Yellowhammer

Photo credit: Andreas Trepte, www.photo-natur.net

I saw one once, a Yellowhammer.  Beautiful thing; perched on the top of a hedgerow in the rolling hills of north Hampshire.  I was riding my bike, labouring up an incline, and I could see it from about 30 metres away.  It eyed me suspiciously, tilting and twisting its head in small jerky movements, alert to everything around it, discerning any threat that might give it cause to take flight.  It decided I posed no risk, allowing me instead to admire it, a tiny golden bird bringing colour to the dense green foliage on which it sat.  I’m no ornithologist; I needed to refer to Google when I returned home to identify the creature, but I soon found it.  That little bird made a lasting impression on me.  A moment of nature’s glory that I will keep with me forever.

On Wednesday, the government released its controversial report that outlined the reasonable worst-case planning assumptions in the event of a No-deal Brexit, forever defiling the Yellowhammer name.  The name is chosen at random, but I can’t help but feel a twinge of regret for that glorious little bird that I met on a country lane.

Earlier in the week, Parliament voted that the government should publish the Operation Yellowhammer report by Wednesday evening, which in a surprising turn of events from this administration, they did – to an extent.  The motion also directed the Government to release all the documents prepared and submitted to the cabinet or a cabinet committee since 23 July 2019 relating to Operation Yellowhammer, along with the WhatsApp messages and emails involving Boris Johnson's top advisers relating to his decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks.  That deadline has passed and, on that score, the Government has ignored Parliament’s directive.

Earlier in the day, the Business Secretary, Andrea Leadsom said on BBC Breakfast that “I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is absolutely the worst thing that could happen,” adding that, “… simply putting out there all of the possible permutations of what could happen actually just serves to concern people.”

I think we have a right to be concerned.  There is nothing this government is doing that gives me cause not to be.  Yes, it argues that they are reasonable worst-case assumptions and may not happen.  However reasonable they might be, are there assumptions that are worse, or even un-reasonable, and why can they not be more forthcoming with the steps they are taking to mitigate the risks so that we are comforted?

One could suggest that the Government’s £100 million ‘Get ready for Brexit’ (GRFB) campaign is serving to address those concerns, so I looked online to see how useful it was.  There were many options, and I followed the ones that relate to me.  It provided me with eight tasks that I need to perform, as soon as possible, predominantly based on my plans to travel beyond the UK’s borders.  The guidance provided included:

• Take out appropriate travel insurance with health cover before travelling to the EU
• Check a passport for travel to Europe after Brexit
• Check what you need to do to make sure you can travel through the border of the country you are visiting
• Check whether your mobile phone company has changed its mobile roaming charges before travelling to the EU
• Check if you need an International Driving Permit before you drive in the EU, EEA or Switzerland
• Get motor insurance green cards for your vehicle, caravan or trailer if they're registered in the UK and you'll be driving in the EU or EEA
• Put a GB sticker on the back of your vehicle if it's registered in the UK, even if your number plate already shows GB with a Euro symbol
• Check for disruption to your journey before you travel between the UK and the EU - border checks may take longer

To that last point, the Government has usefully added “If you do not allow enough time, you could miss your flight, train or ferry.”  As Craig Revel-Horwood would say “Fab-u-lous.”  I’ve finally found a benefit to Brexit – we Brits will be able to queue for longer.

What the GRFB site unintentionally highlights are some of the things that we will be sacrificing under a No-deal Brexit.  Freedom of movement, European-wide healthcare, free roaming for mobile phone usage and the ease of driving in Europe.

From a business perspective, the requirements for readiness are, understandably, somewhat more complicated.  For the purposes of understanding, my imagined business was a manufacturer of consumer goods.  What the GRFB site revealed is that there will be a mountain of bureaucracy to address in order to comply with a more arduous import and export regime.  Still, I guess that might create more jobs – provided the fall in profits that businesses will experience will allow them to cover the extra overhead.

Notably, the GRFB site fails to provide any advice or communication relating to many of the risks identified in Operation Yellowhammer.  It does tell us, in point 3 of 20 that the French have built their customs infrastructure in readiness for a ‘No-deal’ which may lead to between 50-85% of HGVs crossing the channel not being ready for French customs.  It states that HGVs could be delayed by 1.5-2.5 days before being able to cross the border.  At least we’ll be well into Autumn by then, I wouldn’t want fresh produce to be sitting on the M2 wilting in the blaze of a summer sun.

Point 6 highlights that current flow rates across the channel could be as low as 40% for up to six months, stating that if unmitigated, this will have an impact on the supply of medical supplies and three-quarters of our medicines.  So what?  We’ll stockpile!  The report then states, “Whilst some products can be stockpiled, others cannot due to short shelf lives”, adding for emphasis, that it won’t be practical to stockpile to cover 6 months’ supply.  It goes on to say that we’ll also reduce our ability to prevent and control disease outbreaks, both in humans and animals.

On the upside, the report says that we may not see a shortage in food, although a No-deal Brexit will reduce availability and choice which, according to the report, “will increase price, which could impact vulnerable groups.”

In other good news, “Public water services are likely to remain largely unaffected” with the most significant risk being a failure in the chemical supply chain.  With an absence of hyperbole, the report tells us that if something goes wrong, the effect is likely to be localised and only affect up to “100,000s of people.” So, that’s alright then.

The Government chose to redact point 15 of its report, but in an earlier version leaked to The Times, the corresponding point relates to the impacts felt from UK fuel exports that might lead to the closure of two oil refineries and 2,000 direct job losses.  Subsequent strike action could result in disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks, which will add to the fuel distribution issues that the previous point in the report highlights.

Most damning of all and, ironically, the shortest point in the report is that “Low income groups will be disproportionately affected by any price rises in food and fuel.”

There’s more in the report: the potential impact on social care, fishing, the Irish border, public disorder, and EU citizenship, amongst others.  It is alarming, and it will be sensationalised by opponents of Brexit to argue the case against a ‘No-deal’.  Rightly so.  The British public was never made aware of these risks during the 2016 referendum campaign, instead fictitious weekly savings of £350 million were highlighted along with the bogus concern of wholesale Turkish immigration.  As a collective, we were woefully misinformed.

What’s astonishing is that, given the considerations in the report, the Government remains so hell-bent on pursuing its course.  Could it be that the potential bonanza that will be enjoyed by the financial elite who support the Conservatives and the Brexit Party (and who have allegedly invested £8.3 billion in shorting the UK economy) and the ‘Anti-tax Avoidance Directive’ which comes into effect on 1 January 2020, and which will deprive them and their businesses of hundreds of millions which should sit in the public purse, may be influencing its decision?

In light of the Yellowhammer report, it’s not right that Brexit should happen under ‘No-deal’, nor in my opinion, any deal.  We’ve had three years of growing awareness of the catastrophic impacts that Brexit will have on the UK’s people and its economy.  An awareness has developed through the painful process of watching our politicians fail to deliver on the promises of the sunny uplands.  With that awareness now embedded in the psyche of the populace, perhaps it’s time to return to the people with the opportunity to have a second, better informed, referendum on whether we should remain in the EU.  Unlike my feathered friend on the climb in Hampshire, if ‘Remain’ was the outcome of a second referendum, then the Government’s Yellowhammer is one that I will happily forget.

Twitter: @GOMinTraining

Copyright © Craig Brown, 2019

12 September 2019