While Remainers haven’t even got off the starting blocks – a detailed list of anti-EU lies and fake news claiming what would happen if the UK remained in the EU is already being circulated widely by Leave campaigners in preparation for a 2nd referendum.
The Leavers have even falsely used the name of a real former army helicopter pilot – Richard Knocker – as the author of a Facebookpost to try to give it more credibility.
Mr Knocker denies being the author of the lies being circulated:
The lies on the list include fake news that if the UK remains in the EU it will be forced to join the Euro and the Schengen zone, that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be made redundant and ALL national vetoes will be scrapped (click to enlarge):
The fake news post is being shared by people like Tommy Robinson and others, and is already starting to ‘leak’ onto the timelines of ordinary voters – many of whom may believe the lies.
It is VERY IMPORTANT that remainers WORK TOGETHER to debunk these lies by sharing any debunking of this fake news.
Sharing WORKS. Facebook posts can reach a lot of people in a very short time. Leavers are EXPERTS at this. We must be too.
Facebook, Twitter etc promote posts with high activity, and that is how we will also be able to get our message out there.
So please share this blog post. Thanks.
Below is the full post of the fake news being widely shared. However, I would ask to be careful sharing any of this below WITHOUT any CLEAR debunking of the lies, otherwise it may just help to spread the anti-Remain smears further.
————– CAUTION. THE FOLLOWING IS FAKE NEWS ——————-
From: Richard Knocker (Ex-pilot in the Gulf wars)
OK so we’ve had the worst-case scenario for leaving the EU given to us by numerous outlets ranging from the Bank of England to the spoiled prepubescent acting momentum supporter and everyone in-between.
So, I am now going to tell you the worst-case scenario of remaining in the EU based on actual known factors and figures, sourced from the public records of the UK Government, the EU Parliament, The Bank of England, the CBI, Migration watch, The Stock exchanges around the world, the IMF, and the UN.
So those of you who think that this little rant is a tin foil hat moment by myself think again and go and fully research and cross reference what I am about to tell you and remember this is worst-case scenario that could happen unless I clearly point out where it will happen by either a date or other factor.
KNOWN OUTCOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES:
1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s. 3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen the move is fully cancelled but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.
7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.
8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.
9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.
10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights
11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights
12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty
13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation
14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent
15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy
16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them
17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth
18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.; Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar ect
19: The UK loses control of its judicial system
20: The UK loses control of its international policy
21: The UK loses full control of its national policy
22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.
23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program
24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction
25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty
26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020
PROBABLE WORST-CASE OUTCOMES
1: The UK will become nothing more than a vassal protectorate state
2: With the continuation of freedom of movement, the population of the UK will continue to grow at a rate higher than pre-referendum level ranging between 400,000 to 675,000 per annum.
2.1; Which will result in not just wage suppression but even wage depression.
2.2; More than 500,000 new homes to be built annually (We are currently only managing 125,000)
2.3; House prices and rents will skyrocket annually by 23%
2.4; Class sizes in schools would have to increase by 50% if not even double
2.5; The NHS will become solely an emergency service of care provider as they would no longer be able to cope with the numbers of people needing care other than those of emergency.
2.6; GP’s will become triage centres
2.7; Public transport will become permit holders use only
2.8; Only those that did a serious crime namely murder will be given a custodial sentence
2.9; The Court system becomes fully overrun to the point extreme cases only being heard and the rest being given an automatic fine
2.10; Emergency services collapsing for not being able to cope with the scale of things
2.11; Social care becoming solely private social care for those who can afford it.
2.12; Homelessness to increase by over 28% annually
2.13; Unemployment to increase annually by 37%
2.14; The Benefit system to collapse fully to the point of the return of soup kitchens and even workhouse existence
2.15; Crime to increase by over 59% annually
2.16; Shanty towns to become the norm standard of housing
3: Because the UK would no longer be able to make its own trade deals, nor control its tariffs or quotas, Food prices would increase by over 25% and the cost of living would go up by over 39%
4: Because the UK would lose its oil and gas rights it would also lose the revenue from taxation on them, resulting in a loss of over 600 billion per year in taxation revenue
5: Because the UK will become a member state its percentage share of the vote on any new laws, regulations, treaties and everything else is at current member numbers 3.57% of the vote. That’s right folks the UK say in the EU if it was to remain a member is 3.57% total
Everything I have put thus far is just the very extreme tip of the iceberg that is ready to sink the UK if we remain a member of the EU.
Everything is verifiable by the sources I have already outlined above and is something the EU propaganda machine as well as our very own government are not telling you.
Remainers keep on bleating about that the people didn’t know all of the facts
If that’s the case then why are they failing to tell the people the downside or remaining a member of the EU.
ASK YOURSELVES THAT FACT AND FIND OUT THE TRUE HARD FACTS FOR YOURSELF
Richard Knocker
—————— END OF FAKE NEWS ———————
Ian George Pendlebury said:
I don’t want an EU army, the EU is not democratic, the Common Market was a trading association not as now a political alliance. They sell more to us than we sell to them and we pay in more than we receive back!!!
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Leavers ALREADY campaigning to win second referendum on social media – with even WORSE LIES than before | Pride’s Purge | kickingthecat
Paul F said:
The most important thing IMO about a People’s Vote referendum is NOT the result – IMO the ABSOLUTE most important thing is that the referendum is run genuinely democratically, without blatant lies and spending cheating that characterised the first referendum and trashed both its own legitimacy and democracy as a whole.
If the campaign for the first referendum had been truthful and respected the legalities, then Remainers like me would have accepted the result. But it wasn’t. It was based on blatant lies, and blatant cheating on campaign spending (for which the culprits were not jailed, but instead were given ministerial positions as a reward), and despite being promised a Soft Brexit deal which retained access to the Single Market and kept us in THE Customs Union, instead we have a hard Brexit deal or Ultra-Hard Brexit no-deal, primarily because the Leave campaigners who promised a Soft Brexit switched tack the second they won the referendum and have done everything they can to veto any compromises (however sensible) and head us towards a no-deal Brexit.
This is NOT democracy – it is simply a hijacking. And this is why Brexit is so divisive – because neither side is going to accept any compromise when they believe that the referendum result and negotiations have not been fair.
What the UK needs more than anything else – and more than any particular result – is to have genuine democracy restored, a democracy that is demonstrably fair so that whatever the result people can respect it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
4foxandhare said:
The 3rd Referendum – the first was about joining and the second pushed a vote to leave – was full of misinformation and outright lies. In my opinion, it shouldn’t have gone to the vote. So let’s have a third Referendum and PLEASE let it be an honest one this time, where all the pros and cons are set out honestly and in full.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ZailBG said:
Yes, I’ve seen this posted under several names.. lots on pro leave “news” site FB discussions like Political News UK which aren’t news just pro brexit propaganda..
Discussed on r/brexit too
LikeLike
4foxandhare said:
The 2nd Referendum – the first was about joining and the second pushed a vote to leave – was full of misinformation and outright lies. In my opinion, it shouldn’t have gone to the vote. So let’s have a third Referendum and PLEASE let it be an honest one this time, where all the pros and cons are set out honestly and in full.
LikeLike
SteveH said:
If you want an authoritative insight into what a bad idea Brexit really is and how the Tories have made a complete bollocks of the negotiations then read this transcript of this brilliant speech given at Liverpool Uni by Sir Ivan Rogers on Brexit.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
LikeLike
heatholivephotography said:
Hi Tom,
I love your blog and really appreciate your work.
I’m currently trying to prove to my Mum that the Richard Knocker post is false. Your article really helps. She is always very keen to believe the anti EU articles but demands hard proof when it’s the other way around.
I’ve sent her a link to your article but suspect that just some red pen won’t convince her. Do you have any plans for a more comprehensive article please?
Regarding point 3 of the Knocker post, i’ve already found this from Juncker- Hope it helps
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3265_en.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
A6er said:
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating!.
LikeLike
FF said:
@IanGeorgePendlebury The EU is democratic: We vote to decide represents us there (we just never bothered to take an interest before), and everyone who’s a member of the EU gets to decide what laws are passed within it. To say it’s undemocratic is either ignorance or a deliberate lie.
LikeLike
Paul F said:
@FF: Exactly! If we took the arguments for leaving the EU (i.e. regaining sovereignty) to its conclusion, the Devon would leave the UK because it hated being bossed around by Westminster, East Devon district would leave Devon because it hated being bossed around by County Hall, and the local Parish would …
If both sides would actually stop being polarised by emotional rhetoric and start looking at the situation more factually, more logically and more rationally then we might be a lot more successful in making consensus decisions that the majority of the population can get behind and which will give us all (or at least most) of the outcomes that we actually want.
Instead, we have Leavers who are demanding a Brexit which gives us NONE of the things that were promised, which is at best economically damaging and at worst will be an economic disaster which we will suffer from for decades – and who keep quoting that 17.4m voted for it without recognising that 16.1m didn’t and who are continually refusing to actually debate the merits of what they are proposing.
When Leavers are so disrespectful of any alternative views, is it really surprising that Remainers are equally dismissive of the referendum? And if Leavers want the country to get behind the Leave concept, they need to start to listen and compromise.
LikeLike
Pingback: Desperate Brexiters resort to LYING – UK will NOT lose abstention rights, sovereignty if we stay in EU | Pride's Purge
Gareth Thomas said:
Reblogged this on Equus Asinus and commented:
URGENT: Russian propaganda already beginning to try and undermine the referendum.
LikeLike
Robin Baldock said:
It would be good to have an article that refutes these claims, unfortunately this isn’t it. merely saying that the claims are not true does not prove them untrue, perhaps you could collate why they are untrue and post a more effective article.
It is worth noting though that while the lisbon treaty can be referenced, because there are no citations to refute with regards to the claims of worse case scenarios or the claim that the supposed lisbon treaty have “…..BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES” there is no way for anyone who posted this to know if those claims were made from any factual basis at all, which indeed it looks as if they were not as an accountable source would be shredded for making them.
[Here’s one of a few I’ll be writing in the next few weeks debunking these lies:
Instead of complaining that someone else hasn’t done it – why not try debunking these claims yourself] – TOM
LikeLike
Robin Baldock said:
add to my previous that throughout the post the writer makes it the responsibility of the reader to find out if this is true, yet makes it impossible to examine the sources of the claims by withholding them.
This is completely wrong, it is the responsibility of the writer and subsequently anyone who posts this, to back up their claims and show that what they are saying has a basis by which they can be held accountable.
LikeLike
Silver Stream said:
This is the Ben Shapiro method of debate. Simply churn out so many complete lies that even if some of them are self-evidently false, the sheer torrent will leave the reader with at least a few doubts and half-remembered anti-Remain fake factoids.
It’s pretty clear that Brexit wasn’t based on facts, numbers, figures and truth, the Leave campaign was all about appealing to the ‘gut feeling’. Debating them with the truth isn’t going to work, Remain just needs to come up with better slogans.
Stupid, I know, but that’s how this works.
LikeLike
Paul F said:
Whilst instinctively I know you are right about having better slogans – but:
a. Remain slogans can be better AND still based on truth / facts; and
b. I think it would be terrible if we gave up on trying to get the populace to vote based on fact-based reasoning rather than emotions based on lies.
P.S. Not only were the Leave campaigns based on emotion, they used social media profiling to decide for each individual which lie would trigger.the emotional response they wanted to get a Leave vote, and told different lies to different people even if these lies were opposites. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY – THIS IS BRAINWASHING.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Crawford said:
Having looked into the Richard Knocker thing. A number of aspects that you claim are not true do in fact appear to be true if you put in the research. Foe example: Britain would lose EU rebate even if it decided to ditch Brexit – EU official OCTOBER 12, 2018 / 2:22 PM REUTERS Check it. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebate/britain-would-lose-eu-rebate-even-if-it-decided-to-ditch-brexit-eu-official-idUKKCN1MM1PV
LikeLike
David Crawford said:
Another which appears to be true: EU Commission takes aim at national veto powers euobserver 25 October 2017 Check it https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630
LikeLike
Mitch said:
there is also the EU documents saying the veto needs to go.
Click to access COM-2018-647-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF
LikeLike
Anti EU said:
We don’t want to be ruled over by the Fourth Reich, the Nazi originated EU must not be allowed to dominate Europe, especially not the UK not after our armed forces and whole population made such massive sacrifices and the misery and loss the Germans created throughout the world over two world wars!
LikeLike
Sodalis said:
And there you go. They say that all internet arguments eventually descend into mentioning the Nazis, and finally it has happened to this thread.
This is yet another of those extremely ignorant comments that is actually the opposite of reality. Most EU countries – having been conquered and suppressed by Hitler actually see the EU as the means of preventing a Fourth Reich and would be horrified / insulted by such a characterisation of the EU itself as a Fourth Reich – much less be accused of having originated from the Nazi Party.
I would want to see a lot more evidence than a single web page from someone without academic credentials before I believed the linked page – but even what it says were true of the Nazu party in the closing months of the war, that is not the same as accusing the EU itself of being the Fourth Reich. That is like saying Hitler was a European, Hitler was a Nazi, so therefore all Europeans are Nazis – which is just not a logical deduction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steve Gold said:
You seem to be a little confused Churchill was giving speeches about a united Europe as early as 1943
Churchill gave a speech at Zurich on 19 September 1946 in which he called for “a kind of United States of Europe” centred around a Franco-German partnership, with Britain and the Commonwealth, and perhaps the US, as “friends and sponsors of the new Europe”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anti EU said:
You Remoaners are idiots, you just cannot accept that you lost the referendum and are crying like a spanked baby. It is you that are the liars and and fact twisters, you can accept that the Lisbon treaty will mean a complete and utter loss of every aspect of our nations make up and that its systems, laws and assets will be managed by the EU making the UK nothing more than a backwater on the edge of the EU dictatorship. Instead of trying to give away this nation, why don’t you pack your bags and go and live in another country and leave us to our own ways?
LikeLike
Anti EU said:
Steve Gold and Sodalis: Did you actually read the Document in the link? If you are unsure as to its originality at least check it out further before you open your mouth. You do know both Tusk and Juncker have direct family links to Nazi’s don’t you, even if they claim they were conscripted. And if you think ridicule and throwing a completely out of left field fact about Churchill’s opinion at the end of the war at me disproves anything you are grossly mistaken. There are none so blind as those who will not see and both of you fall into that catergory.
LikeLike
Steve Gold said:
The Daily Mail has deleted its original article, I wonder why?
LikeLike
Sodalis said:
@Anti-EU: After 3 or 4 generations, there are an awful lot of people who have “direct family links to Nazi’s” – but that doesn’t make them Nazi’s themselves. Such generalisations can only be classed as racist. If you want to clain that Tusk and Juncker are Nazi’s then you need to provide evidence that they personally hold Nazi views or what you say is nothing more than libel.
Yes – I followed some of the links. Like the one to your web site https://iinfowebsiteuk.wordpress.com/ which seems to focus on the conspiracies within the dutch footballing community or such like. And then there was the link to a page on the Daily Mail web site – and we all know how accurate the Daily Mail is (ha ha ha ha ha). And then there was the link to the actual intelligence report at https://www.splcenter.org/ – which as far as I can tell is an anti-hate web site opposed in every way to your beliefs. But I couldn’t find any other references to them anywhere on the internet – for all I know they are made up by you and a Daily Mail mate.
But even if they did exist, they demonstrate only that a few nutty Nazi’s at the end of the war wanted to have a Fourth Reich – they are NOT evidence about the EU itself or about Tusk or Juncker. Perhaps you think that Juncker is a Nazi just because his name sounds like a WW2 German Aircraft type.
As for the Churchill reference, at least it is to a source document that actually supports the stated fact – and it was only provided as an equivalent counter evidence to your own assertions, but Churchill’s utterances equally say nothing about the EU being non-Nazi – after all Churchill was dead before the EEC was formed, so how would he know about it.
As for “crying like a spanked baby”, some of us are trying to have an adult, fact-based, rational debate about whether there is evidence for the EU being a Fourth Reich – and it seems to be you that is acting like a 10 year old who has to resort to insults and name calling rather than rational argument.
You can call me a Remoaner if you like – but I have yet to have any debate with any Leaver in which they have provided any genuine evidence to back up their views. As far as I can tell, Leave voters are acting on faith rather than fact.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Clare Q said:
It’s another “Gish Gallop”, they used these before. It’s a technique first used by a creationist, the idea is to have such a long list of non-truths and half-truths that it’s too overwhelming for someone to argue back against. They’re highly persuasive, leaving the reader with a strong general impression of the point being made.
We used one of the remain groups to debunk a couple of these before, they really need detailed debunking and that’s easier with more people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dan said:
There ought to be an instantly recognisable typeface that we could use for fake news!
What worries me is that these words were intentionally scribbled typed up at great length by someone who (a) knew them to be false; (b) had a plan to spread them as far and wide as possible; and (c) has advertising/marketing budget behind them.
LikeLike
arteee27 said:
After all the twisted truths & blatant lies created by the anti Brexit mobs, pre-referendum and still now, to try manipulate voters, I think the Pro Brexit brigade are taking no chances. Every trick in the book was used by the remain campaign to win, including overspending and more TV time, so if there was another referendum, they would be even more ruthless. The toxic EU have done the main team talk for us though.
LikeLike
Sodalis said:
@arteee27 – Looks like a typo there as it was of course the Leave campaigns that have been fined for illegality and are facing prosecution rather than the Remain groups. And of course, the issues raised by Remain appear to be coming true whilst the promises of the Leave campaigns were all either lies at the time (like the £350m / wk for the NHS) or were abandoned in the first few seconds after the result (like retaining access to the single market and staying in THE Customs Union – both of which were promised but neither of which are part of either the current deal or a no-deal Brexit).
In short, not a single vote was cast for either the current deal or no-deal because neither were on offer – indeed no-deal was explicitly ruled out. So there is no democratic mandate for either.
As for tricks, it was the rabid ERG group who have vetoed every compromise put forward and insisted on a Hard or Ultra-Hard Brexit entirely contrary to what those same people promised during the referendum.
Please feel free to research this on Google if your memory has faded – or if you still believe it to be true, please provide evidence to support it.
LikeLike
SteveH said:
“In the face of political stasis, the seductive myth of Britain standing alone against its oppressors is taking hold”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/21/england-rebel-spirit-no-deal-brexit
LikeLike
Paul F said:
@SteveH – Well you could blame political stasis, or equally you could blame the racist, biased, emotional clap trap pretending to be news spouted by the Sun and the Daily Mail and the Times and which appear to effect people’s view even if they are blatantly untrue – which I would call brainwashing.
The purpose of journalism in a genuine democracy is to debunk what the politicians say and hold them to account for it – when the press starts to participate in propaganda (or these days actually to lead the propaganda) then it ceases to be a democracy and becomes an Orwellian autocracy where the populace can genuinely be persuaded to believe that black actually IS white.
In my opinion discussing Brexit with lots of Leave “enthusiasts” two things have become clear: firstly that Leavers cannot actually provide evidence to support a rational debate as to why it is a good idea (with most of the clap trap they spout about control and sovereignty and democracy being the opposite of what the facts actually demonstrate – thus demonstrating that the brainwashing has worked) and secondly they have no real idea about what distinguishes genuine democracy from fake democracy and make demands for their own bigotry to be respected in the name of some twisted version of democracy.
People who genuinely believe in democracy will understand that:
1. it is about INFORMED VOTING on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD – so that lies and illegal spending should invalidate the vote – if you cheated in sports, you would expect to have your win’s revoked, and this decision is MUCH more important than any sporting competition; and
2. that campaign promises are as much a part of the decision as the short version printed on the ballot paper and that these need to be delivered for the vote to be valid; and
3. that if new information becomes available, the public have the right to change their minds; and
4. that members of the populace who die, no longer exist to have a say, whilst youngsters who have reached the age to vote need to have their voices heard.
So a 2nd (or 3rd) referendum cannot be undemocratic by definition – and it won’t reduce the respect for Parliament / Government (which the current shambles and nastiness have already reduced to almost zero). What it will do is provide for another chance to have a genuine debate about what is best for the UK – free from lies and cheating and brainwashing – and then for the population to vote. And providing that it was free from lies and cheating and brainwashing, then regardless of which way it goes a lot of the losing side will accept it as being a democratic decision even if it didn’t go their way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SteveH said:
Paul F at 10:32 pm
I agree with all the points you have outlined above. If you read the whole article that I referenced you’ll find it more or less agrees with you.
LikeLike
Rachel said:
How can we have a second referendum when we have had two and a half years of scaremongering and blaintant lies from our media with regards to leaving the EU.
LikeLike
Paul F said:
How can we NOT have a second referendum when we have had two and a half years of scaremongering and blatant lies from our media with regards to leaving the EU?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rachel said:
Plus I would like to add, there has been fake news and lies on both sides. We (us leavers) are fully aware of what is true and what is not. Yes the Richard Knocker post circulated, much like the one about how we would all eat hormone injected beef if we leave the EU. We checked the facts and made other brexiteers aware that it was in fact “fake news”. Although some parts are true. How many people are stock piling food and medicine because the MAIN STREAM media are staying we will have food and medicine shortages. The lies and propoganda I have read regarding to the apocalypse of leaving the EU outweighs any fake news I have read regarding the EU. So your arguement is pointless!!!
LikeLike
Paul F said:
There has been fake news on both sides, but the majority of it has definitely been from the Leave side.
To look at your specific points…
It is EU regulations that protects us from poor quality meat, with the UK government having its own regulations as a consequence of us being part of the EU. The UK government may or may not water down existing protections if we leave the EU – but they have NOT given any guarantee to retain current protections and the US is on record as planning to demand that our food regulations are reduced as part of any trade deal with them. We are likely to be desperate for a trade deal – ANY TRADE DEAL – if we leave the EU on any terms which result in a reduction of existing trade or increased tariffs imposed on imports by other countries by e.g. us going onto WTO rules – so it does seem likely (though not certain) that food regulations will be watered down to allow e.g. hormone fed / injected beef or chlorine washed chickens.
Food and medicine shortages are extremely likely (according to multiple sources of experts) not because of import restrictions and delays on our part, but rather by customs delays on lorries returning to the EU once they have delivered here. Models suggest that a delay of even 90s will cause huge traffic jams – but the net result is likely to be that lorries simply refuse to bring foods and medicines into the UK. It would, of course, be possible to offload food from lorries onto ships and restack lorries when the food arrives in the UK, but this will introduce delays and more importantly require a huge amount of transshipment space at ports, space which simply does not exist. So there are entirely logical reasons to believe that there will be food and medicine shortages, and little explanation from Leave experts as to why this will not be the case or how it can be avoided.
Unfortunately leaving the EU without a deal genuinely IS likely to create food and medicine shortages, and if we have these we are going to get price increases – and when people can either not get food or medicine, or food prices become unaffordable for them, then we are highly likely to have civil unrest (i.e. riots) and that is why the Government has put 3,500 troops on standby. Why would the government do that if they didn’t believe that there will be food and medicine shortages? Now, whether you consider troops on the streets maintaining law and order as apocalyptic is a personal opinion, but let’s not be deceived that a no-deal Brexit is going to be economically positive for the UK and that the logistics for food and medicine are not going to get disrupted by Brexit – even if we exit on the current deal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
reubsb said:
Reblogged this on Reubino and commented:
I think this might be from a state sponsored scheme from another country
LikeLike