Cookie Notice

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Thursday, 26 April 2018

Is the government wargaming a civil war outcome?

Well, the EU has bared its fangs - Brexit is an existential matter for them. If we succeed, we encourage the break-up of their empire. As AEP has it in the Telegraph today (£)
.. this veto will be exercised unless Britain accepts EU governance over everything from tax policy to competition, regulatory standards, and environmental rules, and accepts the sweeping extra-territorial reach of the European Court (ECJ). “Nobody should underestimate the risks,” he said. Indeed not. The withdrawal treaty itself could be blocked at the last moment by the European Parliament or by challenges from any quarter at the ECJ. What is clear is that Brussels is exploiting this latent threat, hoping to pressure Britain into staying in the customs union and remaining subject to the core legal machinery of the EU.....
... A double retreat on both the single market and the customs union – clearly the objective of EU-ultras in the Lords, and Tory rebels in the Commons – would leave Britain a position that is self-evidently preposterous. This country would be emasculated, with no council veto, with half its laws passed by an alien legislature, effectively subject to a foreign supreme court – and reduced to a cuckold Parliament.

How can any British parliamentarian support such a formula? It cannot plausibly lead to a settled outcome. It must chafe so badly that passions erupt with volcanic fury within five years or sooner, further poisoning British relations with Europe, and nurturing a lethal sentiment in much of British society that this ancient island democracy has been subverted by a self-interested elite, if not betrayed by an outrageous ‘trahison des clercs’.
AEP also gives us the first explicit broadsheet reference to the potential for civil war. It's been some 380 years since this spectre first haunted our lands; brother against brother, neighbour against neighbour, a dreadful savage bloodletting born of intractable beliefs. I thought the potential was long behind us, long behind Europe - until Yugoslavia. Then people with the same cars and fridges as you and I, watching the same US TV imports, genocidally slaughtered, starved, bombed and terrorised each other. So I guess we have to accept it here as a possible, though God hopes still distant, outcome. 

How will the government be wargaming this? The police, armed forces, security services must surely be doing so. Will the army stay loyal to a government imposing a reversal of Brexit and a surrender of our nation as a slave state to Brussels? Will the security service? The targets for the insurgents that must be defended will remain as always - fuel, power, communications, nuclear and defence installations, transport - but with a few twists that will make the wargames different from those played in the '50s, '60s and '70s. 

First, our armed forces are simply not adequate if mobilised to guard civil installations. So PCSOs carrying SA80s, perhaps. Then there are the political divisions; if the insurgents target a Remoaner London, they only need to cut off food trucks for 48 hours to tip 70m people into anarchy. If they succeed in disrupting power, internet and water as well the whole country's resources will be committed to sorting the London mess.   

If the army refuses to play, stays in barracks and locks the armouries then the Brexit counties hold most of the offensive assets. East coast sailors will know how easy the unguarded seaward approach to a huge small arms ammo depot, and I suspect most of such assets are outside the M25. 

It's a ghastly topic to contemplate, I know. But I'm getting a feeling for the first time that actual plans are in preparation, old scenarios are being dusted down and decisions being made as to what to do with the Queen if it all goes tits-up. 

34 comments:

jack ketch said...

There is, and will be for generations to come, enough angst,hatred and anger on both sides to nourish a seed of armed rebellion. No matter what variety of fudge we get in the end the country will remain divided -probably until our Grandkids decide to rejoin. But such nightmare scenarios always miss one crucial point.Do you really think the Great British sheeple are going to take to the streets next March....before Springwatch has aired? Build barricades when there are D list celebs in a jungle somewhere needing our votes? Chuck molotovs? Have you seen the price of petrol recently?

Domo said...

You need 5 35hr work weeks to cover one calender week. Plus holidays ect.

A 24x7 2 man security team for each of the 650 mps would therefore require 6500men, plus sickness / holidays ect.

418 council chief execs, plus borough solicitors, police chiefs, judges.
We've not even got to elected councillors yet and ran out of soldiers....

Domo said...

Probably not, lets ask Jo Cox just to be sure though

DeeDee99 said...

I've said for some time that the EU - which claims to have prevented war in Europe for the past 70 years - is simply going to result in a whole series of "IRA-style" national conflicts. And I expect they know it.

That's why they want their army

rapscallion said...

@jack ketch
"No matter what variety of fudge we get in the end the country will remain divided -probably until our Grandkids decide to rejoin"

Still away with the fairies I see jack. There won't be an EU to rejoin. Believe me Brexit is not their biggest problem, it's just their first big one. The election results in Italy, Germany and Austria bear witness to that, and then there are the not so compliant nations of Poland, Hungary and Slovakia

Budgie said...

AEP said: "this veto will be exercised unless Britain accepts EU governance over everything". I did warn that the EU would not be reasonable. That is why we should have left after 12 months diplomatic notice, and only then negotiated with the EU - probably after deals with the Commonwealth and the USA.

John Miller said...

The now likely scenario is almost too frightful to even imagine:

TM presides over the calamitous scenario posited by AEP

The peasants do not revolt but will never vote Tory again.

JC wins a landslide victory and becomes PM with JM as Chancellor.

The British people, having proved by their quiescence that you can do anything to them and they will not bother about retaliation, get the full Monty socialism and all the bile the communists can muster.

England, having a communist government and abandoned democracy and law and order, is no longer a place to do business. The pound plummets.

I'd better stop. I'm scaring myself to death.

Budgie said...

Jack Ketch, The "angst, hatred and anger" is all synthetic on the Remain minority side, just a tool with which to threaten us. No one with any self-respect, and value for his own country, could want the UK to continue as a mere cash cow for the EU empire, even within it.

As an approximation at least half of the Remain voters I talked to in 2016 said the EU should be reformed. You have less support for your extreme view that the EU is just perfect than you imagine. And of course if you suppose that the UK can remain in and reform the EU, you haven't been paying attention for the last 46 years.

Ravenscar. said...

Envisaged by AEP, it is a bleak, quite terrifying prospect and the authorities, do they seek to make it happen, yes, yes I think they do, for illogical insane policy only begets social chaos and it 'seeds' societal breakdown - anarchy will ensue that's the 'logic'.

And if a history about the UK, and of the aftermath (of 'the anarchy Pt II') is ever written (likely not by a Brit). These future historians will acknowledge it, the 'curve ball' that Britons for 45 years continued to vote for it all and what you want is not necessarily what you get. By and through, abrogation of individual responsibilty, leaving them 'to get on with it' and taking 'your', 'ours' eye off the ball, it comes back to hit you very hard on the back of the head.

Mr Ecks said...


The Fish Faced Cow knows that a Brexit sell-out equals Corbin.

The ONLY chance the Tories have of winning the next one is a decent Brexit. If she peddles the same fudge as Grandpa Death then there is nothing between them for a sell-out and the anti-Bog vote won't turn out. Stupid bitch that she is still she cannot not know that.She cannot seriously expect that the people of this country would accept the shit the EU would heap on us under the single market/customs union etc.


She has her pensions but she would be a fool to imagine that ZaNu are not vindictive enough to take those off her. Not to mention that McNasty is quite venomous enough to stop paying to protect ex-Tory polits from the national purse.

That would be one of the very, very few upsides of ZaNu getting in. A chance to get at the cunts who enabled them to get in.

Oldrightie said...

I suspect the Secret Services are well and truly signed up to the biggest payers. More mercenaries these days than patriots. The Skripal business implies much of that theory to be worthy of at least consideration.Truly we have more to fear from the American deep state, its EUSSR puppets and their Common Purpose elites than Russia or President Putin.

Anonymous said...

Cameron didn't win an outright majority in 2010, and only did so with the promise of a referendum in 2015. May lost seats because she was seen as useless on Brexit. Brexit holds the key, currently, the electoral success for the Tories.

The problem is that they don't see it that way. The majority of Tory MPs are Remainers, a lot of constituency party apparatchniks are remainers. Remain is a losing strategy for Tories. Labour don't need to win, they only need to be sure that Tories won't win.

Some Remainers don't accept the referendum result. Some Labour supporters protest against the results of elections. This is an unholy alliance between Left and Right.

If Tories want to win, now that May cannot hold another snap election, is to produce a successful Brexit. Ordinary Brits don't like being screwed by Johnny Foreigner - that's another key.

terence patrick hewett said...

The armed forces swear loyalty not to the state but to the Monarch: the King or Queen in theory can dissolve parliament and call on the armed forces in support, although this would create a constitutional crisis. In the end it would be up to the loyalty of the forces which decides who would win out.

Unknown said...

Charles I lost his head and so did Oliver Cromwell: after the Interregnum the English decided that a Republic was not really a good idea. The regicides were all dug up and posthumously executed at Tyburn and their heads put on a spike above Westminster Hall. Cromwell’s head was exhibited in a freak show for many years before being bought by his alma mater Sidney Sussex College Cambridge, where it resides to this day
.
The basis of the UK constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Court of Last Recourse is Parliament. However given that the European Court of Human Rights says: “no: the ECHR has primacy” do we have any sovereignty at all? Do we have any longer a Constitution? Does the principle of the alteration of the constitution by Act of Parliament remain valid? These inconsistencies are now being cruelly exposed.

The UK constitution is complicated matrix of checks and balances between Monarch and State. Before any act of Parliament becomes law it must be passed by the House of Lords: they may cut up rough sometimes but they always in the end pass legislation even if it is amended. The HoL is a revising chamber. But before any act becomes law the Queen must sign it off: and she could in theory refuse to do this causing a constitutional crisis. Hence the importance of the army oath: any parliament which has been captured by nutters will encounter a lot of resistance.

“Black Rod's role at the State Opening of Parliament is one of the most well-known images of Parliament. Black Rod is sent from the Lords Chamber to the Commons Chamber to summon MPs to hear the Queen's Speech. Traditionally the door of the Commons is slammed in Black Rod's face to symbolise the Commons independence. He then bangs three times on the door with the rod. The door to the Commons Chamber is then opened and all MPs – talking loudly – follow Black Rod back to the Lords to hear the Queen's Speech.”

This is not just meaningless ritual it is symbolic of an agreement to coexist.

terence patrick hewett said...

If you compare the two oaths - police and army: the army oath is explicit: the police oath is a minefield of fudge:

Army oath:

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Police oath:

I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with
fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental
human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will,
to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and
prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I
continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and
knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

terence patrick hewett said...

Any lawyer worth his salt would have a field day with the police oath in any constitutional crisis: it goes deep into our unwritten constitution: Unlike the US with its written constitution.

Our unwritten constitution is embodied in the laws and principles by which we are governed and it is very difficult for an administration to do anything unconstitutional, since the all they have to do is table an Act of Parliament:

"No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

Given all that; one of the few things that could be construed as un-constitutional would be to not enact the law: thus the excessive zeal in implementation of laws emanating from the EU.

So if the Queen dissolved parliament, which she can, it would be down to the loyalty of the army. It goes deep into the Civil Wars: who has the Power - Parliament or the Queen.

In the end the whole thing is a fudge because we could never write a written constitution which satisfies all 4 nations. After Brexit constitutional reform is on the cards.

My preference is for a Federation of 4 independent nations with written constitutions. But it is a long way down the tubes yet.

terence patrick hewett said...

My preference for a Federation of 4 independent nations with written constitutions will put a permanent crimp in the activities of those who would betray their own country - a crime historically viewed as worse than murder since it is the murder of a whole nation - and historically punished far worse than that of the crime of murder.

After Brexit constitutional reform will come soon after.

Cascadian said...

"Is the govt war gaming a civil war outcome?"- Oh my, so much fodder for a sarcastic reply.

Anybody with the slightest memory of the most recent London riots will remember that plods reaction is to pull back to the station canteen for a nice cuppa while mayhem ensues. Then the PM (camoron in this case) puffs himself up and declares it is intolerable and those responsible will be tracked down and justice delivered, the chief Metplod assures you that they are in control-snicker. Sure enough after the passage of many months a pitiful few troublemakers have show trials, mostly nothing happens. Conclusion-the police are ineffective and useless. The politicians are ridiculous, Metplod are annoyed that their lgqbt agenda is disrupted.

Armed forces-lets not besmirch them, just point out they are too few, too ill-equipped, and led by Ruperts more concerned about being home before 6pm.

IF (thats a very big if) the country was led by other than half-wits, it should be apparent that the EU would disintegrate very shortly after yUK withheld its "membership" dues. Already countries on the eastern borders are denouncing ridiculous EU edicts and budget directives, German and Italian banks are very shaky (France, Spain and yUK too, but don't yell that out) the ECB to "support the currency" is stuffed full of crap bonds which nobody else will buy, and cannot support another Greece-like collapse, German manufacturers are very antsy about Trumps threatened import tarriffs, a summer of illegal Mediterranean "refugee" crossings is about to start. Nothing good will happen in EU-land, it will be one disaster after another, all yUK has to do is withdraw from any discussions and sit it out, but the davis clown show cannot perceive that.

Nice to know that the "professional" civil service are planning though

Anonymous said...

With Trump visiting on 13 July and left wing activists already ‘calling to arms’ we may have a taste of things to come sooner rather than later.

Dave_G said...


Two things:

1. The fact that ANY Government would allow a situation to descend into civil war says much more about that Government than about the situation that may bring it about. Traitorous actions by refusing the will of the people deserves a public uprising so they know EXACTLY what they are doing if they allow civil war to occur.

2. Ketch's belief that there is still a considerable percentage of Remoaners that would actually 'fight' their cause is gravely mistaken. First, the percentage of the remain vote that consisted of fence-sitters that didn't want to rock the boat (and would therefore be totally uninterested in the actual outcome) is significant. Then there are those who voted remain but have seen the 'true' EU coming out - an arrogant and controlling EU that refuses compromise and works to undermine a countries stability for their own ends- that has made them think again.

If there WAS another vote on the issue I'd suggest a 70%+ result for LEAVE - and very little trouble from remainers who, quite quickly, would realise that a 'free' UK will not just survive but THRIVE. Any opposition would whither away in months.

In fact, the only 'trouble' we're experiencing is manufactured and over-hyped by the media who are working with the EU.

If the TRUTH was told then there's be no civil war and no opposition to Brexit.

rapscallion said...

terence patrick hewett said... @16:32

firstly, our constitution is not unwritten. It is written into countless Acts of Succession, Acts of Union and the crowning glory - The 1688 Bill of Rights. The latter is known as a Major or constitutional act and cannot ever be impliedly repealed. It is for this reason that so many traitors like Clegg try to ignore it or try to replace it.

We do not need to write a constitution, because we already have one, and moreover it isn't about four nations, but only one Nation - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Secondly you do not need to re-write anything - It quite clearly states in the Bill of Rights 1688 that "And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God." That clause alone invalidates membership of the hated EU. Too seek such is treason.

Raedwald said...

Cascadian - it's strange that the outcome of the 2011 riots should be perceived as lenient in hindsight; 1,292 persons were jailed, sentences were over 1,800 years, including 4 years for inciting riots on facebook. The analysis at the time was the establishment was scared shitless ...

Cascadian said...

Raedwald, I think you answered your own question-"including 4 years for inciting riots on FACEBOOK". There was little to no policing that night. metplod policing consists of an officer (probably female) sitting behind a computer in a comfortable office browsing facebook and twitter many days after the event. But I agree the establishment were scared shitless, as well they might be, because they know the level of unpreparedness and outright cowardice.

London 2011 proved to your colourful minorities that they could own the streets very easily-the current death toll on Londons streets by the same colourful minorities is I believe an example of lessons learned -not by metplod, but the savages.

terence patrick hewett said...

I am a real Londoner - so - burn the place down - and - when the time comes ....

anon 2 said...

GB first suffered civil war only "380 years" ago? I'm not sure what you're saying here, Raedwald, but with a name like yours I'd be surprised if you really believe we'd previously lived as peaceful brethren (Celts-Romans-Angles-Jutes-Saxons). The Welsh and the Scots would surely challenge the view; and what about the Wars of the Roses (AD1455-85) - and all that led to them?

Raedwald said...

anon2 - One could argue that a civil war rather than a war couldn't happen in the UK prior to the Act of Union in 1707 but historians stretch this a little back to the 17th C following the accession of James I (James VI) when the lands were effectively under one crown.

anon 2 said...

Thanks, Raedwald - I see what you're getting at . . . the concept "United Kingdom" wasn't formalized until Elizabeth's chosen heir served to pull the pieces together (1603-->).

However, that event was hardly a sudden flash of light. Really the Tudors (Welsh) came fully into the picture with the marriage of Edmund Tudor
to Margaret Beaufort (1455) and birth of their son (1457), who would become Henry VII. The historians I read would allow that this was a strong step towards the unity you reference, and that its import would be well-perceived by the descendants of the Houses of Lancaster and York: The idea was to stop the civil wars between those Anglo-Norman claimants to the throne. And Anglo-Normans weren't all peace and light even before that.

As to earlier problems between native clans - - - well, WS certainly built his Scottish Play on 11th century historical information from Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (AD 1577/87). Though it's WS's own drama, he based it on facts of rivalry and contention for power.

Before that, in your very own 7th century Anglia, there was plenty of the same. Indeed, don't we dub Alfred "the Great" because he worked (AD 871-99) to attempt unity in 'Englalond' even as he tamed the Danes? I know - the Welsh weren't too keen.

And before any of that, we had our various British tribes fighting each other - or sometimes uniting against the Romans (e.g. Boudicca c. AD 60). The Romans, of course, did as the euros always do to us, and played Divide and Conquer where they might.

So I still believe we aren't strangers to internecine strife, which is all the more reason to hold onto our hard-won unity and peace.

This is especially so now that we are well advanced into the communist agenda outlined by Yuri Bezmenov in the '70s. Defeat of the West was to proceed in 4 steps: 1 Demoralization 2 Destabilization 3 Crisis and 4"Normalization" by the alien forces - after which the useful idiots were to be removed.
Somewhere around "Crisis," are we?

Budgie said...

Rapscallion said: "[O]ur constitution is not unwritten. It is written into countless Acts of Succession, Acts of Union and the crowning glory - The 1688 Bill of Rights." Exactly right.

Anonymous said...

After a slightly irregular career in the armed forces my take on what may happen if the shit did indeed hit the fan is based on conversations and observations from then till now. Over the years a lot of work has been done on 'civil unrest', up to and including a widespread deterioration in society leading to general lawlessness. A staged response is indicated but first is the purpose: will it likely make things worse? Heavy stuff and the folios are as thick as your thigh - scenarios are not on computers.

Sandhurst educated officers will have been introduced to this subject during training. It's a duty they never expect to undertake: ordering soldiers to shoot not just civilians but most likely people from their own ethnic group. There is evidence that in recent years officers have been asked specifically whether they would follow such orders. Politicians task the army and the army then approximates that task with the resources at hand.

Civil war is a nightmare for planners, accurately identifying the enemy is just the start - a mistake could determine the outcome. My guess is there would be at least three sides. The first is the government side, the people who have all the kit. Second are the people who only want one sort of government. Then there's the third lot of people, those who want to survive as a people. The first two are political the third is not. I can imagine a fourth and a fifth but those will only take sides if its in their interest.

Frankly speaking holding on to a single English region would be beyond government forces at this time, even if they armed every police officer and called up the reserves. This is a densely populated country and sheer force of numbers cannot be discounted. Any size of unit could be overrun and members could become unreliable at anytime as loyalties change when people start to die. Think of a soldier staring down at the body of a bloke he's just shot and who looks like his younger brother.

If it kicks off it will be the fault of the government. What they've done to us since the war is outrageous. What they forget is it wasn't their freedom we fought for it was ours.

Steve

jack ketch said...

@ steve that has to be the best, most informed,and interestng comment on this thread so far (sorry Cas).But one question remains in my mind: WHERE is steve and WHAT have you done with him?!?!

Cuffleyburgers said...

Rapscallion, Budgie - quite so , I believe the usual formula is a constitution written but NOT CODIFIED.

I would expect any argy bargy to be limited in scale and relatively easily subdued. As a nation we are too prosperous and comfortable to go to wrt against each other.

Doesn't alter Radders' point though that TPTB are most liekly contingency planning, and have already activated a vast digital surveillance effort in anticipation of precisely that scenario.

So our freedom of speech and action will likely be further curtailed. It's almost as if they want it!

anon 2 said...

Thank you, Steve @ 1700 - your firsthand info is very good to know! Certainly it supports the perception/suspicion that our already subverted PTB anticipate military intervention in response to civil 'crises.' [And, after all, they continually work to destabilize us to that point: especially via "immigration"* and other usurpation.]

In the offing now, of course is the proposal of placing our armed forces under control of the euSSR ASAP. Should insurrection ensue at any point thereafter ---- perhaps they plan to work as the Romans did: by using non-indigenous units of the Imperial Army against any given area. That would ameliorate the 'loyalty' situations you describe.
____________
*invasion

TrT said...

"I would expect any argy bargy to be limited in scale and relatively easily subdued. As a nation we are too prosperous and comfortable to go to war against each other."

Just like it was in Northern Ireland?
Or the mining towns for that matter
Arrest the wrong Muslim and they'll be 200 smashing up the high street within a few hours.


Steve
"The first is the government side, the people who have all the kit......Frankly speaking holding on to a single English region would be beyond government forces at this time, even if they armed every police officer and called up the reserves........ and members could become unreliable at anytime as loyalties change"

Modern Civil Wars generally start with one of two things.
The government disarms units of the army it fears may be "unreliable",or those units storm a couple of armouries and disperse with the spoils to arm their mates.
The Bangladesh Independence War saw the Bangladeshi units disarmed and dispersed to be picked off by Pakistani forces, the various ongoing middle eastern wars went the other way.

Ducky McDuckface said...

A few points;

Domo;

If it all goes to shit, the security services don't need to protect 650 MPs plus all those others; only a relative handful of the most senior decision makers would receive that protection; the rest would be given advice and be left to get on with it. So not much change from the current set-up.

Steve;
"There is evidence that in recent years officers have been asked specifically whether they would follow such orders."

The Joint Chiefs would be very stupid indeed to accept and attempt to execute orders if they had suspicions that individual units would refuse to carry them out. Since the oath is to the Crown, not to Parliament, the executive or anyone else, they would run the risk of dividing their forces along whatever lines are notionally causing the problem in the first place.

A second point; given that post-45, most civil conflicts have resulted in external actors putting forces in place in order "restore the peace", but clearly, they will have/had their own agendas or objectives. If the British armed forces were fractured, they would not be in a position to resist those agendas coherently - that is, to defend the interests of the Crown.

So, I'd expect the armed forces to basically stay out of it, for as long as discipline holds; this doesn't preclude individuals from deciding to jump.


"trahison des clercs" - an interesting phrase for AEP to use. There's something slightly curious about the machinery of government from 1997 onwards; we had the same chancellor for 11 years, who then became PM. We then had the same Home Secretary after two elections, who then became PM.

My guess is that the Civil Service has captured the political class; this is at least due to the growth in EU competencies post-Maastricht, but also partially down to shortlists and parachuting candidates into constituencies. If correct, then the Labour anti-semitism row, plus Rudd/Windrush, should be viewed as elements of the Civil Service fighting others, plus a degree of elements political parties trying to ally themselves with the CS.

So, how's Brexit going again?