5 ms·

Political opposition leaked a scare document? Welcome to politics.

te_chris 7y ago
It’s a govt risk assessment document, not just “politics”. Assuming you’re a brexiteer....what exactly is the positive case for brexit now? Because no one I can hear is making it, merely saying it has to happen, like a visit to one’s in laws that destroys the economy and fractures society.
- throwaway122378 7y ago
  The positive case for brexit is no longer being a part of the EU.
  - throwaway122379 7y ago
    Please elaborate as to exactly why that is a positive?
    - rusk 7y ago
      Hey look, there's plenty of negative things that could be said about the EU … it's not inconceivable that Brexit could even have been a good thing. An economy the size of the UK could have been an effective counter-balance to some of the more hegonmistic aspects, if it were still a "friend". If the whole thing hadn't been hijacked by the regressive factions, and they weren't slowly going round in circles giving 2 fingers to everybody … but that's not what has happened. The Brexit that is unfolding is an unmitigated mess for everybody in the UK bar the elite financial hawks who stand to benefit from it, and it will be a mess for Ireland, and it will especially be a disaster for Northern Ireland. You know who it won't be a disaster for? The rest of Europe …
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mikedilger 7y ago
  The case for Brexit that I've heard from the beginning has not changed, so if you honestly haven't heard it, it goes something like this: the primary goal is to retain sovereignty while Britain still can; to arrest the slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U.
  - gumby 7y ago
    > slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U. ...despite the fact that no EU rules can go into force in any EU state without that state passing a law to make it happen within its borders. And despite the rather pointless European Parliament, the real decisions are made by the elected heads of member state governments, when they meet as the European Council. So after Brexit the new boss will precisely be identical to the old boss. But sure, why not believe that the 350 mil a week is being stolen by a bunch of offshore bureaucrats.
    - martin8412 7y ago
      It is not quite true. Certain things can indeed be implemented without a local law being passed in parliament. But that is very rarely used, and when used it is for actual important stuff that a lot of people would agree is a good thing.
      - repolfx 7y ago
        None of this is true! All EU law is automatically implemented in the UK, parliament cannot stop it, and most things are no longer vetoable at the Council level either. What little veto power remains is under attack by the EU itself which wants to move to qualified majority for everything, and that assumes votes actually matter in the EU, when there's lots of evidence that they don't. The reality is the goal of the EU is to replace national governments. That replacement provides an illusion of democracy but without actually being democratic. Just go read the various statements of the people who control the European apparatus, or witness how the people's primary concerns as measured by opinion polls are simply ignored in Brussels (which does the opposite in fact).
vesinisa 7y ago
No, this document was drafted by Boris Johnson's pro-Brexit government. E: Apparently it was his predecessor, but it's nevertheless not drafted by Labour.
- bitL 7y ago
  It's probably the same as when US army evaluates catastrophic scenario that Canada, Mexico or Belize invade USA (or the other way round). There are probably 10 similar scenarios ranging from Brexit net-positive and rebirth of UK empire dominating inept EU down to loss of Scotland/North Ireland and economic collapse, which is what government should do anyway. I guess there's nothing else to write about in the newspapers during summer...
  - jimnotgym 7y ago
    According to the report itself this is not the worst case scenario, it is the realistic one.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  It’s right there in the article: >The Financial Times quoted government insiders who rebutted the document, saying it is not a realistic scenario for a no-deal Brexit and pointing out that it was written under the leadership of Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, and does not reflect the preparations spearheaded by Johnson that are now underway. >”This document is from when ministers were blocking what needed to be done to get ready to leave and the funds were not available. It has been deliberately leaked by a former minister in an attempt to influence discussions with EU leaders," a source told the paper.
  - bertil 7y ago
    Whether the previous government (same party, same Parliament, same mandate, same objective) is “the opposition” is debatable. It’s not Labour. It’s not Remainers. Both governments want a deal with the EU. It’s unclear if the minister who leaked that document voted for the existing Deal (several ministers voted against their own government).
wetpaws 7y ago
Does it really matter who leaked them if content is true?
- bertil 7y ago
  You can accuse a leak to be partial, non-representative, timed to harm a party, etc.: that’s what people criticised when Russian secret services leaked emails from the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. “True” isn’t enough of a criterion for political coverage: “representative”, “clear”, “informing the voting public” at better objectives. In this case, it’s an internal document that is proving that the government is not candid about a threat that they are waving. If (like people who support Boris Johnson) you think that a credible threat of leaving without a Deal helps negotiate against the European Union, that leak can seem political. If (like people who oppose Boris Johnson) you think that a leaving without a Deal is irresponsible, having official confirmation of that fact is validating.
- repolfx 7y ago
  Yes it does, because these are predictions about future events and thus cannot (yet) be true or not true. The civil service has previously published reports like this. They turned out to be totally wrong. There's a serious and important element of cry wolf here, especially because the previous cabinet that the report was written for were working against leaving. Lots of stuff coming out in recent weeks about how ministers were saying they were preparing and ready to leave without a deal but actually blocking attempts to prepare and telling foreign leaders they'd never leave.

It’s a govt risk assessment document, not just “politics”. Assuming you’re a brexiteer....what exactly is the positive case for brexit now? Because no one I can hear is making it, merely saying it has to happen, like a visit to one’s in laws that destroys the economy and fractures society.

throwaway122378 7y ago
The positive case for brexit is no longer being a part of the EU.
- throwaway122379 7y ago
  Please elaborate as to exactly why that is a positive?
  - rusk 7y ago
    Hey look, there's plenty of negative things that could be said about the EU … it's not inconceivable that Brexit could even have been a good thing. An economy the size of the UK could have been an effective counter-balance to some of the more hegonmistic aspects, if it were still a "friend". If the whole thing hadn't been hijacked by the regressive factions, and they weren't slowly going round in circles giving 2 fingers to everybody … but that's not what has happened. The Brexit that is unfolding is an unmitigated mess for everybody in the UK bar the elite financial hawks who stand to benefit from it, and it will be a mess for Ireland, and it will especially be a disaster for Northern Ireland. You know who it won't be a disaster for? The rest of Europe …
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mikedilger 7y ago
The case for Brexit that I've heard from the beginning has not changed, so if you honestly haven't heard it, it goes something like this: the primary goal is to retain sovereignty while Britain still can; to arrest the slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U.
- gumby 7y ago
  > slow but inexorable yielding of power to unelected officials of the E.U. ...despite the fact that no EU rules can go into force in any EU state without that state passing a law to make it happen within its borders. And despite the rather pointless European Parliament, the real decisions are made by the elected heads of member state governments, when they meet as the European Council. So after Brexit the new boss will precisely be identical to the old boss. But sure, why not believe that the 350 mil a week is being stolen by a bunch of offshore bureaucrats.
  - martin8412 7y ago
    It is not quite true. Certain things can indeed be implemented without a local law being passed in parliament. But that is very rarely used, and when used it is for actual important stuff that a lot of people would agree is a good thing.
    - repolfx 7y ago
      None of this is true! All EU law is automatically implemented in the UK, parliament cannot stop it, and most things are no longer vetoable at the Council level either. What little veto power remains is under attack by the EU itself which wants to move to qualified majority for everything, and that assumes votes actually matter in the EU, when there's lots of evidence that they don't. The reality is the goal of the EU is to replace national governments. That replacement provides an illusion of democracy but without actually being democratic. Just go read the various statements of the people who control the European apparatus, or witness how the people's primary concerns as measured by opinion polls are simply ignored in Brussels (which does the opposite in fact).

vesinisa 7y ago

No, this document was drafted by Boris Johnson's pro-Brexit government. E: Apparently it was his predecessor, but it's nevertheless not drafted by Labour.

bitL 7y ago
It's probably the same as when US army evaluates catastrophic scenario that Canada, Mexico or Belize invade USA (or the other way round). There are probably 10 similar scenarios ranging from Brexit net-positive and rebirth of UK empire dominating inept EU down to loss of Scotland/North Ireland and economic collapse, which is what government should do anyway. I guess there's nothing else to write about in the newspapers during summer...
- jimnotgym 7y ago
  According to the report itself this is not the worst case scenario, it is the realistic one.
creaghpatr 7y ago
It’s right there in the article: >The Financial Times quoted government insiders who rebutted the document, saying it is not a realistic scenario for a no-deal Brexit and pointing out that it was written under the leadership of Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, and does not reflect the preparations spearheaded by Johnson that are now underway. >”This document is from when ministers were blocking what needed to be done to get ready to leave and the funds were not available. It has been deliberately leaked by a former minister in an attempt to influence discussions with EU leaders," a source told the paper.
- bertil 7y ago
  Whether the previous government (same party, same Parliament, same mandate, same objective) is “the opposition” is debatable. It’s not Labour. It’s not Remainers. Both governments want a deal with the EU. It’s unclear if the minister who leaked that document voted for the existing Deal (several ministers voted against their own government).

wetpaws 7y ago

Does it really matter who leaked them if content is true?

bertil 7y ago
You can accuse a leak to be partial, non-representative, timed to harm a party, etc.: that’s what people criticised when Russian secret services leaked emails from the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. “True” isn’t enough of a criterion for political coverage: “representative”, “clear”, “informing the voting public” at better objectives. In this case, it’s an internal document that is proving that the government is not candid about a threat that they are waving. If (like people who support Boris Johnson) you think that a credible threat of leaving without a Deal helps negotiate against the European Union, that leak can seem political. If (like people who oppose Boris Johnson) you think that a leaving without a Deal is irresponsible, having official confirmation of that fact is validating.
repolfx 7y ago
Yes it does, because these are predictions about future events and thus cannot (yet) be true or not true. The civil service has previously published reports like this. They turned out to be totally wrong. There's a serious and important element of cry wolf here, especially because the previous cabinet that the report was written for were working against leaving. Lots of stuff coming out in recent weeks about how ministers were saying they were preparing and ready to leave without a deal but actually blocking attempts to prepare and telling foreign leaders they'd never leave.