|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 14:03:50 GMT
Somewhere in government there will be a document that outlines worst case scenarios about a terrorist attack on the streets of London using a chemical weapon. I'd imagine if that was released it could cause panic so I'd hope they don't. It's reasonable to see why governments are cautious about what they make public.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 14:10:56 GMT
That is not remotely comparable....we don't have any control over, or say in, whether a terrorist attack happens or not. Ergo knowledge of the consequences has no bearing on whether it happens or not.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 14:14:25 GMT
The risk being assessed isn't the point. The issue is the Government has right to be cautious about what it presents in the public domain. Would you object to the Government publishing a document on the best case scenarios? I imagine if they did the very same people complaining about Yellowhammer would be accusing the Government of propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 14:49:24 GMT
I did not say that the risk being assessed was the point. I made the point that knowledge of the consequences is relevant in one case and not in the other.
This Government is being cautious only because this Government is highly partisan. To suggest otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse. The Government commissioned Yellowhammer as an assessment of the likely outcome - that much is very clear. It has since found it expedient to rebrand it as a "worst case assessment" in order to downplay findings that were not favourable to its agenda.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 12, 2019 15:09:07 GMT
Or you could just view it that they've rebranded it since the first iteration for any number of reasons. It in itself changes nothing, similar concerns were raised before the vote and people still voted for it.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 12, 2019 15:36:54 GMT
You could. But it would be like the prorogation. Boris might have done it just because he needs to prepare a Queen's Speech, or because he saw a chaffinch fly upside down on a Tuesday. But we all know in our hearts that he did it for political advantage. And some honesty in all of this would be nice for a change.
And people still voted for Brexit because they were told loudly by all the Brexiteers that it was all just Project Fear. And because that's what they wanted to hear, they simply swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Most Brexiteers I know refuse point-blank to accept that Yellowhammer is anything other than scare-mongering.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 12, 2019 19:06:29 GMT
I suspect that the Yellowhammer scenario is nowhere near the true worst case scenario. I would describe it as the 'pessimistic' case, as opposed to the 'optimistic' case.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 13, 2019 12:40:18 GMT
Re Yellowhammer, what the f do they teach civil servants at all that training? Day 1 business school - "position, possibilities, proposal" . Instead Yellow hammer just seems to be "position, worst case possibility, thank you". I therefore suspect that it was a political document written in part to scare MP's into voting through May's deal.
When have we seen that before? Oh yes, the whole dodgy dossier carry-on. After all, if Saddam had been shown to have zero capability of hurting anyone except himself the case for war would have disappeared. And if no deal was shown to be solvable by certain preparation and activity, the whole point of attempting to scare the crap out of people would be lost.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 13, 2019 13:26:09 GMT
Re Yellowhammer, what the f do they teach civil servants at all that training? Day 1 business school - "position, possibilities, proposal" . Instead Yellow hammer just seems to be "position, worst case possibility, thank you". I therefore suspect that it was a political document written in part to scare MP's into voting through May's deal. So you agree with Rees-Mogg when he attacked that doctor for scaremongering?
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 13, 2019 13:42:36 GMT
Re Yellowhammer, what the f do they teach civil servants at all that training? Day 1 business school - "position, possibilities, proposal" . Instead Yellow hammer just seems to be "position, worst case possibility, thank you". I therefore suspect that it was a political document written in part to scare MP's into voting through May's deal. So you agree with Rees-Mogg when he attacked that doctor for scaremongering? Which attack? I agree with what he said to him on LBC - which I read in the paper and not live. But R-M likening him to a doctor who had been struck off for MMR vaccine issues was wrong, and R-M apologised for that attack later on.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 13, 2019 13:49:08 GMT
I think you answered your own question.
What I was driving at is that Yellowhammer isn't simply the product of brainstorming sessions by civil servants in their Whitehall ivory towers. Real people in respected positions of responsibility in the real economy were consulted in drawing up its conclusions. To take such a dismissive approach to it strikes me as sticking one's head in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 13, 2019 14:50:34 GMT
Curse those scare mongering civil servants. How dare they come to a conclusion that agrees with any sorts of 'experts' (to be ignored on a selective basis TM M Gove, esq) who fail to agree with the governing politicians view!
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 13, 2019 16:38:26 GMT
What I was driving at is that Yellowhammer isn't simply the product of brainstorming sessions by civil servants in their Whitehall ivory towers. Real people in respected positions of responsibility in the real economy were consulted in drawing up its conclusions. To take such a dismissive approach to it strikes me as sticking one's head in the sand. Two points really. Firstly, whoever they asked, Yellowhammer is still a collection of opinions. Dr Nicholls - who was one of the people consulted about Yellowhammer as it happens - is a long standing remain and Labour supporter. Now he may be totally unbiased and utterly professional and call me a cynic if you like, but I can't help thinking his opinions may be ever so slightly prejudiced by his views. According to other press sources about his social media feeds- Last year Dr Nicholl attended a protest outside the Conservative Party's annual conference in Manchester, from which he tweeted a picture of himself wearing a "b------- to Brexit" hat.
He posted the hashtags "PeoplesVote" and "BinBrexit".
In August 2018 he also posted a lewd comment relating to claims of infidelity levelled at Mr Johnson. And secondly, as far as being dismissive goes, as I already said, if the civil service thinks that there will be disruption, then I expect proposals to be made by said civil servants as to the ways to mitigate any possible issues. Not just list them as they did. To just list what can go wrong is scaremongering. To list what may go wrong and for each issue to list mitigations and possible solutions is doing their job. If they talked to real people about issues, they could talk to real people about solutions and mitigations, but it seems the second part of that was too hard.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 13, 2019 19:02:14 GMT
Far be it for me to suggest that his views might be informed by his professional opinions. Not vice-versa.
Being a long-standing remain supporter isn't a negative thing. It just means he, like me, has held his opinion since the get-go, which is not really surprising since, as others have pointed out, there's not actually much in Yellowhammer that wasn't aired prior to the referendum - it's just that it was dismissed as Project Fear at the time. He obviously, like me, didn't (and still doesn't) buy that.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 16, 2019 12:27:44 GMT
Verhoftwat at the Lib Dem conference:
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 16, 2019 12:46:53 GMT
Rupert Lowe was an old boss of mine. Complete twat.
On anther note; I come back from a few days golfing away from all this Brexit shit and it appears now that Superheros have got involved. Always been a Spider-man fan myself - the Hulk was always too unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 16, 2019 13:26:39 GMT
Then they are both twats because I confess that I absolutely cannot stand Verhofstadt either.
Like I've always said, I'm not starry-eyed EU fan. I'm just a Brexit-sceptic.
If we are on comic book characters, then surely Priti Patel is Poison Ivy.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 16, 2019 13:46:46 GMT
Lib Dem lunacy part VII "The member of the audience asked Swinson if the party was vetting new MPs carefully enough, to see if they have liberal values, and added that: ‘I am concerned that some of the people that have joined recently don’t share those [liberal] values, and their voting records show their true colours.’ Swinson attempted to answer the question by suggesting that not all Liberal Democrats need to share exactly the same values on every issue, and could arrive at a different conclusion from a liberal perspective. But her answer was given short shrift by a heckling audience member who (as far as Mr S could make out), hollered: ‘This is a Ukip policy, this is literally a Ukip policy.’" blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/listen-jo-swinson-heckled-at-lib-dem-conference/I'd have thought the definition of a 'Liberal' would have been allowing people to have different opinions, but what would I know?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 16, 2019 14:02:28 GMT
Lib Dem lunacy part VII "The member of the audience asked Swinson if the party was vetting new MPs carefully enough, to see if they have liberal values, and added that: ‘I am concerned that some of the people that have joined recently don’t share those [liberal] values, and their voting records show their true colours.’ Swinson attempted to answer the question by suggesting that not all Liberal Democrats need to share exactly the same values on every issue, and could arrive at a different conclusion from a liberal perspective. But her answer was given short shrift by a heckling audience member who (as far as Mr S could make out), hollered: ‘This is a Ukip policy, this is literally a Ukip policy.’" blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/listen-jo-swinson-heckled-at-lib-dem-conference/I'd have thought the definition of a 'Liberal' would have been allowing people to have different opinions, but what would I know? Er, Isn't that the exact answer to what you've queried in your final sentence?
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 16, 2019 14:10:25 GMT
Lib Dem lunacy part VII "The member of the audience asked Swinson if the party was vetting new MPs carefully enough, to see if they have liberal values, and added that: ‘I am concerned that some of the people that have joined recently don’t share those [liberal] values, and their voting records show their true colours.’ Swinson attempted to answer the question by suggesting that not all Liberal Democrats need to share exactly the same values on every issue, and could arrive at a different conclusion from a liberal perspective. But her answer was given short shrift by a heckling audience member who (as far as Mr S could make out), hollered: ‘This is a Ukip policy, this is literally a Ukip policy.’" blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/listen-jo-swinson-heckled-at-lib-dem-conference/I'd have thought the definition of a 'Liberal' would have been allowing people to have different opinions, but what would I know? Er, Isn't that the exact answer to what you've queried in your final sentence? I wasn't querying Swinson, it was one of the few sane things she said. I was amazed at the delegate response of 'This is a Ukip policy'
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 16, 2019 14:12:11 GMT
Ah, I think most delegates at all the conferences are 'of a certain age'! Probably escaped from a local care home.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 16, 2019 14:14:56 GMT
Sadly people of all stripes are intolerant of those who do not share their views. I thought the LGTBetc chair who quit was being exceptionally precious.
The Lib Dems suffer from a preponderance of professional offence-takers in their ranks, plus a smattering of people who really ought to be in Momentum, let alone Labour. That's a legacy of New Labour, when the LDs ended up risking being more left wing than Labour.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 16, 2019 14:53:52 GMT
Having just read the BBC website article on the Brexit talks, it appears that Boris says the negotiations are going well whilst the EU says nothing has changed and there is no fresh proposal about what to do with the NI backstop. It is possible that Boris could get a last minute deal but that is looking more unlikely as time goes on.
Can I ask what other members of this forum consider would be a workable solution to the NI problem if the UK leaves the EU?
Personally I don't think there is a solution because an open border requires free movement of people and goods and the Government certainly want to stop free movement of people whilst the EU refuse free trade without free movement of people - I can't see an alternative to a return to a hard border or put the border down the middle of the Irish Sea and tell NI they are no longer welcome as part of GB!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 16, 2019 15:10:09 GMT
- I can't see an alternative to a return to a hard border or put the border down the middle of the Irish Sea and tell NI they are no longer welcome as part of GB! The Torys needed to keep the DUP on side for their votes but since Boris has lost every vote he's tabled so far there must be the temptation to do exactly that. Walk away from NI and leave it to Eire to deal with. That'll go well... Seriously, I think the hard border is a EU red herring. We're not going to put a border up, Southern Ireland isn't, and I don't believe in the 21st century it's beyond the wit of man to implement a technical solution to goods crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 16, 2019 15:33:30 GMT
There'll have to be a hard border of some sort but clearly it won't actually be a wall or fence.
Re-the technical solution Bob mentions, if that was a possibility then it would exist between Sweden and Norway but there are no borders anywhere in the world that have a technical hard border so for the idiots in the ERG to keep going on about it is just a red herring.
A big part of the problem with NI is that the freedom of movement is written into the Good Friday agreement and if it goes then the implication is that the terrorists will pick up their arms and start bombing again. Seems hard to believe in a world where we've previously seen Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness sharing a laugh on a public platform but that's what some people fear.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 16, 2019 15:40:45 GMT
There'll have to be a hard border of some sort but clearly it won't actually be a wall or fence. Re-the technical solution Bob mentions, if that was a possibility then it would exist between Sweden and Norway but there are no borders anywhere in the world that have a technical hard border so for the idiots in the ERG to keep going on about it is just a red herring. The vast majority of the 1000 mile Sweden-Norway border is unmanned and you can cross backwards and forwards at will, with no passport checks and no border staff to be seen. You can live in Norway and drive normally to work in Sweden or vice versa. There are a few manned border posts for lorries but everywhere else is covered by ANPR cameras to catch persistent smugglers.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 16, 2019 15:45:24 GMT
- I can't see an alternative to a return to a hard border or put the border down the middle of the Irish Sea and tell NI they are no longer welcome as part of GB! The Torys needed to keep the DUP on side for their votes but since Boris has lost every vote he's tabled so far there must be the temptation to do exactly that. Walk away from NI and leave it to Eire to deal with. That'll go well... Why do they need to keep the DUP on side now that they are in any event tens of MPs short of a majority?
Surely much of Arlene's leverage went up in smoke when Boris defenestrated the Tory rebels.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 16, 2019 15:48:23 GMT
The Torys needed to keep the DUP on side for their votes but since Boris has lost every vote he's tabled so far there must be the temptation to do exactly that. Walk away from NI and leave it to Eire to deal with. That'll go well... Why do they need to keep the DUP on side now that they are in any event tens of MPs short of a majority?
Surely much of Arlene's leverage went up in smoke when Boris defenestrated the Tory rebels.
That's my point.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 16, 2019 16:12:05 GMT
There'll have to be a hard border of some sort but clearly it won't actually be a wall or fence. Re-the technical solution Bob mentions, if that was a possibility then it would exist between Sweden and Norway but there are no borders anywhere in the world that have a technical hard border so for the idiots in the ERG to keep going on about it is just a red herring. The vast majority of the 1000 mile Sweden-Norway border is unmanned and you can cross backwards and forwards at will, with no passport checks and no border staff to be seen. You can live in Norway and drive normally to work in Sweden or vice versa. There are a few manned border posts for lorries but everywhere else is covered by ANPR cameras to catch persistent smugglers. Agreed but that's still a 'hard' border.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 16, 2019 16:27:20 GMT
Why anyone still persists in the fallacy that leaving on 31 October with or without a deal is going in any way to enable us to stop talking about Brexit and get on with normal business is entirely a mystery to me.
It just isn't. Very little is certain about Brexit, but that is.
|
|