CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   The Politics Forum (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   Operation Yellowhammer (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=279932)

bubbs11 12-09-2019 12:16 AM

Operation Yellowhammer
 
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...dsom-live-news

The government has released its no-deal Brexit contingency plan

Brett 12-09-2019 12:18 AM

They renamed it and redacted the bit about having to close two refineries resulting in severe fuel shortages for weeks in the affected regions.

Mendacious c#nts

GreatGonzo 12-09-2019 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett (Post 14913623)
They renamed it and redacted the bit about having to close two refineries resulting in severe fuel shortages for weeks in the affected regions.

Mendacious c#nts

Apparently 1-2 weeks, if strike action took place. All could be avoided if the UK government did not put 0% tariffs on fuel imports. No mention of which refineries it is talking about.

Would like to know why it has been redacted though, on the face of it it does not look any more serious (in that they are all serious) than others that are in the report. However you would have expected a comment if they thought they had removed it as a risk.

Reps AJ 12-09-2019 07:56 AM

Rich financiers and Boris backers betting on us crashing out of the EU.

Government report says poorest will be disproportionately impacted.

But apparently people knew what they were voting for.

dogstar721 12-09-2019 09:03 AM

So project fear... Cue Brexiters lining up to say that when they said 'Project Fear' they meant it as correct.

stevek 12-09-2019 09:15 AM

This is what Michael Gove said this morning:

"The Yellowhammer documents are a worst-case scenario. They are produced so government can take plans and take steps in order to mitigate any of those consequences. And over the course of the last six weeks this government has taken considerable steps in order to ensure that, if there is a no-deal scenario, we can leave in the safest and smoothest possible way."

I am sure that it is true that the purpose of Yellowhammer was to set out the risks to enable the government to plan and take steps to address them. What amazes me - given that they must have known there was a high chance they'd be forced to publish Yellowhammer - is that the Government has published nothing alongside it to show how they have mitigations in hand and it will all be ok (or at least much less bad). If such information exists, that would surely have been a sensible thing to do both politically and to reassure the public.

They fact they haven't been able to do that is what really worries me.

Skintagain 12-09-2019 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reps AJ (Post 14913734)
Rich financiers and Boris backers betting on us crashing out of the EU.

Government report says poorest will be disproportionately impacted.

But apparently people knew what they were voting for.

Get in on it.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...no-deal-brexit

dogstar721 12-09-2019 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevek (Post 14913804)
This is what Michael Gove said this morning:

"The Yellowhammer documents are a worst-case scenario. They are produced so government can take plans and take steps in order to mitigate any of those consequences. And over the course of the last six weeks this government has taken considerable steps in order to ensure that, if there is a no-deal scenario, we can leave in the safest and smoothest possible way."

I am sure that it is true that the purpose of Yellowhammer was to set out the risks to enable the government to plan and take steps to address them. What amazes me - given that they must have known there was a high chance they'd be forced to publish Yellowhammer - is that the Government has published nothing alongside it to show how they have mitigations in hand and it will all be ok (or at least much less bad). If such information exists, that would surely have been a sensible thing to do both politically and to reassure the public.

They fact they haven't been able to do that is what really worries me.

Actually it won't be the Worse Case Scenario, its the most reasonable Worse Case Scenario.

It suggests to me, on reflection of the fact that it exposes a reality of Brexit Politicians being bare faced liars, that there is no contingency or mitigation of sufficent level.

Because thats how you do risk planning. You determine the possible outcomes, their likelyhood, and determine how you will mitiagte them and determine the likely effectiveness of that mitigation against the different risks and risk levels.

If you're planning for a worst case scenario, it means you expect it (i.e. there is a reasonable threat). You present evidencial arguements as to how you can mitigate risks (entirely) and how the impact will be reduced - and what the likely impact that remains would be.

I would argue if the government hasn't published any evidence of mitigation and impact reduction, then the degree to which it can mitigate and reduce the risk and issue threats isn't very good reading either.

Because if I was sitting presenting Brexit as a good idea, and the Yellowhammer documents painted a worse case scenario, I would immediately publish details of how the risks would be mitigated.

Because that is how you determine whether an approch is 'reasonable' you ascertain the likely risks against your mitigation plans - and present that as the probably outcome.

Business does this all the time. Determine risk, devise and test mitigation, review results, re-assess the approch.

Writing it off as a worse case scenario, so its ok, isn't reasonable or remotely sane. The worse case scenario of falling in the sea, is you drown. That generally means you don't go to sea, unless you have reduced all the risks related to falling in the sea to the best of your ability - and then prove that, before jumping into the ocean.

What we actually have is people being advised that the sea is safe, without anyone telling them that being able to swim is important, recording and displaying the safety signs etc because they're scared of scaring people.

(ie You ensure everyone on the boat can swim, that you have life jackets, cold weather and hyperthermia treatment, first aid kits are up to date, that you have signalling equipment for individuals, you have working processes relating to working in pairs etc etc).

The Misfit 12-09-2019 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogstar721 (Post 14913817)
What we actually have is people being advised that the sea is safe, without anyone telling them that being able to swim is important, recording and displaying the safety signs etc because they're scared of scaring people.

(ie You ensure everyone on the boat can swim, that you have life jackets, cold weather and hyperthermia treatment, first aid kits are up to date, that you have signalling equipment for individuals, you have working processes relating to working in pairs etc etc).

Come in everybody, the water's lovely.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/be/8f/cf/b...5383dbf46d.jpg

Hpalace 12-09-2019 10:07 AM

The idea that this is worst case scenario is simply nonsense.

Take section 18: Day 1; no hard border however this is "unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigations to address this will be available" (who knew) ... "This will be particularly severe in border communities where both criminal and dissident groups already operate with greater threat and impunity"

I would suggest that this is best case scenario as the worst case would be terrorist attacks in Belfast, Derry and London. The worst case will be the necessary border which yellowhammer admits is necessary will be attacked and blown up. The worst case is the police will then be sent to protect it and will be killed, then the army, then revenge attacks by the UVF and UFF before we are right back to where we started - quickly.

The idea that this is worst case is childish, ignores the situation on the ground and is obvious, palpable nonsense. It is best case. That much is as clear as day.

Reps AJ 12-09-2019 10:31 AM

Apparently the worst case scenario is Operation BlackSwan. Those papers havent yet been released.

GreatGonzo 12-09-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogstar721 (Post 14913817)
Actually it won't be the Worse Case Scenario, its the most reasonable Worse Case Scenario.

It includes major flooding over the winter and a flu pandemic so they are factoring in some significant and unknown risks.

SKATE 12-09-2019 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo (Post 14913861)
It includes major flooding over the winter and a flu pandemic so they are factoring in some significant and unknown risks.

They are not talking about a flu pandemic (that's on a worldwide scale and rare) but merely the usual winter flu. You should know that.

dogstar721 12-09-2019 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo (Post 14913861)
It includes major flooding over the winter and a flu pandemic so they are factoring in some significant and unknown risks.

Fairly reasonable risks, given we generally have some flooding and there is a reasonable risk from Flu, given 2018 was the worst outbreak of flu in the last decade, killing three times as many people. In winter months influenza strains represent a significant factor in NHS resourcing.

Flu (and related respetory diseases) account for hundreds of thousands of GP appointments, tens of thousands of hospitalisations and an average of 600 deaths per year (note that 2008 to 2009 saw between 10-13,000 deaths from complications from flu).

A flu pandemic isn't unreasonable, because we do generally have a major flu outbreak in the UK. To not plan for a pandemic would be ill advised - as epidemics are not uncommon in the UK - and the worst period is generally between October and March, so it does have a direct issue if we left the EU on the 31st October 2019, had issues with medical supply delays, and a subsequently flu epidemic.

Pandemic needs to be considered as if there is a shortage of medical supplies in the UK, and a pandemic is affecting the rest of the world who supply medicine (Europe and US) then its very realistic to assume we would not be able to receive any additional supplies, even if we mitigated for designated flights to ship medicine.

Everyone under estimates the risk of Flu.

dogstar721 12-09-2019 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKATE (Post 14913875)
They are not talking about a flu pandemic (that's on a worldwide scale and rare) but merely the usual winter flu. You should know that.

See above as to why it should consider a pandemic in Europe or the US, if Brexit affects medical supplies. Its not just then a case of buying additional supplies and air freighting them. It'd be no additional supplies, as those countries would rightly focus on their own population. Normally, we would shift treatments and medicines around the EU as required - and tackle the pandemic through a coordinated effort.

Without free movement, and free trade that becomes more problematic.

dogstar721 12-09-2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reps AJ (Post 14913855)
Apparently the worst case scenario is Operation BlackSwan. Those papers havent yet been released.


Isn't that the operation that led the capture, or more correctly recapture, of the leader of the Sinoloa Cartel El Chapo.

stevek 12-09-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo (Post 14913861)
It includes major flooding over the winter and a flu pandemic so they are factoring in some significant and unknown risks.

They are 'significant' because there's a pretty high chance of them happening. Your straw clutching is pretty impressive.

GreatGonzo 12-09-2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKATE (Post 14913875)
They are not talking about a flu pandemic (that's on a worldwide scale and rare) but merely the usual winter flu. You should know that.

You might want to contact the BBC about their editorial inaccuracies then.

economic difficulties could be "exacerbated" by flooding or a flu pandemic this winter.

GreatGonzo 12-09-2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevek (Post 14913897)
They are 'significant' because there's a pretty high chance of them happening. Your straw clutching is pretty impressive.

SKATE says pandemic isn't going to happen that it is just the usual winter flu, stevek says it is likely to happen.

Its had to debate when the other side of the debate are saying polar opposite things.

Spindle 12-09-2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatGonzo (Post 14913729)
Apparently 1-2 weeks, if strike action took place. All could be avoided if the UK government did not put 0% tariffs on fuel imports. No mention of which refineries it is talking about.

Would like to know why it has been redacted though, on the face of it it does not look any more serious (in that they are all serious) than others that are in the report. However you would have expected a comment if they thought they had removed it as a risk.

Possibly because, if you recall the fuel protests a decade or so ago, the country was put into chaos within a few days.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.