Street riots, rising food prices and reduced medical supplies are the real risks of the UK leaving the EU no deal, a government document said. .
Ministers published details of their Yellowhammer contingency plan, after MPs voted to compel its release.
It outlines a series of "reasonable worst case assumptions" for the effect of a no-Brexit deal on 31
Michael Gove, one of Boris Johnson's senior cabinet ministers who was given responsibility for planning the deal, said "revised assumptions" would be published "in due course in conjunction with a document describing the mitigations put by the government and intended to put it down ”.
Ministers, however, prevented the release of communications between Hindi 10 aides regarding Pa's suspension or rank.
Mr. Gove stated that MPs requested to see e-mails, texts and WhatsApp messages from Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson's aide president, and eight other Downing Street advisers " reasonable and inconvenient ”.
Publishing information, he added, is "contrary to law" and "offensive against basic principles of fairness".
The government tried to stop the publication of the Operation Yellowhammer document, but lost a vote on the issue on the Commons on Monday, before a suspension in Parliament, so it was forced to do so.
The six-page document, dated August 2 and infiltrated by the Sunday Times last month, warned of interruption to Dover and other channel crossings for at least three months, an increasing risk of disturbance in public, and some lack of fresh food.
& # 39; Food prices rise & # 39;
In food, the document said some types of fresh food supply "will decrease" and "critical dependencies for the food chain" such as of the main components "may be shorter supply".
It states that these factors will not lead to general food shortages "but will reduce the availability and selection of products and increase prices, which may affect vulnerable groups".
The document also states that low-income groups "will not be affected by any increase in food and fuel prices".
The flow of cross-Channel goods could face "significant disruption lasting up to six months".
"Not released, it will have an impact on the supply of drugs and medical supplies," it said.  "The dependence of medicines and the supply of medical products & # 39; on short-passing habits make them especially vulnerable to severe extended delays."
Among its other major points are:
- Protests and counter-protests take place across The UK
- Lorries can wait more than two days to cross the Channel
- Some businesses will stop trading
- There will be a growth in the black market
- Some adult social care providers may fail] The document also warns of potential conflicts whether foreign fishermen entered British territorial waters the day after leaving the UK and said economic difficulties could be "exacerbated" by flooding or a flu pandemic this winter.
Chris Mason said Chris Mason in the situations outlined was "stark", but ministers insisted the paper was not a prediction about what would happen.
The document, which, to date, has been categorized as "official, sensitive", is not an official paper in the cabinet. It begins 10 days after Mr. Johnson becomes prime minister.
Labor's shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said: "These documents confirm the serious risk of a non-Brexit deal, which Labor has struggled to block. It is completely irresponsible. for the government to try to ignore these stern warnings and prevent the public from seeing the evidence. "
MPs voted Monday to order the release of all internal writing and communications, including e-mails, texts and WhatsApp messages, between nine No 10 Parliamentarians' suspension counsel.
But the government said it did not comply with the MPs' request, citing potential violations of data protection and employment rights.
& # 39; Right of reply & # 39;
Mr. Gove argues that the legal counsel Mr. Johnson received before requesting a prorogation of Parliament was in the public domain after being disclosed as part of ongoing court cases, but that there was no justification for "broader "information sought.
"To name individuals without concern for their rights or the consequences of doing so would be beyond any reasonable right of Parliament under this procedure.
" These people have no right responded, and the method used failed to afford them any of the protections that would have been accomplished.
"It is offensive against the basic principles of fairness and duty of the civil service administration to its employees," he said.
He said ministers, not civil servants or special advisers, were ultimately responsible to Parliament for the decisions taken.
The request, therefore "not applicable to the principle and to the practice, is in its own terms necessary to require the government to oppose the law, and individually unjustly to the named individuals."