Brexit View

[Jenny1]

Isn't it simply that the word 'Committee' has got left out malumbu, and that a stray 'A' has been added to the end of COBR? The committee in question being formed of ministers (among others) who would meet in the COBR to manage army deployment to quell civil unrest in the event of No Deal? So less 'poppycock', more 'typo'?

I quite agree that we will need to fully deploy 'chin up' as the weeks advance....

[diable rouge]

Correct Jenny, I inadvertently missed out 'committee' after emergency, Cobra was how it was written in the ST piece though. I'll correct the quote so it looks like malumbu is talking poppycock ;-)

Here's more...https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1089459695331524610

[Jenny1]

I guess if the ST meant 'Cabinet Office Briefing Room A' - then the 'A' is fine. I think malumbu was making a general point that there's often confusion between the acronym COBR or COBRA and the people who meet there to take decisions. But the most important point is clearly that our government should not be even considering such things.

[TheCat]

Diable...

"advocating the so-called positives of No Deal"

I don't ever recall having done that.

I think a few weeks ago I asked the question of what people though would be the impact of no deal, as I have been trying to understand better what the impacts might be. I don't ever recall 'advocating' the benefits of no deal. Perhaps you're referring to me saying that 'leaving' would likely see short term disruption, perhaps even recession, and at the time of the vote I feltthat was a risk worth taking...yes I said that, but not specifically about no deal, which is whole other ketlle of fish.

In anycase, on the questioning in any second referendum. I don't have a strong view. That's was my off the cuff thoughts. You asked (after politley putting your hand up:)) and I answered. But unlike some other topics we've discused on here I haven't really though about it enough to have a strong view to be honest.

[edcam]

Bottom line is that Brexit is a ruinous idea. If it goes through we are in serious trouble. The only people who could possibly think it worthwhile are bankers or racists.

[alex_b]

edcam Wrote:

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

> Bottom line is that Brexit is a ruinous idea. If

> it goes through we are in serious trouble. The

> only people who could possibly think it worthwhile

> are bankers or racists.

The majority of bankers think it?s a terrible idea. The current proposal from May leaves our services industries (including banking) with none of the trade benefits we currently enjoy.

[malumbu]

COBR is a facility where ministers make collective decisions. Meeting rooms, briefing rooms, whatever. It's not an operations room. 'Popycock' is that the army will be quelling civil unrest. Law and order is for the police services and the Home Office. It would be surprising if COBR was even being used at this moment seeing as we are not yet in crisis. Although it is a convenient facility/location and at times announcing that "COBR has met" is good for government, to show that they are taking action.

Of course there can be these discussions around the cabinet table or between TM and the relevant Secretaries of States or through Cabinet Committees, and through correspondence. It's called machinery of government, and essentially part of representational democracy.

Not bothered in the slightest if it is quoted as COBRA. Easier to announce than COBR.

[Jenny1]

malumbu Wrote:

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

It would be surprising if

> COBR was even being used at this moment seeing as

> we are not yet in crisis.

Yes. But the reference was to potential future action. As to the specific role of the armed forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent saying the army doesn't have the training to quell domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long since they were active on the streets of Northern Ireland. This means army and defence insiders she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about the idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it would likely be the job of the police to deal with any civil unrest post No-Deal.

[Jenny1]

....although this government shows few signs of sanity. They may well not be interested in the views of those army insiders. What would happen if the PM and her 'advisers' 'ordered' the army to take action?

[JoeLeg]

Realistically? It would require Cressida Dick requesting such assistance, or the govt declaring martial law.

Both circumstances are so unlikely as to be in the realm of fantasy.

Govts make contingency plans for all possible situations. That doesn?t mean they envisage needing them.

[cella]

Certainly hope that's the case but we should expect some sort of yellow vesting from a range of groups whichever way it goes - the pressure's been building for so long and any decision on anything is going to affect the whole country long termm.

[diable rouge]

Don't worry, the Red Scarves will see them off...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47022456

I'm waiting for the Tighty Whiteys to take off...so to speak.

[JohnL]

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> malumbu Wrote:

> -----------------------------------

> It would be surprising if

> > COBR was even being used at this moment seeing

> as

> > we are not yet in crisis.

>

> Yes. But the reference was to potential future

> action. As to the specific role of the armed

> forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent

> saying the army doesn't have the training to quell

> domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long

> since they were active on the streets of Northern

> Ireland. This means army and defence insiders

> she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about the

> idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it would

> likely be the job of the police to deal with any

> civil unrest post No-Deal.

A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+ policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with riot shields - for some reason my flat was the point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs closed so I wandered and watched the looting of East Dulwich Road Tesco's.

[robbin]

Alex_b wrote: "This is leaving aside no-deal where the loss of GDPR equivalence will make working with European customers essentially impossible overnight."

Just interested - why do you think we will lose GDPR equivalence? What about the Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU Withdrawal Act?

Also, what would be so difficult for an organisation to incorporate some standard EU approved GDPR compliant clauses (regarding the handling of confidential data)into their contracts? It's not rocket science, particularly for a financial services company with access to lawyers.

[Earl Aelfheah]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > malumbu Wrote:

> > -----------------------------------

> > It would be surprising if

> > > COBR was even being used at this moment

> seeing

> > as

> > > we are not yet in crisis.

> >

> > Yes. But the reference was to potential future

> > action. As to the specific role of the armed

> > forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent

> > saying the army doesn't have the training to

> quell

> > domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long

> > since they were active on the streets of

> Northern

> > Ireland. This means army and defence insiders

> > she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about

> the

> > idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it

> would

> > likely be the job of the police to deal with

> any

> > civil unrest post No-Deal.

>

> A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+

> policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with

> riot shields - for some reason my flat was the

> point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs

> closed so I wandered and watched the looting of

> East Dulwich Road Tesco's.

The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how thin the veneer of order actually is. Police numbers have significantly reduced since then. If there are delays to supply chains and shortages in the shops, I don't think it would take much / long for people to kick off.

[robbin]

If a certain brand of cotton wool buds was a few days delayed hitting the Waitrose shelves, you could go out and shout "down with this sort of thing" just to prove you were right!

Oh, hang on a minute, with martial law and snipers around every sandbagged corner, you might be best just to post something on tweeter.

[Jenny1]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how

> thin the veneer of order actually is. Police

> numbers have significantly reduced since then. If

> there are delays to supply chains and shortages in

> the shops, I don't think it would take much / long

> for people to kick off.

That's the logical conclusion, sadly.

[diable rouge]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+

> policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with

> riot shields - for some reason my flat was the

> point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs

> closed so I wandered and watched the looting of

> East Dulwich Road Tesco's.

I think it was from that Tesco's that one of the looters posted a pic of himself that went viral, all moody gangsta stylee showing off his ill-gotten gains...a large bag of rice. I guess a man can't live off plasma screens alone...

[diable rouge]

David Allen Green on top form this morning...:)

This evening the officers' committee of the Titanic will move an amendment that the iceberg must move away from the ship.

"This sends a clear signal to the iceberg that we are determined to carry on," said Officer Brady.

[alex_b]

robbin Wrote:

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

> Alex_b wrote: "This is leaving aside no-deal where

> the loss of GDPR equivalence will make working

> with European customers essentially impossible

> overnight."

>

> Just interested - why do you think we will lose

> GDPR equivalence? What about the Data Protection

> Act 2018 and the EU Withdrawal Act?

>

> Also, what would be so difficult for an

> organisation to incorporate some standard EU

> approved GDPR compliant clauses (regarding the

> handling of confidential data)into their

> contracts? It's not rocket science, particularly

> for a financial services company with access to

> lawyers.

My understanding is that as an EU member state we are automatically deemed compliant. When we become a third country we will need to be assessed by the European Commission as compliant, but crucially this cannot take place until we are a third country. I believe in the current draft withdrawal agreement has clauses to cover this, but clearly in the case of no-deal there would be a gap from the 29th March until such time as the Commission has made it's assessment.

Just because we've maintained our standards doesn't mean that either the Commission will declare conformance on the 30th March without the proper review they would do with other third countries (that would probably be unlawful under EU and WTO rules) or that they'd necessarily find conformance (e.g. our domestic surveillance legislation may be an issue without EUCJ supervision).

Of course this may be able to be resolved in the majority of cases by rewriting every contract with new GDPR compliant clauses, but this isn't necessarily possible in the next two months and in any case may not be agreed by counterparts in other EU states (who would bear a lot of the risk if the clauses weren't sufficient).

As with most of these no-deal problems it isn't that other countries haven't found ways of resolving these issues without being part of the EU, but that those solutions have been built over time, on lower volumes of trade, with less tightly linked systems and their alternatives are more cumbersome and more expensive than the current relationship we enjoy. It would over time be possible to minimise the pain of this divergence, but in a no-deal scenario we would lose many of the legal agreements we depend on and would need to replace them with different agreements as a Third Country. In the interim there is no legal basis for a lot of cross border activities.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You can guarantee that in the event of 'no deal' brexit, the first people kicking off will be those that demanded it in the first place.

[Alan Medic]

You may have seen this before or on the same thread.....(in response to RD's last post)

[JoeLeg]

I prefer the version between the Spanish and the US navy.

[Alan Medic]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> I prefer the version between the Spanish and the

> US navy.

There are versions of this? I should have guessed.

[JoeLeg]

Yeah. This one is pretty bad (we never had an ac carrier called Britannia), but the analogy still holds up!