Fao Naomi

[spathiphyllum]

[spathiphyllum]

OK best case scenario post brexit... (This isn't my job.. by the way to do this..)

We have the status quo or better
GDP goes through the rood
We find trade cheaply, fairly and it's quality produce.

FF if you want a best case, then write it up and i'll read it.

[Deskdiary]

"The Government has released its assessment of what could happen if the UK leaves the EU without a Deal" - you forgot to add 'in a worst case scenario'.

In a worst case scenario I could cross the road and be killed, have a general anesthetic and die, get on a plane and crash etc etc etc....

Listening to a telephone guest and some callers this morning on the Nick Ferrari show on LBC, I've decided I'm going to cancel Christmas as it sounds as though by then we won't have any food, or drugs, interest rates will skyrocket so I won't be able to afford my mortgage, there'll be rioting (presumably food riots), a complete breakdown of society and we'll all be facing a dystopian future (I'm exaggerating to make a point...but you get the point).

I couldn't decide whether the doom mongering was laughable or just bedwettingly pathetic.

[Zacs-Master]

I think ff is arguing from the same standpoint as me.

[spathiphyllum]

What is there to argue about? Nothing.

I listed all these possibilities years ago and was told it was tripe, I was scaremongering.

Now the gov has released these as possibilities. So, i'm bringing Naomis attention to it.

What is there to argue about?

When they release a "best possible scenario" we can all read that together with tea and coco but for now this is what they've released.

Don't hate the player hate the game.

[jim360]

At this point it should be clear that people who had a strong opinion on Brexit for the last three years will only have that position hardened by this. It shows the dangers of a No Deal exit; it shows that Project Fear is alive and well in government. Even if the Yellowhammer scenario comes to pass then it will still harden views: this shows up the sheer folly of leaving in the first place; this is the inevitable consequence of Remainer scheming to frustrate the will of the people.

Right now mostly I'm just curious about what was in Paragraph 15.

[jim360]

Actually, no I'm not:

// 15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. ‘This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2,000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries. //

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/12/yellowhammer-15-redacted-part-no-deal-brexit-document-say-10727201

[Zacs-Master]

'What is there to argue about? Nothing'

So you're posting to prove that you predicted some possibilities and there are some possibilities.

Wouldn't that have been better as a post on the original thread?

[jim360]

Meanwhile, Northern Ireland's High Court has ruled in favour of the government. Likely to go off to appeal over the weekend. Next week's Supreme Court case will be huge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49676133

The fact that Courts are divided on this, I hope, shows that they are indeed impartial and doing their best to judge the cases impartially.

[Zacs-Master]

C'mon Jim. The Scottish court's decision should surely be viewed in the full glare of Scottish Politics.

[dannyk13]

Jim, the division is 3 for to 1 against.

[spathiphyllum]

"Wouldn't that have been better as a post on the original thread?"

No because that was nearly 2-3 years ago and i'm not sure what post it was.

[Zacs-Master]

Holy Cow. If I'd known that..............

[jim360]

Sounds biased in the government's favour then, danny :P

The decision against was in a higher court so it clearly counts double anyway.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't think it proves impartiality. I think it proves that the law can be interpreted according to one's own subconscious biases. Bad enough there is disagreement on whether it's a legal issue at all, let alone coming back with a verdict based on assumptions.

[dannyk13]

Jim, what a load of tosh. ZM has it at 12.16.

[10ClarionSt]

I keep saying this: nothing will change for ordinary folk in this country, whether we're in or our of the EU. We'll still get ripped off and mugged by the govt. Whichever colour it is.

[spathiphyllum]

What tripe, and if that's true, then why have brexit anyway?

Don't be so naive 10clarionst.

[10ClarionSt]

Because Brexit will benefit all the money people in business, finance etc. That isn't us. And they will still exploit the EU (and us, the great unwashed) if we stay in it anyway.

[jim360]

Come on danny, you must know I wasn't being serious when I was saying that the Scottish decision "counts double".

Also, the idea that it's Scottish politics influencing the decision is equally obviously nonsense. Scottish Law might be different, in a way that affected the decision, but Scottish politics is irrelevant.

[vetuste_ennemi]

There will be food shortages, but it'll be a shortage of cheddar in Carrefours, not brie in Tesco.