E: Apparently it was his predecessor, but it's nevertheless not drafted by Labour.
>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.
Paint it on the side of a bus, with 350 million other lies.
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).
The idea that the UK crumbles (the document has things like cancer patients dying, folks with diabetes dying - its just an incredible list) seems far fetched. The UK operated prior to the EU without all these disasters.
This is true. But what’s discussed is how difficult it is to untangle 40 years of ever tighter integration. Decades ago things weren’t made in british factories using parts delivered just in time to be assembled, from multiple European supplier factories. No one is arguing that it’s impossible for Britain to function outside the EU. But “it worked before” isn’t an argument that leaving won’t be a disaster.
Taking the same argument ad absurdum: Britain used to operate without electricity and cars. Now there is a hundred years of electricity and cars integrated into every corner of British society so if cars and electricity was suddenly removed, it would take a long time for Britain to adapt to the new old system of candles and horses. It would work (it has operated that way before) but it would be a disaster for quite some time. An initial shortage of horses and candles wouldn’t be the only problem.
Back in 1975 things were very different. We didn't have recombinant insulin and diabetics died much more often.
It's not like we can flip a switch and go back to 1975, but keeping everything from 2019 running.
And it will be totally appalling if the EU to prove a point blocks shipments of those drugs.
This is a chance for the US perhaps to get in with some timely shipments using the US military or other govt resources. Could save lots of UK lives while the EU let's their neighbors die.
The EU is not threatening to block shipments of anything nor to "let their neighbors die". It's the UK government that seems intent on imposing economic sanctions unto itself by leaving the single market.
Actually, the closest thing to suggesting to let neighbors die was these outrageous comments by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel a few weeks ago (https://www.joe.ie/news/british-politician-says-uk-threaten-...), suggesting to cause food shortages in Ireland in order to pressure them to drop the backstop. To anyone who knows history between the 2 countries (actual famine in Ireland caused by Britain centuries ago), this is abhorrent.
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.
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.
In both cases there is a parliament where you vote for someone to represent your area. You cannot vote for anyone outside your area. In the EU your area is a country and in the UK your area is a smaller part of the country. If you live in Scotland, northen Ireland or Wales you are also governed by a different "country" with unelected officials.
Then you have the truly unelected members of government. Advisors and ministry beaurocrats and administrators.
I simply cannot wrap my head around how people can keep regurgitating this crap. All western democracies are full of "unelected" officials. The EU is not some special unelected body. You have your vote and you vote for a representative to represent your constituency. Stop spreading this nonsense.
It's not one I agree with but it certainly seems respectable to me.
The European Commission. Remember, the Commission gets to propose legislation, the Parliament (which you elect) doesn't.
But being an EU member state doesn't give away sovereignty, it's a way of expressing your sovereignty; it's pooling it with others in order to do things you can't do on your own. A leaving member state has a different menu of choices it can make, but because it's position is weaker, the choices are at best narrowed down, or at worst set by other parties.
In the case of the UK, it can choose between favouring a US market over a EU market, but each choice imposes restrictions set entirely by others. The EU will insist on a higher bar of conduct to pass, as part of its level playing field approach. The US will insist on limiting the UK's ability to raise the bar where it sees fit, so that US companies can more readily exploit the UK market, unencumbered by impediments it finds today in the form of things like food safety standards.
And you have to pick one or the other. Today the UK was able to influence the environment that most affected it, because it was a member of the EU. Tomorrow larger parties are shaping what the UK can choose from, with little say in it for British voters. This is a form of sovereignty shrinkage.
The idea that Brexit returns sovereignty is misleading and I suspect a lot of people will be disappointed when they find out in practice what it means.
...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.
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).
now that we actually know
[...] what it will cost
Why on earth would we do this?
Before the referendum, I heard euroskeptics call the EU undemocratic citing the process where the 2005 EU Constitution / 2008 Treaty of Lisbon. They saw the constitution-to-treaty change as bypassing the rejection of the former by French and Dutch referendums; and the second Irish referendum as bypassing the rejection by the first Irish referendum.
They saw this as analogous to an election in a tinpot dictatorship, where the Glorious Leader winning is the only possible outcome. That the EU had no taste for hearing the the average citizen's voice, unless it was supportive.
If you honestly believe the big thing that's wrong with the EU is that votes are only allowed so long as the outcome is pro-EU, earnestly implementing the referendum result come what may is really the only option. Anything that stands in the way of doing that only serves to prove the importance of doing that.
And unfortunately, the Tory party has a lot of euroskeptics.