Forum Topic

Self-inflicted potential disaster

The government is planning for the need for martial law as a result of Brexit."Cabinet Office compares no-deal Brexit to Iceland ash cloud chaos" (Guardian Friday)."The comparisons, and the lack of detailed preparations at the heart of government, are causing immense disquiet among some rank-and-file civil servants. “The level of planning required for no-deal Brexit is the same level as war planning,” said one Whitehall source. “A no-deal Brexit will have the same systemic impact. Iceland gives us hints and clues about what might happen, but Brexit is unlike anything we have ever seen.”"The difference being that a natural disaster is unavoidable. Brexit is self-inflicted.

David Ainsworth ● 2845d21 Comments

I think it is total madness to be talking about martial law. By definition, if martial law is needed it means that there is something dreadfully wrong somewhere - and it is not a terrorist act!As you say, self-inflicted disaster.  Not too sure that voting for Leave was a disaster of such proportions, but most certainly the negotiations carried out by the government of the day.Lost for words!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2845d

I believe a clean-break exit from the EU should always have been Plan A. With sufficient will, 2.5 years should have been enough time for the Government to prepare the country for leaving with minimal disruption (with a UK-EU negotiation running alongside). Proper planning and preparation for a clean-break would have strengthened our negotiating hand, but no, the government was and is a one trick pony when it comes to brexit. May has deliberately engineered a clean-break to be the worst outcome so she can hold a political gun to the heads of our MPs.

Adam Tripp ● 2845d

I'd agree with you in so far as what defining what Brexit is should have been defined before invoking A50. May should have had her consultations with all the party leaders and other interested parties - i.e. unions, industry bodies, etc - at that stage. Holding talks now when the only options are a bad deal, no deal with no time to plan or defer/cancel A50 leaves only one safe and sensible option: at least defer A50 to sort out the mess and plan for whatever outcome is eventually decided. As nearly 50% of people voted to remain and others want a Norway style deal or other soft Brexit I'd deduce those wanting a hard Brexit are in the minority.

Michael Ixer ● 2845d

I agree with you Michael. The leave campaign talked about the Norway model. A 'clean break' from the EU was never talked about, and would be catastrophic for the country and UK citizens. The fact this is even being debated is testament to the fact that the referendum did not give informed consent for anything. People voted leave for many different reasons, with different expectations of what would happen afterwards. There is no deal better than the one we already have, which costs us less than 1% of our taxes. Anything else would mean a reduction in our rights as UK/EU citizens, and disruption to the running of the country. How would leaving the EU benefit you personally?  It wouldn't, so what's the point. Make it go away. Stop Brexit. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/11/24/the-truth-about-a-no-deal-brexit

Clare Noeken ● 2845d

I agree with you - Article 50 was rushed through without any prior planning at all. It could be too late for this option - European leaders won't agree to implementing a delay unless they are assured that the UK won't still be floundering around so a new referendum might have to take place. I'm not convinced this is even the right route as the country and Parliament is still as divided as ever and the result  may be just as bad as before.

Lucille Grant ● 2845d

"Proper planning and preparation for a clean-break would have strengthened our negotiating hand, but no, the government was and is a one trick pony when it comes to brexit. May has deliberately engineered a clean-break to be the worst outcome so she can hold a political gun to the heads of our MPs."Well, why did the Leave supporters leave it to her? "They're an absolute shower, a positive shower" (Terry-Thomas)

David Ainsworth ● 2845d

I believe most people are united in that they are fed up with the whole thing and just want it to go away. Any form of Brexit will take decades of negotiations. It just isn't worth it, whatever that 'it' is.

Clare Noeken ● 2845d

David, in this case, why did we all leave it to her?Leave the customs union, the ECJ and the single market was her interpretation.May also said she would not give a running commentary about the negotiations because it would weaken the UK's hand (as if the EU and the UK were enemies)....Well, some kept quiet, Gina Miller took the government to court on Parliament discussing Brexit and won....  With hindsight I think we are all wise.  From today onwards, we should all consider what it is we can do to straighten the mess Brexit has become. Our MPs are starting to react but let us see what happens on Tuesday.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 2845d

And it gets worse. Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested proroguing, that is, shutting down, parliament if MPs are successful with an attempt to make a "no-deal" departure from the EU impossible, and another Brexit-backing Tory MP - Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury - has asked the Polish government to intervene if Britain asks the EU for an extension of Article 50. (Sources online: Sky News and Huffington Post.) So much for supporting the UK's parliamentary democracy. Isn't seeking foreign intervention in the UK's internal government business called treason?

Michael Ixer ● 2845d

"Isn't seeking foreign intervention in the UK's internal government business called treason?"It all depends. Are we Venezuela?---------------------------------"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."(Sir John Harington, 1561-1612)

David Ainsworth ● 2845d

It is quite extraordinary!!!  This morning, on Andrew Marr's programme, Simon Conveney, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, was categorical in saying that the EU would say yes to an extension of Article 50....If this is the case, then the "enemy" is not the EU...

Ivonne Holliday ● 2845d

A no deal Brexit isn't going to be good for the UK, the EU or any global organisations operating businesses across the EU and UK so they're obviously going to be sensible and take the pragmatic decision to extend A50 while the incompetent UK government messes around trying to work out what to do. It doesn't make much difference to the EU, except we might need to elect some more MEPs in the forthcoming EU elections ...

Michael Ixer ● 2845d

He's not speaking on behalf of all 27 countries though Ivonne. From what I hear in France it is unlikely that this could happen UNLESS there is some form of assurance that the UK move forward. The longer we prevaricate the worse it is for all of us in the UK and Europe as a whole. Uncertainty helps no-one.The EU isn't the enemy but hey are going to look after their own interests first and foremost just as the UK is supposed to and failing miserably.

Lucille Grant ● 2845d

This is a response to Ivonne's post!

Lucille Grant ● 2845d

Hello Lucille,Thanks for your reply.I understand he is not talking on behalf of all 27 countries but I was under the impression that the ECJ had rules that the UK can stop or revoke Article 50 at anytime.  But I agree with you, the current state of affairs is shocking if not unforgivable.When I mention the EU being the "enemy", I mention this in relation to Theresa May not giving a running commentary in the negotiations with the EU because it could have "undermined" the UK's position.  I also mentioned it in my response to Michael by indicating the EU is not our enemy, but there is an "enemy" within.Of course the EU is not our enemy, on the contrary.  And they are certainly looking after their interests firmly, as they should!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2845d

We can revoke A50 unilaterally before the 29 March deadline if we change our minds and decide to remain in the EU. That seems unlikely to happen in two months. If we want to extend the A50 deadline or "pause" the A50 process then that needs the agreement of the other 27 EU members. As has been said, the EU aren't our enemy and as they want a satisfactory solution then my opinion is they are likely to assist in facilitating that, including extending the A50 end date, no one wants the chaos and uncertainty oof a no deal. What they won't do is assist us with our own negotiating position where that compromises any of their members' interests. To be honest, I can't see Ireland yielding on the "backstop" clause and I think most EU members will support them, Spain may try and use Gibraltar as a negotiating pawn but I suspect most other EU countries will put pressure on them to resist that - but some historic chickens might come home to roost ...

Michael Ixer ● 2845d

We can revoke A50 unilaterally before the 29 March deadline if we change our minds and decide to remain in the EU. That seems unlikely to happen in two months. If we want to extend the A50 deadline or "pause" the A50 process then that needs the agreement of the other 27 EU members. As has been said, the EU aren't our enemy and as they want a satisfactory solution then my opinion is they are likely to assist in facilitating that, including extending the A50 end date, no one wants the chaos and uncertainty of a no deal. What they won't do is assist us with our own negotiating position where that compromises any of their members' interests. To be honest, I can't see Ireland yielding on the "backstop" clause and I think most EU members will support them, Spain may try and use Gibraltar as a negotiating pawn but I suspect most other EU countries will put pressure on them to resist that - but some historic chickens might come home to roost ...

Michael Ixer ● 2845d

Hello Michael,Thank you for the clarification; obviously extending Article 50 could, but not necessarily will, meet a bumpy ride in the EU.The issue of no-deal is frightening...  Taken from the Evening Standard which reports on a Sunday Times article:"The Sunday Times reported today that Mrs May’s husband Philip had been accused by her chief of staff and former MP Gavin Barwell of “scuppering” plans to offer Labour a permanent customs union with the EU to try and get their backing. Mr May is said to have continued to encourage his wife to seek a deal that is approved by the DUP and Brexiteer Tories.  The newspaper also reported that Whitehall officials were considering imposing martial law in Britain in the event of no-deal to prevent civil disobedience."If it is true that Mr May has been encouraging his wife to listen to the DUP and Brexiteer Tories only, well, if he really has that kind of influence in the government, apart from this being highly questionable and objectionable, then we really understand why the elected MPs are not being listened to....

Ivonne Holliday ● 2845d

I really hope that isn't true about Philip May. Perhaps this is all down to someone trying to discredit May even more? But it would be very surprising if this debacle wasn't discussed by them at home drinking their cocoa!

Lucille Grant ● 2845d

So do I Lucille.It would not surprise me in the least if they did not discuss this at home.  Discredit Theresa May?  My first thought, and then.....  I wonder.  There is no smoke without fire....  ???

Ivonne Holliday ● 2845d

Difficult to verify. Even if such a conversation took place she could have asked his opinion and he might have just agreed with what she was considering. If he did deliberately intervene to change her mind then just proves what an undemocratic mess this is. It will interesting to see if Corby picks up on this and uses it a PM's question time ...

Michael Ixer ● 2845d