Operation Yellowhammer. Brexit and it's likely effects.

Build them. And the parts to fix them. Independence.

Dear UK,

I know things between us didn't work out but we have always loved you in some small way. I know that you have had a brief fling with the EU and that you were treated badly. Dump them. Dump the EU and while we won't get back together, you never forget your first love.

The US has got your back. We'll help you pack, find a nice place to move into, get you settled with a full pantry and even pay utilities until you find your footing again.


Dump this loser.


Love,

US of A

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sounds good in theory but we'd end up adrift somewhere in the Mid-Atlantic in a never ending search for Empire.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yup. China is too far away to help with trade deals due to all the countries blocking the road(through silk road). UK has been idiotic screwing over Canada since by selling out to US. Russia doesn't trust UK, neither does any other countries since all them colonial wars. UK is pretty much doomed. UK could've help Canadians better and be able to use the country as a proper trade zone to Asia. But, nope. They done way too many bad things to even be trusted.

a reply to: makemap

I'm not fussed on if Russia trusts us or not, it's mutual.

Canada as a trade zone to Asia, how would that work?

a reply to: Soloprotocol



This short video addresses some of the implications of a hard no-deal Brexit.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Which part is EU nations screwing us?

Um, the whole document?

Granted, as I said, the document is all speculation based on the assumption that EU members will try their best to negatively impact Britain if Britain leaves, but is that a reasonable assumption?

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that membership in the EU does not preclude a member nation from making trade deals outside the EU. For instance, France could make a trade deal with Japan without going through the EU. At least I believe that's the way it was when Britain first joined the EU. If that is the case, then member nations should be able to make trade and other deals with a post-Brexit Britain that don't involve the EU. If that's not the case, then EU member nations have effectively sold their sovereignty for trade deals, which would be another matter entirely.

Now let's look at some of the gloom points in the document.

Less cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Does anyone think that would really happen?

"Hello, Interpol? This is Scotland Yard. We have some information on an international smuggling operation working in Britain, Spain, and Greece. You want to get together and compare notes?"

"Sorry, guys. You're not part of the EU anymore, so we can't talk to you about it. Have a nice day."

I think it would be even less likely that intelligence organizations would cooperate less with MI6 if Britain was out of the EU. Especially the NATO members.

Shortages of food and medicine. Maybe it's just me, but I take a simple view of trade if it isn't politically motivated. Country A has something to sell. Country B wants to buy it. They agree on a mutually satisfactory price, and the deal is done. Let's say, for instance, that Britain currently buys one million euros worth of food and drugs from Germany every year. I would assume that both countries are happy with that deal since they have done it for years. Britain pays what it thinks is a fair price, Germany gets what it considers a fair price.

Why should that change if Britain is out of the EU? If Germany decides to charge more, or not sell at all, doesn't that imply that they thought it wasn't a good deal all along? After all, if it's a good deal for both sides, you keep doing it.

Any EU member that doesn't deal with Britain the same way before or after Brexit is essentially saying, "We didn't want to make this deal with you in the first place, but the EU forced us to."

On the other hand, if these trade deals are politically motivated, then that says a lot about membership in the EU. Are member nations being forced to make unfavorable trade deals with other nations? Are member nations being prevented from making profitable deals with other nations? If so, then it seems that being a member of this economic union does the exact opposite of what it supposed to do.

-------------

I could go on, but the point is every point in the document assumes that the countries will suddenly go from economic trading partners to bitter rivals. But why? If one of my customers or suppliers changes their religion, I'm not going to stop doing a profitable business with them. We can still make money together.

Unless I was a Scientologist or one of those other religions that shun the non-believers. But if I were like that, they would probably be better off without me or my kind.

I think that the problem with all of this is that people settle on the "worse-case", possibly because they are ignorant of risk management or wilfully bent of misrepresenting impact.

I manage complex programmes, and you have to work on the extremes of impact to satisfactorily mitigate against their impact.

The mistreatment of "impact document" written for internal management by our political classes, just reiterates their stupidity and worthlessness in the modern world. They are out of touch with reality.

a reply to: UKTruth

The UK becomes immediately MORE attractive to investors from outside the EU as we'll no longer have to agree trade deals as a block with 27 other countries or abide by the regulations of a 28 country block.

Yeah, And this is exactly why we'll be more attractive to investors. This is our future after Brexit.

Tories plan to strip holiday pay, workers’ rights, employer pension contributions after Brexit

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Tories plan to strip holiday pay, workers’ rights, employer pension contributions after Brexit

To be fair. This is not Tory policy. It's an opionion piece - quite well written and argued - from a Conservative politician.

While this "Tories plan to do X, Y, Z" is all part of project fear and myth-making misinformation, it has to be said that the UK could actually improve in certain areas post-Brexit when constraining EU rules are binned. These include areas of employment rights, environment, fisheries and farming. Many employment rights stem from UK and not EU legislation, for example.

This idea that the EU is the be-all-and-end-of best practice is just untrue.

This is a reality check piece

17,4 million people voted for Brexit in a population of 66 million.
The biggest money maker for the UK is services not actual goods and the biggest market for that is the EU.
WTO rules are not that bad for goods, but that doesn't really help since that's the smaller slice of the economy.

So approximately 1/3 of the population voted for the death of the biggest sector of the economy in the name of nationalism (sovereignity). That's just insane.
And let's face it backstop is nothing else than the EU taking a big bite out of UK territory, something those nationalists obviously can't allow no matter what the costs.

This whole Brexit thing is a great example on how and why democracy is failing in a post-truth era. And this yellowhammer thing shows us exactly that: propaganda has replaced facts.
Pure insanity.

originally posted by: Peeple
The biggest money maker for the UK is services not actual goods and the biggest market for that is the EU.

Unfortunately, the service sector within the EU is not liberalised and "free". There is a good deal of protectionism and illiberalism across the EU which inhibits the UK service sector already. The EUs free-market is good for manufactured goods, which is why Germany is rich!

originally posted by: paraphi
The EUs free-market is good for manufactured goods, which is why Germany is rich!

Just wait til the French do Frexit then the Germans got what they always wanted ntrotal control of the continent................ all them eastern european factory slaves will be begging for the Russians to come and save them again

Not my business but just my two cents worth.

I think democracy is in a dangerous position. It was a referendum, the leave vote won. Doesn't matter if they won by 1 vote, the majority voted leave . For people who disagree with the result to even slightly block or hinder the will of the people in a democratic vote is deplorable.
The news constantly shows a couple of thousand protesting for another vote. 17,410,742 voted leave so when a petition or protest has 17,410,743 only then should it make the news or even be considered. Till then the majority vote counts.

Can you imagine the leftist, agenda pushing elite if those who voted for no gay marriage had delayed, protested, blocked, marched trying to force a different outcome to the majority vote? Parliament would have been torched by now.

Remain was the minority, but it appears that counts for nothing.

originally posted by: bellagirl
Not my business but just my two cents worth.

I think democracy is in a dangerous position. It was a referendum, the leave vote won. Doesn't matter if they won by 1 vote, the majority voted leave . For people who disagree with the result to even slightly block or hinder the will of the people in a democratic vote is deplorable.

What you need to fully appreciate is only British human beings were allowed the vote. Nothing has spoken up for all the other life on the island, trees have had no say in the future, cows in the field have had no say in the matter, bees and worms, rabbits, flowers, the rocks that actually are this entity called Britain................. Who asked them if they wanted the implications of total change and removal from their own natural environment and neighbouring types? This will effect everyone not just human beings. Why should we speak on matters that have implications for everybody Brexit needs cancelling

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Nothing has spoken up for all the other life on the island, trees have had no say in the future, cows in the field have had no say in the matter, bees and worms, rabbits, flowers, the rocks that actually are this entity called Britain.

Interestingly, the natural envionment in Britain has been ruined by the EU Common Agricultural Policy, where landowners have been rewarded for environmental destruction - remember EU grants to grub up thousands of miles of ancient hedgerows, or drain the bogs and wetlands?

Given a choice, I think the natural world would welcome Brexit. Interesting, the Greens (who all live in London and Brighton, and have never actually met a cow), would rather we stayed in the EU. Very odd.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Which part is EU nations screwing us?

Um, the whole document?

Granted, as I said, the document is all speculation based on the assumption that EU members will try their best to negatively impact Britain if Britain leaves, but is that a reasonable assumption?

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that membership in the EU does not preclude a member nation from making trade deals outside the EU. For instance, France could make a trade deal with Japan without going through the EU. At least I believe that's the way it was when Britain first joined the EU. If that is the case, then member nations should be able to make trade and other deals with a post-Brexit Britain that don't involve the EU. If that's not the case, then EU member nations have effectively sold their sovereignty for trade deals, which would be another matter entirely.

Now let's look at some of the gloom points in the document.

Less cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Does anyone think that would really happen?

"Hello, Interpol? This is Scotland Yard. We have some information on an international smuggling operation working in Britain, Spain, and Greece. You want to get together and compare notes?"

"Sorry, guys. You're not part of the EU anymore, so we can't talk to you about it. Have a nice day."

I think it would be even less likely that intelligence organizations would cooperate less with MI6 if Britain was out of the EU. Especially the NATO members.

Shortages of food and medicine. Maybe it's just me, but I take a simple view of trade if it isn't politically motivated. Country A has something to sell. Country B wants to buy it. They agree on a mutually satisfactory price, and the deal is done. Let's say, for instance, that Britain currently buys one million euros worth of food and drugs from Germany every year. I would assume that both countries are happy with that deal since they have done it for years. Britain pays what it thinks is a fair price, Germany gets what it considers a fair price.

Why should that change if Britain is out of the EU? If Germany decides to charge more, or not sell at all, doesn't that imply that they thought it wasn't a good deal all along? After all, if it's a good deal for both sides, you keep doing it.

Any EU member that doesn't deal with Britain the same way before or after Brexit is essentially saying, "We didn't want to make this deal with you in the first place, but the EU forced us to."

On the other hand, if these trade deals are politically motivated, then that says a lot about membership in the EU. Are member nations being forced to make unfavorable trade deals with other nations? Are member nations being prevented from making profitable deals with other nations? If so, then it seems that being a member of this economic union does the exact opposite of what it supposed to do.

-------------

I could go on, but the point is every point in the document assumes that the countries will suddenly go from economic trading partners to bitter rivals. But why? If one of my customers or suppliers changes their religion, I'm not going to stop doing a profitable business with them. We can still make money together.

Unless I was a Scientologist or one of those other religions that shun the non-believers. But if I were like that, they would probably be better off without me or my kind.

It doesn't assume we become bitter rivals, it assumes we have third country status after having left the EU without a deal.

The EU is a single market and customs union which means that trade deals are done with the EU as a whole not individual member States.

The EU will appily tariffs and restriction on us, not to be vindictive, but because that what we in the UK have decided to have happen.

Shortages could come mainly because we have a infrastructure set up to manage free trade between us and the EU. Getting up to speed to handle the new reality isn't going to be a seamless process.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

Granted, as I said, the document is all speculation based on the assumption that EU members will try their best to negatively impact Britain if Britain leaves, but is that a reasonable assumption?

Not true,

It is in fact part of what the UK government is proposing already, and a baseline scenario, much less a worse scenario than what is really under the table, that's why the hue and cry in all the press and media, you just cannot try to ignore section 15, That I already posted


'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.'

So two UK oil refineries could close as a direct action by the UK government, around two thousand jobs could go...near right away, and you are trying to blame the EU for this government's stupidity??? Strewth.