU is a very effective 'gateway to economic success'... for some. The trouble comes when it fails to act as such for all, and the price that those people need to pay for the privilege.

The key point, however, is that the EU is, currently, a supranational bloc that member states have a right to leave if they should chose to do so - but Brexit is proving that exercising that right is far harder than it really ought to be. The fact is, however, that for some member states, like Greece for example, that right may as well not even exist any more - and that's a problem that proves that the EU is currently moving in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for Italy, lack of productivity seems to be a long-standing cultural problem that is the foundation of stereotypes across the Western world. Greece and Spain, the same. I'm sure there are a lot of factors that go into it, but when I make the same jokes that my parents did in the 1960s, and that their grandparents did in 1900, ya might have a cultural problem on your hands. Italy is no more economically productive today than they were 100 years ago - there's a reason millions of them moved to the US at that time. Germany especially, along with France and the UK, are historically productive and have remained so. I recognize there are a lot of reasons, especially geographical, why a place like Greece is going to struggle to produce much of anything.
 
Keef
Unfortunately for Italy, lack of productivity seems to be a long-standing cultural problem that is the foundation of stereotypes across the Western world. Greece and Spain, the same. I'm sure there are a lot of factors that go into it, but when I make the same jokes that my parents did in the 1960s, and that their grandparents did in 1900, ya might have a cultural problem on your hands. Italy is no more economically productive today than they were 100 years ago - there's a reason millions of them moved to the US at that time. Germany especially, along with France and the UK, are historically productive and have remained so. I recognize there are a lot of reasons, especially geographical, why a place like Greece is going to struggle to produce much of anything.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why strapping together all of these countries (except the UK) to the same currency and monetary policy isn't working - worse still, it has robbed struggling countries of key tools to address their economic and financial problems. These problems started to show their teeth in the Greek sovereign debt crisis, and now again in the Italian banking and debt crises. One of the biggest problems is that any steps taken to benefit Italy or Greece will necessarily cost Germany and France, and vice versa. For one side, EU help is not enough while for the other it is too much. This is a fundamental issue with the Eurozone as it stands, and it can now only be solved either by going 'full Europe' (total economic and political union) or to put the entire Euro project into reverse. The question then arises, what happens if the people of one or more member state (like Greece or Italy) say no to further union, when (in reality) the decision has already been made for them?
 
eran0004
Here it is. It’s important to remember that it’s referring to a reasonable worst case scenario, and is not a prediction of what is likely to happen in the event of a no deal exit.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...est_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf
Click to expand...
Not really as most of the assumptions it's based on are what will happen under No Deal.

The UK leaves under WTO with third country status (that's the exact definition of No Deal) and most businesses are not fully prepared for No Deal (which they are not).

It's only 'worse case' in the regard that No Deal is the 'worse case' scenario.

Key Planning Assumption 2, 3 and 5 actually assume its not a 'Worse Case' scenario, detailing no or limited interruptions to power supply and French ports being ready and prepared (but not hauliers). It also assumes that Water Treatment chemical demand will be met by current stockpiles and not be subject to any future supply issues.

Worse case, by its very definition, would assume heavy power interruptions and French Ports as well as hauliers not being ready and prepared, etc.

No does the renaming of the document convince me otherwise, given that when leaked it was titled as a 'Baseline' and now forced to release it a title change has occurred to make it 'Reasonable worse Case'. Consider me untrusting, but if the Government were happy to lie about the publication date of the document in the first place, I don't believe for a second that renaming it to suit is beyond possibility at all.
 
Last edited:
eran0004
Here it is. It’s important to remember that it’s referring to a reasonable worst case scenario, and is not a prediction of what is likely to happen in the event of a no deal exit.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...est_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf
Click to expand...

Not the case. The original document leaked to the press in August was called 'base scenario'. They've changed the name of the document to shift perspective on it. This is by all means the 'expected' scenario, not 'worst case'.
 
Personally I'd be more worried of the government had released a summary of disaster/continuity planning, and it simply said "Everything's going to be fiiiiiinnnne".
 
Last edited:
EamerRed
Not the case. The original document leaked to the press in August was called 'base scenario'. They've changed the name of the document to shift perspective on it. This is by all means the 'expected' scenario, not 'worst case'.
Click to expand...

Sure, they changed the title. Everything else is your own speculation.
 
EamerRed
Not really. What else would you think 'base scenario' insinuates?
Click to expand...

TenEightyOne
"Base scenario" means exactly that, a default initial scenario. Not an edge case. No speculation required to understand the words.
Click to expand...

Baseline means "no policy change", or "if we do nothing" - not "most likely outcome". It could very well (and should) be based on or include reasonable worst case scenarios.
 
My understanding of it is the 'base scenario' identifies likely or certain outcomes unless mitigating steps are taken to address them... which is what Operation Yellowhammer was intended to do... i.e. identify weaknesses and likely/certain outcomes that need to be addressed. What it doesn't point out is exactly what steps are being and will be taken to mitigate them - it doesn't necessarily mean that these outcomes will come to pass, but it doesn't exactly rule them out either.
 
eran0004
Baseline means "no policy change", or "if we do nothing" - not "most likely outcome".
Click to expand...

I didn't say "most likely outcome" and nor did anyone else. I said "default", which is "if we do nothing".

Touring Mars
What it doesn't point out is exactly what steps are being and will be taken to mitigate them - it doesn't necessarily mean that these outcomes will come to pass, but it doesn't exactly rule them out either.
Click to expand...

Quite. The worry is that a number of industry leaders and associations seem to feel that they aren't prepared because they've still got no idea what to prepare for.
 
TenEightyOne
Quite. The worry is that a number of industry leaders and associations seem to feel that they aren't prepared because they've still got no idea what to prepare for.
Click to expand...
I work in electronic security and quite a lot of our products come into the country from China and Israel via the Netherlands. Every meeting we have had with t a supplier for the past 18 months we've asked, 'what do you see the supply situation being like the day after Brexit?' Every single one of them have said,'We don't really know.' Some of them have increased their warehouse space and are increasing stock they hold on their most purchased products but they can't tell us what the ongoing situation will be. And they tell us that's because they are not getting the answers themselves.
 
TenEightyOne
I didn't say "most likely outcome" and nor did anyone else. I said "default", which is "if we do nothing".
Click to expand...

The argument “it cannot be reasonable worst case because the title was first baseline” is only valid if baseline refers to an outcome that excludes reasonable worst case, such as “most likely”.

If baseline refers to “no policy change” (which it usually does), then the argument is not valid.
 
eran0004
The argument “it cannot be reasonable worst case because the title was first baseline” is only valid if baseline refers to an outcome that excludes reasonable worst case, such as “most likely”.

If baseline refers to “no policy change” (which it usually does), then the argument is not valid.
Click to expand...

The first title wasn't baseline, it was referred to as "base case" and "base scenario". As you noted in your link Boris Johnson now says this was really the "worst case scenario", and the text of the publication has been altered to reflect that. I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by re-interpreting the word "base"? These are, in the government's own words, "planning assumptions", they're not the edge cases that you seem to be trying to imply. In this usage "base" does not mean the absolute lowest point as it might if you were talking about a vase, it means the standard, default position.
 
For years the UK has tried to export democracy only to bring disaster and blowback. Now it has slurped its own Kool-Aid with a democratic referendum which has caused pathological indigestion.

 
TenEightyOne
What is Kool-Aid?
Click to expand...

1*NEVWE956OQKIWbWhmPjWjQ.png

tIRYxzAccjNFFrx-800x450-noPad.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
 
MatskiMonk
I can't help but notice his jar appears to have the same symbol on it, as his crotch does, and that symbol looks a little bit like stylised sperm cells... I mean... ummm... DRINK MY GAMETES!!! OH YEAH!!!
Click to expand...

Yea I noticed that. I took the pic from some kind of comic book or album cover or something so that's not standard Kool-Aid man stuff. Still, I felt that one could not explain Kool-Aid without explaining the random pitcher of juice breaking through a brick wall yelling "OH YEAH!" like a professional wrestler.
 
MatskiMonk
I can't help but notice his jar appears to have the same symbol on it, as his crotch does, and that symbol looks a little bit like stylised sperm cells... I mean... ummm... DRINK MY GAMETES!!! OH YEAH!!!
Click to expand...

Suicidal anomie, failed state, Hobbesian all against all.




There is a higher state of consciousness. It communicates to us through number, geometry and symbol.

images
 
Last edited:
Danoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Click to expand...

TenEightyOne
I'll be honest, I'm quite lost.

Thank you @Danoff for showing me Kool Aid (and @MatskiMonk for pointing out Sperm Man :) ), I'm none the wiser. It's been a long week :D
Click to expand...

The link up there details the Jonestown suicides which are generally referred to as "drinking the Kool Aid".


wikipedia
The phrase originates from events in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple movement died. The movement's leader, Jim Jones, called a mass meeting at the Jonestown pavilion after the murder of U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and others in nearby Port Kaituma. Jones proposed "revolutionary suicide" by way of ingesting a fatal powdered drink mix laced with cyanide,[1][2] which had been prepared by his aides.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

TenEightyOne
Reddit "Include" Question
Replies
1
Views
556
Jordan
Jordan
DK
Brexit and motorsport
Replies
8
Views
1K
mustafur
mustafur
KSaiyu
The EU
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Hun200kmh
Hun200kmh
Pebb
Honda could be axing its UK car factory in 2022
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Scaff
Scaff
Jimbo221992
Untitled racing league, Monday night UK time.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Bowtner
Bowtner

Latest Posts

Back