Brexit and General UK politics thread

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd say its a pretty safe guess British Trump will do whatever he feels will benefit him at the moment.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

If the Queen intervened like that, I suspect they'd just be trading Brexit for a second English Civil War.

We'll get one of those anyway at the rate we're going. All those worst-case scenarios the Civil Service worked out, the ones about empty supermarket shelves and supply-chains getting screwed up because shipments were held up in port? Those were all worked out on the assumption that the government would bother to do some actual damage control. I don't trust BoJo to do more than order the Army to suppress the riots and just let the "surplus population" die off.

I have paid this prospect some thought; perhaps more than is good for me. Here's what I've got.

As I see it, it comes down to just how bad the disruptions are. That is, just how many people find themselves less able to find food than they are already. The World Bank put forward a figure of 2 million undernourished people in the UK (in 2016 IIRC), while a Guardian article a while back claimed that 4 million children lived in households unable to afford a healthy diet in accordance with government advice. The highest figure I have heard for food poverty is 8 million.

My point? In the event of severe disruption to food supply, we are looking at millions of potential food rioters. To oppose them, the government has at most 120,000 police officers, and around 90,000 soldiers and marines. If they call out all Territorials and Reservists, scrape the bottom of the barrel, and they all turn up, that figure will reach at most 150,000. So we have less than 300,000 police and soldiers - at the very most - versus millions of hungry, frightened, angry, and desperate people.

And food rioters aren't even the worst of it. They just want food, and will only injure or kill those who get in their way. In the end, they're a distraction. The real threat are the hard cases, the organised criminals and political/religious extremists who might be tempted to come out of the woodwork while the authorities are run ragged.

In an extreme worst-comes-to-worst scenario, we're looking at anarchy; total breakdown of law and order, and nobody strong enough to step into the gap on a national level. More likely we're looking at a more gradual scenario; with law and order - and conventional civility - breaking down slowly over several years.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

In the meantime, something a little more grounded.

Bank of England warns of 1 in 3 chance of Brexit recession

Committee votes 9-0 to keep interest rates at 0.75% as uncertainty drags down the UK economy

Richard Partington
@RJPartington

Thu 1 Aug 2019 12.14 BST
Last modified on Thu 1 Aug 2019 12.59 BST

Britain has a one in three chance of plunging into recession as uncertainty over Brexit drags down the economy, the Bank of England has warned.

Keeping interest rates on hold as the risks to the economy mount, the central bank said business investment was stalling, while heightened international trade tensions and a slowdown in the global economy was also having an impact on UK growth.

The Bank’s nine-member monetary policy committee (MPC) voted unanimously to leave interest rates on hold at 0.75%.

Publishing its quarterly inflation report after a plunge in the pound and as the chance of no-deal Brexit steadily mounts, the Bank said there was a 33% probability of negative growth by the start of 2020.
Bank of England holds interest rates as it cuts growth outlook – as it happened
Read more

Threadneedle Street penciled in zero growth for GDP in the second quarter even before Britain leaves the EU. Economic growth over the near term has become subdued “reflecting more entrenched Brexit uncertainties”, it added.

Boris Johnson’s warning that he could drag Britain out of the EU without a deal within 100 days has sent sterling tumbling to the lowest levels in more than two years.

Since his elevation to No 10, sterling has crashed below $1.22 against the US dollar and recorded the worst performance of any major currency in the world over the month of July.

“These asset prices reflect market participants’ perceptions of the likelihood and consequences of a no-deal Brexit,” the Bank said.

Despite the growing risks to the economy, the Bank said it continued to assume a smooth Brexit deal with Brussels can be reached – a position it acknowledged was increasingly inconsistent with the market reaction.
Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

The central bank must match official government policy, and Johnson still has an ambition to strike an agreement with Brussels. However, several key Johnson allies, including Michael Gove, have indicated that no-deal has risen up the agenda as the government’s “operating assumption”.

Should Britain crash out without a deal, the Bank warned the pound could drop sharply and inflation would rise and GDP growth would slow further.

However, should the UK agree a deal, it suggested interest rates would need to rise to combat rising inflation over the next three years.

“Assuming a smooth Brexit and a recovery in global growth, a significant margin of excess demand was likely to build,” the Bank said, adding: “Were that to occur, the MPC judged that increases in interest rates, at a gradual pace and to a limited extent, would be appropriate.”

Project Fear is drawing ever closer to Project Reality.

[His Divine Shadow]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-victory

I’ve always hated “Irish jokes”. Having an Irish mother, I’ve always been aware how they were used to denigrate Irish people and undermine the cause of Irish nationalism. There’s one joke, though, I’ve always enjoyed. It’s the one where the guy asks the Irishman for directions, to which he replies: “Well, if I were you I wouldn’t be starting from here.” It’s stuck with me because it offers a real life lesson that I find myself regularly referring to.

Back in the 1980s and 90s, it’s a lesson I should have heeded, as I argued and canvassed for a socialist Labour government when, in hindsight, it was clear that British voters had been wowed by Margaret Thatcher’s strong leadership and populist policies. For my arguments to get through, I shouldn’t have been starting from there. People such as Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell recognised this and modified Labour’s message to resonate with these same voters to spectacular effect.

Yet, seeing Campbell announce this week that he’s given up on the Labour party, mainly because under Jeremy Corbyn it won’t go all-out remain, I couldn’t help wondering if he shouldn’t also take heed of that Irish lesson. Because if you want Labour to be a pure remain party – against the wishes of so many of its marginalised, traditional voters, particularly those working-class people in the north – then don’t do it after a referendum in which those same voters had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to actually make their vote count. Don’t choose this moment to tell millions of long-standing party supporters that you’re ignoring their deeply held views.

I, like Campbell, am a remainer. I also still want to reverse Brexit. But you can’t stick two fingers up to a huge chunk of your voter base and not expect a negative reaction. It’s why he spent so many years triangulating in the 1990s, trying to work out a middle way. How ironic that Campbell now condems Corbyn for doing exactly the same.

Corbyn is facing far more flak for this today than New Labour did 20 years ago, and that’s because many on the right of the party don’t actually want to see him win power. (If you want proof, look at Stephen Kinnock’s stony-faced reaction, captured by a BBC documentary camera, as the news broke that Theresa May had lost her majority in the 2017 election.) Many of those in and around politics still yearn for the Blair-Brown era when they were close to power. They’re not worried about the damage Labour would suffer by going “full remain”: an election defeat would merely hasten the day when the hated Corbyn steps down.

Others say that now Boris Johnson has energised the hard right and united his cabinet over no deal, Corbyn must do the same – but for remain. This is nonsense. Johnson has already seen the damage caused by his rash decision-making. He’s boxed himself in by refusing to talk to European leaders until they ditch the backstop; he’s been slapped down by Nicola Sturgeon and learned that his stance is boosting the cause of Scottish independence; he’s faced angry Welsh farmers whose livelihood is threatened by no-deal tariffs; and he’s gone to Northern Ireland, where he’s been told that the peace process is at risk. And in Brecon and Radnorshire he’s tasted defeat after just a week in office, losing an 8,000 majority. Far from rallying supporters, his Brexit stance has just piled up his problems. He can’t even rely on the party’s hardcore Brexiteers to support any deal he might achieve with Europe.

One thing I do appreciate about Johnson, though, is his optimism. I’m an optimist too. In fact, the more I see of him, the more optimistic I get.

An early election – before we’ve left the EU – looks ever more likely. And it will be a choice between Johnson’s no-deal Brexit, and Labour, which has pledged to keep remain on the table but while still showing a sensitivity to leave voters. The precise stance depends on the election’s timing (as it must), but it’s clear that Labour is against no deal, and open to the possibility of negotiating a Labour Brexit, while promising a referendum on any deal that is struck. I’m no fan of a Labour Brexit, but, like I say, I wouldn’t be starting from here, and like it or not a majority of people voted for us to leave the EU.

That policy didn’t work in this year’s European elections, when it paid to have a clear message on leave or remain. Labour finished third, behind the Brexit party and the Liberal Democrats, a result that freaked out many Corbyn supporters. But these elections are notorious for being a repository for protest votes. The election was a proxy referendum, people voted along Brexit lines. There was no nuance. The policies that have made Corbyn so popular were not on the ballot: anti-austerity, support for public services, renationalisation, and fairer taxes for the richest. In a general election, the voters would face a simple choice: back Boris Johnson and the no-deal extremists, or back Labour and the chance to remain.

Of course, if it’s all so rosy, people will ask why the party isn’t way ahead in the polls, especially against this divided and useless government. But now, with the nation in crisis, it’s not that easy to forge ahead. It could just as easily be said: if remain is so great, why isn’t the demand for a People’s Vote way ahead in the polls, especially set against such divisive and useless Brexit negotiations for the past three years?

And I’d also say: cast your mind back just two years to a divided opposition party 20 points behind in the polls, which under Corbyn all but made up the gap in a few short weeks of general election campaigning. The situation may not be exactly the same today (let’s face it, Johnson will be a far better campaigner than May, though, like her when she called the election, he’s had the almost undivided loyalty of the national press so far). But he is untested in a battle for mainstream voters.

The last time the Tories won an election – the only time they’ve won in the past 27 years – they had a great soundbite that struck home in the last few days of the 2015 campaign: Labour, in alliance with the Scottish National party, would “bankrupt Britain and break up Britain”. Today, who would break up Britain? Johnson and his insistence on a hard Brexit that risks Scottish independence and Irish reunification. Who will bankrupt Britain? Again, Johnson and his no-deal tactics, which the Bank of England has warned would lead to an “instantaneous shock” to the economy.

An election victory is no easy feat, it never is, but to those who genuinely want a Labour victory, do not lose hope. In 2014, at the previous European elections, the Conservatives came in third place. Within a year, they were voted into government with a majority.

Maybe here’s not such a bad place to start from.

[madd0ct0r]

Pretty insightful that i think.

[SpottedKitty]

Pretty insightful that i think.

With the exception of this bit (second paragraph):

in hindsight, it was clear that British voters had been wowed by Margaret Thatcher’s strong leadership and populist policies.

Ha.

Ha.

Ha.

[Zaune]

He said "strong" leadership, not "wise", "just" or "humane".

[The Romulan Republic]

Its unfortunately common for people to mistake cruelty and harshness for strength. Its a big part of why so-called "strong men" get elected. Its why a wishy-washy, thin-skinned ignoramous like Trump could be seen as a "strong leader".

[madd0ct0r]

And thing is, thatcher was popular. Not for the recipients of her class war, but a majority of the electorate elected her to do that class war. To break the unions, put the working class back in their box and give everyone else a comfortable safe flabby existence

[Juubi Karakuchi]

And thing is, thatcher was popular. Not for the recipients of her class war, but a majority of the electorate elected her to do that class war. To break the unions, put the working class back in their box and give everyone else a comfortable safe flabby existence

I'd say you're right.

Thatcher's popularity was to a great extent built on the back of class war. Crushing the unions appealed to a certain subset of the middle class who regarded the working classes as bolshy, workshy, and unpatriotic.

To be fair, the unions were not entirely blameless. As pointed out by Corelli Barnett and James Hamilton-Paterson among others, wildcat strikes, demarcation disputes, and go-slows wrought havoc even in World War Two (contrary to patriotic myth), and contributed to the decline of several industries afterwards - notably shipbuilding. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the suspicion and resentment aimed at the workers may have derived from folk memory of this kind of thing.

But this is only accurate as far as it goes. To really understand what was going on, one must bear in mind where the unions came from. They emerged as a reaction against Victorian laissez-faire ideology; to which some in the Brexit crowd seemingly want to drag the UK back. Having to fight tooth-and-nail against both the bosses and the state invariably bred a certain mindset in the unions, and in the working classes in general. In the latter half of the 20th century, workers tended to see managers as ignorant incompetents with business studies degrees, while managers saw the workers as troublemakers who needed to be crushed.

Unfortunately, a lot of Thatcher's supporters didn't it like this. All they saw was badly-managed businesses full of bolshy workers, to which Thatcher was taking a hammer. Factor in that the City of London yuppies were making fortunes overnight, and North Sea oil was conveniently coming online, and people were all too easily convinced that everything was fine, that the old industry was no longer necessary, and that the New Elizabethan promise - of greatness and wealth without empire - was being realised.

And then the 2008 Crash happened. And here we are.

[His Divine Shadow]

I heard a great term for the lib dems who have said they'd rather have hard brexit than Corbyn as PM recently, Metaloaf remainers.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I heard a great term for the lib dems who have said they'd rather have hard brexit than Corbyn as PM recently, Metaloaf remainers.

That term is sufficiently bizarre for a rather bizarre position.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm not sure if you got it or not from that reply, so I'll say "I'd Do Anything for Remain (But I Won't Do That)"

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I'm not sure if you got it or not from that reply, so I'll say "I'd Do Anything for Remain (But I Won't Do That)"

I sort-of got it. Sorry about that.

[Vendetta]

I heard a great term for the lib dems who have said they'd rather have hard brexit than Corbyn as PM recently, Metaloaf remainers.

To be fair that's the only thing they agree with the hardest of hardcore brexit tories. They will accept any price for Brexit, the breakup of the union, a recession, the destruction of the tory party, anything except Corbyn as PM.

[Coop D'etat]

I heard a great term for the lib dems who have said they'd rather have hard brexit than Corbyn as PM recently, Metaloaf remainers.

To be fair that's the only thing they agree with the hardest of hardcore brexit tories. They will accept any price for Brexit, the breakup of the union, a recession, the destruction of the tory party, anything except Corbyn as PM.

If Corbyn inspires such mass antipathy, something which is reflected in having a disapproval rating around 67%, and personal and party support of around 20% and currently ruining behind previous third parties in support, does it not follow that he's a horrifically poor choice for a leader of major party trying to win elections.

A lot of stuff from Corbyn's supporters about how other people are flawed for being against him seem to ignore that the first job of a political leader is to have popular support. That the guy inspires vociferous opposition in so many quarters is not a sign of personal merit, it's a sign of personal unsuitability as a candidate for the premiership.

[The Romulan Republic]

I heard a great term for the lib dems who have said they'd rather have hard brexit than Corbyn as PM recently, Metaloaf remainers.

To be fair that's the only thing they agree with the hardest of hardcore brexit tories. They will accept any price for Brexit, the breakup of the union, a recession, the destruction of the tory party, anything except Corbyn as PM.

If Corbyn inspires such mass antipathy, something which is reflected in having a disapproval rating around 67%, and personal and party support of around 20% and currently ruining behind previous third parties in support, does it not follow that he's a horrifically poor choice for a leader of major party trying to win elections.

A lot of stuff from Corbyn's supporters about how other people are flawed for being against him seem to ignore that the first job of a political leader is to have popular support. That the guy inspires vociferous opposition in so many quarters is not a sign of personal merit, it's a sign of personal unsuitability as a candidate for the premiership.

It strikes me, at least at first glance, as very similar to the mindset of a lot of third party supporters (and Bernie or Busters) in the US seem to hold- they pride themselves on holding fringe positions, value ideological purity (to the extent that "fuck the Establishment" is a coherent ideology) over all else, and see "compromise" as synonymous with "corruption". As a consequence, they refuse to take the steps that would allow them to become a big tent party (the only way you can ever actually win in politics, particularly but not exclusively in a democracy), and instead treat their fringe status as a virtue and insist that any losses are because the big bad system rigged it against them, and that anyone who disagrees with them is brainwashed/sheeple/a puppet.

This, incidentally, is why the Greens and Libertarians will never, ever win an election- probably not even if the Democrats and Republicans both imploded tomorrow. Its certainly why they will never, ever have my vote- not because I think that I have to vote for the "lesser of two evils", but because, in terms of candidates and policies, they are legitimately shittier options than the Democrats at their worst- and only marginally better than the Republicans*.

Not sure how much this deliberately self-kneecapping mindset fits Corbyn's supporters, but it sure sounds familiar.

Like it or not, getting anything done in politics means getting broad support, or at least broad acceptance, of your ideas. If not a majority, then at least close to it. That doesn't mean abandoning your core principles for expediency, but it does mean that you have to be able to package and sell those principles in a way that's appealing to the masses, and you have to be able and willing to make deals with people you don't like very much. If you can't do that, or you're too proud or stubborn to try, then you need to find yourself another line of work.




*Of course, the Republicans are doing the same fucking thing, though in their case its basically making anyone who isn't a rich straight white conservative Bible Belt native-born American man who is personally loyal to Trump their enemy. They've only held on as a major party this long on inertia, cheating, and being very good at using divide and conquer tactics against the larger opposition. And even then, they're maybe one or two election cycles away from demographics irreversibly fucking them as a national party, unless they succeed in ethnically cleansing the country. Ideologically purity and extremism with zero compromise is a great way to motivate a small, rabid base to turn out, but it trades long-term viability for short-term gains (as well as making you beholden to the whack-jobs).

[His Divine Shadow]

If Corbyn inspires such mass antipathy, something which is reflected in having a disapproval rating around 67%, and personal and party support of around 20% and currently ruining behind previous third parties in support, does it not follow that he's a horrifically poor choice for a leader of major party trying to win elections.

A lot of stuff from Corbyn's supporters about how other people are flawed for being against him seem to ignore that the first job of a political leader is to have popular support. That the guy inspires vociferous opposition in so many quarters is not a sign of personal merit, it's a sign of personal unsuitability as a candidate for the premiership.

Too bad you couldn't have someone sensible like owen smith or chuka umunna eh.

[Zaune]

There's also the small matter that what Mr Corbyn actually wants to do as Prime Minister and what the popular press claim he wants to do have only a notional relationship. I think I already linked to the study on this subject from the London School of Economics, but if not it's here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communic ... emy-corbyn

This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

The study itself is too long to quote in its entirety, but it makes for decidedly grim reading. If this is going to be routine and accepted behaviour from the news media then we might as well give up on democracy entirely, because how are we supposed to make an informed choice about who to vote for if the vast majority of the press discards good-faith reporting of the facts in the name of pushing their preferred ideological agenda?

[Vendetta]

I heard a great term for the lib dems who have said they'd rather have hard brexit than Corbyn as PM recently, Metaloaf remainers.

To be fair that's the only thing they agree with the hardest of hardcore brexit tories. They will accept any price for Brexit, the breakup of the union, a recession, the destruction of the tory party, anything except Corbyn as PM.

If Corbyn inspires such mass antipathy, something which is reflected in having a disapproval rating around 67%, and personal and party support of around 20% and currently ruining behind previous third parties in support, does it not follow that he's a horrifically poor choice for a leader of major party trying to win elections.

A lot of stuff from Corbyn's supporters about how other people are flawed for being against him seem to ignore that the first job of a political leader is to have popular support. That the guy inspires vociferous opposition in so many quarters is not a sign of personal merit, it's a sign of personal unsuitability as a candidate for the premiership.

Oh yeah. Two and a bit years ago he was very popular with a new wave of freshly politically engaged voters who have twigged to the fact that the system is designed to fuck them over, keep them from buying houses ever, keep them from having stable jobs ever, and generally shackle them to paying for the lifestyles of the previous generations, especially the rich members of them.

But all those people really hate Brexit and Corbyn is just fine with it. Remember his whole plan is to see Rome burnt but not be thought of as Nero.

[His Divine Shadow]

There's also the small matter that what Mr Corbyn actually wants to do as Prime Minister and what the popular press claim he wants to do have only a notional relationship. I think I already linked to the study on this subject from the London School of Economics, but if not it's here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communic ... emy-corbyn

This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

The study itself is too long to quote in its entirety, but it makes for decidedly grim reading. If this is going to be routine and accepted behaviour from the news media then we might as well give up on democracy entirely, because how are we supposed to make an informed choice about who to vote for if the vast majority of the press discards good-faith reporting of the facts in the name of pushing their preferred ideological agenda?

It's well known by now, I would have thought that the UK media is scarcely more reliable than the russian one. This is why Labour did such a turnabout when the media election rules kicked into gear wich forced more fair coverage of labour policies rather than constant smear attempts.

And it won't help to replace Corbyn either, because he doesn't inspire mass antipathy in people, he's one of the most popular leaders in Labours history. It's his politics that inspire mass antipathy in the media and ruling classes. If Corbyn where to be replaced with someone of equal policies nothing would change in how this new guy would be treated. The smear machine would just keep on flinging at that guy and soon we'll have this new fake narrative of how new guy inspires antipathy in people.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://cbc.ca/news/world/brexit-leaked ... -1.5251556

Secret British government documents have warned of serious disruptions across the country in the event that the U.K. leaves the European Union without a trade deal on Oct. 31, according to a report.

The Sunday Times newspaper published what it said was what the British government expects in the case of a sudden, "no-deal" Brexit. Among the most serious effects: "significant" disruptions to the supply of drugs and medicine, a decrease in the availability of fresh food and even potential fresh water shortages due to possible interruptions of imported water treatment chemicals.

Although the grim scenarios reportedly outlined in the government documents have long been floated by academics and economists, they've been repeatedly dismissed as scare-mongering by Brexit proponents.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he is ready to leave the EU regardless of whether he is able to renegotiate the Brexit deal struck with Brussels by his predecessor, Theresa May.

His own officials, however, have warned that with a no-deal Brexit, the sharing of law enforcement data and the health of Britain's crucial financial services industry could be in jeopardy after Oct. 31.

The documents published by the Times also quote officials as warning that up to 85 per cent of all trucks wouldn't be ready for French customs at the critical English Channel crossing that day, causing lines that could stretch out for days. Some 75 per cent of all drugs coming into Britain arrive via that crossing, the memos warned, "making them particularly vulnerable to severe delays."

The officials foresee "critical elements" of the food supply chain being affected that would "reduce availability and choice and increase the price, which will affect vulnerable groups."

Britain's Cabinet Office didn't return a message seeking comment on the documents, but Michael Gove, the British minister in charge of no-deal preparations, insisted that the files represented a "worst case scenario."

Very "significant steps have been taken in the last three weeks to accelerate Brexit planning," he said in a message posted to Twitter.

But the documents, which are titled "planning assumptions," mention a "base scenario," not a "worst case" one. The Times quoted an unnamed Cabinet Office source as saying the memos were simply realistic assessments of what was most likely to happen.

The opposition Labour Party, which is trying to delay Brexit and organize a government of national unity, held up the report as another sign that no-deal must be avoided.

"It seems to me is what we've seen is a hard-headed assessment of reality, that sets out in really stark terms what a calamitous outcome of no-deal Brexit would mean for the United Kingdom," lawmaker Nick Thomas-Symonds told Sky News television. "The government is reckless in the way it's been pushing forward with no-deal planning in this way."

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country is ready for Brexit, even without a deal to smooth the transition.

Merkel said Sunday during an open house at the chancellery in Berlin that she would "try everything in my power to find solutions" and that "I believe that it would be better to leave with an agreement than without one."

But she added that "should it come to that we are prepared for this eventuality too."

Even in the age of Trump, I'm not sure I've ever seen a government engage in more stubborn sabotage of its own nation.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Even in the age of Trump, I'm not sure I've ever seen a government engage in more stubborn sabotage of its own nation.

Actually, I have... and it is usually when the words 'too much democracy' is in the same sentence. Democracy has always been a numbers game, and without any checks on the House of Commons, Britains will dominate the politics. Now that I look at it, the House of Commons has been tearing apart Britain for quite some time now, and we're seeing the end result of that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Even in the age of Trump, I'm not sure I've ever seen a government engage in more stubborn sabotage of its own nation.

Actually, I have... and it is usually when the words 'too much democracy' is in the same sentence. Democracy has always been a numbers game, and without any checks on the House of Commons, Britains will dominate the politics. Now that I look at it, the House of Commons has been tearing apart Britain for quite some time now, and we're seeing the end result of that.

I'm pretty sure even most Britains don't actually want their country to become a failed state. They've just been duped by Neo-Fascist Quisling scum like Farage.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I'm pretty sure even most Britains don't actually want their country to become a failed state. They've just been duped by Neo-Fascist Quisling scum like Farage.

Given Britain's history (it's colonial endeavors near and far make for some pretty damn grim reading)... I wouldn't say duped... at least not completely. Given that Brexit has been under MI-5's microscope (and like any counter-intel operation, not a peep is coming out), it is probably a combination of overarching mentality coming to roost (Britain was completely dead set on 'Europe must be Divided at all Costs'), the gutting of various key countermeasures (i.e. the House of Lords and the crown getting their power for all intents and purposes taken away from them), and Russia doing an intensive cyber-war and mimetic campaign alongside some duped.

I wouldn't be surprised that once this shit show is done and over with, we'll see a severe reversal in how power is distributed in Britain.