Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[ri Alban]

49 days left til brexit and the road to  Scottish independence. Thank you British ??  Nationalism.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Can you provide some evidence to back it up that this was stated time and time again before the referendum as I genuinely don't remember it coming up? Considering the most searched term in the UK the day after the Brexit Vote was; what is the EU? I think it's more than a little ingenious to claim folk understood the complexities of things little the single market, customs unions. 

 

The fact is people were told things that have turned out to be patently untrue before the referendum, things that can sway votes.

 

We were told how much money we'd save based on the simple maths of not contributing to the EU but it didn't account for money we already committed, the cost of setting up new things to deal with post-Brexit, the cost to businesses and people if there is no deal. The financial benefits, if there ever are any, will be a long time coming. 

 

We were told we'd essentially have various trade deals across the globe, and these would be easy because everyone wants to trade with us. We aren't even able to start any negotiations yet and based on the Government's handling of the exit negotiations, how well do folk think these trade deal ones will go. 

 

We will get immigration under control. Yet there are more non-EU migrants to the UK than EU, this will remain unchanged or potentially increase to make up shortfalls from EU migrants. EU migrants who are net contributors to the economy, with almost 50% already having a job when they arrive. In contrast, just over 40% of non-EU migrants are here to study. 

 

How much discussion was there on the Irish border situation and all its complexities?

 

There was a lot stated before the referendum and most of it was bullshit.

 

 

Completely spot on. The British have no one but the British to blame. They done **** all preparation beforehand for these negotiations.

 

 

Francis, quite frankly, who gives a shit? It's much more worth our time thinking about businesses and people that are struggling with the current uncertainty or the consequences of no deal. The content of your post isn't worth any thought whatsoever, it's a complete irrelevance. 

I just said spare a thought. Not that it should distract from Project Fear for more than that momentary thought!

[RobboM]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Brexit means Brexit Al!

 

It means everything from Norway to North Korea. Thankfully we all knew what we were voting for ?

[Ulysses]

Theresa May and Leo Varadkar met tonight in Dublin.  Nothing concrete happened, but the atmosphere seems to have been positive.

 

RTÉ News: Varadkar and May discuss Brexit in 'warm and productive' talks over Farmleigh dinner

[Cade]

Shipping firm with no ships or any experience of shipping who had a Govt contract handed to them have now had that contract cancelled.

 

[Cade]

The shipping firm with no ships or any experience of shipping who had a Govt shipping contract handed to them have now had that contract cancelled.

 

You remember the one, the company who's website was full of copy and pasted bits from other websites, their terms and conditions being lifted directly from JustEat including mentions of no refunds if food is cold or if the driver can't find your house.

 

The one that didn't go through a proper legal tender process because the Govt used emergency powers to give them the contract without any oversight.

 

 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Shipping firm with no ships or any experience of shipping who had a Govt contract handed to them have now had that contract cancelled.

 

Unbelievable.

[JamboX2]

I kind of think this Brexit thing has been so bad that change will need to happen with how the UK runs itself. Let's be honest in a few short years: Corbyn, May, Cable... dare I say Sturgeon... will be gone. None of them have painted themselves in glory. None have worked to any discernible national or communal interest - despite that being what people have wanted. The first three are rudderless and I think Sturgeon is increasingly under pressure from her own on a few fronts.

 

Unless we end up with a referendum on Remain v May's Deal then we will have s bit more of this road to go. But if the deal finally crosses the line then the debate must move onto the future deal and what next for Britain as a whole. And like it or not the SNP and their over arching goal is dependent on the outcome of stage 2 as much as stage 1 of Brexit. Scotland won't be independent until the whole process is done and dusted; I'll be bold there'll be no vote until after that. And that's not just "because of Westminster no letting us" but because the SNP leadership are clearly not ready for a referendum. They're not much further on from the place they were in back in 2014 and the Growth Commission is clearly a dead duck with the public. Never seen since it came out. Plus you can't deal with our border until the Irish one is resolved at the end of Stage 2 and if we go indy and join the EU those arrangements become ours. So tactically leaving the debate till after may resolve a hard question.

 

So the aim has to be reforming the UK. Remain is a dead Dodo in my eyes now. The sunlit uplands of Yes is farther off now than in 2011. 

 

The Scottish Affairs Committee (SNP led) is quietly looking into Post-Brexit reform of devolution and they're consulting ex-First and Deputy First Ministers, Scottish Secretaries and others involved in devolution since 1999 (Welsh Affairs are doing similar). The recent meetings have been interesting and you can find the deliberations with a quick Google. Jack McConnell and Jim Wallace have both suggested that the following be done;

 

- Joint Ministerial Committees are replaced by a Council of Ministers which meets on areas of joint control regularly to discuss and set strategic policies between the UK - I.e. on Trade, Agriculture, Welfare (in so far as is devolced), Transport, Home Affairs etc.

- Abolition of the Lords and replaced with a House of the Regions and Nations (I.e. an elected Senate with representation from across the UK - proportional representation) 

- Abolition of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and NI. The role of UK wide relations to go to a Deputy Prime Minister's Office or a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs which would merge those three offices with the Cabinet Office. 

 

A lot of that makes sense as these institutions have utterly failed in the current situation. Whilst this is all in the foothills it seems more achievable than the alternatives; from small acorns...

[ri Alban]

20 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

I kind of think this Brexit thing has been so bad that change will need to happen with how the UK runs itself. Let's be honest in a few short years: Corbyn, May, Cable... dare I say Sturgeon... will be gone. None of them have painted themselves in glory. None have worked to any discernible national or communal interest - despite that being what people have wanted. The first three are rudderless and I think Sturgeon is increasingly under pressure from her own on a few fronts.

 

Unless we end up with a referendum on Remain v May's Deal then we will have s bit more of this road to go. But if the deal finally crosses the line then the debate must move onto the future deal and what next for Britain as a whole. And like it or not the SNP and their over arching goal is dependent on the outcome of stage 2 as much as stage 1 of Brexit. Scotland won't be independent until the whole process is done and dusted; I'll be bold there'll be no vote until after that. And that's not just "because of Westminster no letting us" but because the SNP leadership are clearly not ready for a referendum. They're not much further on from the place they were in back in 2014 and the Growth Commission is clearly a dead duck with the public. Never seen since it came out. Plus you can't deal with our border until the Irish one is resolved at the end of Stage 2 and if we go indy and join the EU those arrangements become ours. So tactically leaving the debate till after may resolve a hard question.

 

So the aim has to be reforming the UK. Remain is a dead Dodo in my eyes now. The sunlit uplands of Yes is farther off now than in 2011. 

 

The Scottish Affairs Committee (SNP led) is quietly looking into Post-Brexit reform of devolution and they're consulting ex-First and Deputy First Ministers, Scottish Secretaries and others involved in devolution since 1999 (Welsh Affairs are doing similar). The recent meetings have been interesting and you can find the deliberations with a quick Google. Jack McConnell and Jim Wallace have both suggested that the following be done;

 

- Joint Ministerial Committees are replaced by a Council of Ministers which meets on areas of joint control regularly to discuss and set strategic policies between the UK - I.e. on Trade, Agriculture, Welfare (in so far as is devolced), Transport, Home Affairs etc.

- Abolition of the Lords and replaced with a House of the Regions and Nations (I.e. an elected Senate with representation from across the UK - proportional representation) 

- Abolition of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and NI. The role of UK wide relations to go to a Deputy Prime Minister's Office or a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs which would merge those three offices with the Cabinet Office. 

 

A lot of that makes sense as these institutions have utterly failed in the current situation. Whilst this is all in the foothills it seems more achievable than the alternatives; from small acorns...

Sturgeon is doing just fine for her national. Like me, she doesn't give a feck about yours.

[JamboX2]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Sturgeon is doing just fine for her national. Like me, she doesn't give a feck about yours.

 

We're both Scots. I'm tempted by Yes. Not the SNP. But the Yes camp - and you're a shining example - are more interested in the us v them attitude that won it for Brexit. So. Are you willing to pick the pieces up with no plan or forethought? Like the brexiteers? 

 

How long is too long to wait till you start thinking Sturgeon is no use?

[Cade]

The UK has resisted any kind of reform or change in governance for decades.

 

As recently as 2011, a national referendum on changing to Alternative Vote was soundly rejected by the people.

 

People seem, somehow, content to live with an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, laws which allow a sitting government to circumvent parliament, systems that allow filibustering, rampant corruption and 3 of the 4 nations in the so-called union being powerless at a federal level.

[Mikey1874]

For people supporting Brexit and worried it isn't happening, it is happening.. 

 

 

[JamboX2]

9 minutes ago, Cade said:

The UK has resisted any kind of reform or change in governance for decades.

 

As recently as 2011, a national referendum on changing to Alternative Vote was soundly rejected by the people.

 

People seem, somehow, content to live with an unelected head of state, an unelected upper chamber, laws which allow a sitting government to circumvent parliament, systems that allow filibustering, rampant corruption and 3 of the 4 nations in the so-called union being powerless at a federal level.

 

I think that's my point though up till now it's never been bad enough for reform to happen. However the uniqueness of how bad Brexit has been handled has shown up all these deficiencies; the archaic rules on votes, the structure of government, the bubble and the lack of co-operation.

 

I live down in London now - for work - and the mood is certainly changing. 

 

Brexit has created an unsustainable situation. I think that can only lead to reform once this deal is approved. In part because the alternatives are too far off and not in any better state (I.e. independence and remain as positions are flawed and need change to be viable post-2016).

 

As for AV that - and I voted for it - failed because it was not enough of a change. It was a complicated way of doing what you already did - 1 candidate, 1 seat. AMS (as used back home, Wales, Germany and New Zealand where you elect a seat and a list msp by party to give a proportional result) or STV ( local authority back home or Ireland) would have attracted more interest as it gives voters more choice and more control. Reform.has to look and smell like reform. Not just a rebranding.

[jake]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

I kind of think this Brexit thing has been so bad that change will need to happen with how the UK runs itself. Let's be honest in a few short years: Corbyn, May, Cable... dare I say Sturgeon... will be gone. None of them have painted themselves in glory. None have worked to any discernible national or communal interest - despite that being what people have wanted. The first three are rudderless and I think Sturgeon is increasingly under pressure from her own on a few fronts.

 

Unless we end up with a referendum on Remain v May's Deal then we will have s bit more of this road to go. But if the deal finally crosses the line then the debate must move onto the future deal and what next for Britain as a whole. And like it or not the SNP and their over arching goal is dependent on the outcome of stage 2 as much as stage 1 of Brexit. Scotland won't be independent until the whole process is done and dusted; I'll be bold there'll be no vote until after that. And that's not just "because of Westminster no letting us" but because the SNP leadership are clearly not ready for a referendum. They're not much further on from the place they were in back in 2014 and the Growth Commission is clearly a dead duck with the public. Never seen since it came out. Plus you can't deal with our border until the Irish one is resolved at the end of Stage 2 and if we go indy and join the EU those arrangements become ours. So tactically leaving the debate till after may resolve a hard question.

 

So the aim has to be reforming the UK. Remain is a dead Dodo in my eyes now. The sunlit uplands of Yes is farther off now than in 2011. 

 

The Scottish Affairs Committee (SNP led) is quietly looking into Post-Brexit reform of devolution and they're consulting ex-First and Deputy First Ministers, Scottish Secretaries and others involved in devolution since 1999 (Welsh Affairs are doing similar). The recent meetings have been interesting and you can find the deliberations with a quick Google. Jack McConnell and Jim Wallace have both suggested that the following be done;

 

- Joint Ministerial Committees are replaced by a Council of Ministers which meets on areas of joint control regularly to discuss and set strategic policies between the UK - I.e. on Trade, Agriculture, Welfare (in so far as is devolced), Transport, Home Affairs etc.

- Abolition of the Lords and replaced with a House of the Regions and Nations (I.e. an elected Senate with representation from across the UK - proportional representation) 

- Abolition of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and NI. The role of UK wide relations to go to a Deputy Prime Minister's Office or a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs which would merge those three offices with the Cabinet Office. 

 

A lot of that makes sense as these institutions have utterly failed in the current situation. Whilst this is all in the foothills it seems more achievable than the alternatives; from small acorns...

As usual good posting from you.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

For people supporting Brexit and worried it isn't happening, it is happening.. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Cade said:

The shipping firm with no ships or any experience of shipping who had a Govt shipping contract handed to them have now had that contract cancelled.

 

You remember the one, the company who's website was full of copy and pasted bits from other websites, their terms and conditions being lifted directly from JustEat including mentions of no refunds if food is cold or if the driver can't find your house.

 

The one that didn't go through a proper legal tender process because the Govt used emergency powers to give them the contract without any oversight.

 

 

 

 

Because an Irish firm pulled out without notice. Fine. They are after all Irish not British.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Shipping firm with no ships or any experience of shipping who had a Govt contract handed to them have now had that contract cancelled.

 

 

That's only half the story, why not tell everyone that Seaborne Freight was being supported by Arklow Shipping a major Irish Shipping Company, whom it seems withdrew it's support without warning resulting in the contract being cancelled.

I presume Seaborne Freight was going to be chartering ships from Arklow Shipping, but that isn't going to happen now.

With 48 days to go some people might think there is an alterative motive that an Irish firm pulls out of it's contract with the British Government, I make no judgement either way about it, I'll leave that for others to decide.

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

That's only half the story, why not tell everyone that Seaborne Freight was being supported by Arklow Shipping a major Irish Shipping Company, whom it seems withdrew it's support without warning resulting in the contract being cancelled.

I presume Seaborne Freight was going to be chartering ships from Arklow Shipping, but that isn't going to happen now.

With 48 days to go some people might think there is an alterative motive that an Irish firm pulls out of it's contract with the British Government, I make no judgement either way about it, I'll leave that for others to decide.

 

No matter what arklow's motivation was, it's pathetic that such an important contact was awarded to a company with no boats and no experience, whose ability to fulfil the contract was reliant on some other company who could pull the rug out at any time. 

 

That's where the no deal planning is.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

17 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No matter what arklow's motivation was, it's pathetic that such an important contact was awarded to a company with no boats and no experience, whose ability to fulfil the contract was reliant on some other company who could pull the rug out at any time. 

 

That's where the no deal planning is.

 

Sky news reporting that the only reason why Seaborne Freight was awarded the contract in the first place was because Arklow Shipping was going to have 60% of the share holding in Seaborne Freight, and it was this which gave the British Government the confidence to award the contract.

Arklow Shipping would have had to give assurances to the British Government before this contract was awarded, assurances which it seems Arklow Shipping have now removed, seemingly without warning.

Nothing was made public about who the backers of Seaborne Freight was until now, due to commercial sensitivities so it's being reported.

 

If the report I've just seen on Sky News is how things happened, then it's looking likely that the British Government have been let down by Arklow Shipping whom they had awarded the contract to via Seaborne Freight on good faith and on the strength of the assurancess received from Arklow Shipping.

[Francis Albert]

29 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No matter what arklow's motivation was, it's pathetic that such an important contact was awarded to a company with no boats and no experience, whose ability to fulfil the contract was reliant on some other company who could pull the rug out at any time. 

 

That's where the no deal planning is.

As has been posted repeatedly such contracts are routinely awarded to companies who don't own ships but lease them from third parties or otherwise subcontract to third parties. Arklow is described as a major shipping company and this is not really that major a contract. We don't know why Arklow have pulled out, without  notice it seems. But of course the default reaction is to blame the UK government.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Sky news reporting that the only reason why Seaborne Freight was awarded the contract in the first place was because Arklow Shipping was going to have 60% of the share holding in Seaborne Freight, and it was this which gave the British Government the confidence to award the contract.

Arklow Shipping would have had to give assurances to the British Government before this contract was awarded, assurances which it seems Arklow Shipping have now removed, seemingly without warning.

Nothing was made public about who the backers of Seaborne Freight was until now, due to commercial sensitivities so it's being reported.

 

If the report I've just seen on Sky News is how things happened, then it's looking likely that the British Government have been let down by Arklow Shipping whom they had awarded the contract to via Seaborne Freight on good faith and on the strength of the assurancess received from Arklow Shipping.

 

A good sign of how sturdy our plans are though. I wonder what backups they have in place, do we reckon they'll be watertight, well thought through plans with reputable companies able and willing to do what they promise for a fair price?

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

A good sign of how sturdy our plans are though. I wonder what backups they have in place, do we reckon they'll be watertight, well thought through plans with reputable companies able and willing to do what they promise for a fair price?

Are you saying Arklow are disreptuable, unable or unwilling to fulfil their promises?. And maybe overcharging to boot. I'd reserve judgment on that and whether the back ups float.

[RobboM]

19 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As has been posted repeatedly such contracts are routinely awarded to companies who don't own ships but lease them from third parties or otherwise subcontract to third parties. Arklow is described as a major shipping company and this is not really that major a contract. We don't know why Arklow have pulled out, without  notice it seems. But of course the default reaction is to blame the UK government.

A panicked last minute contract awarded after bypassing normal procurement safeguards cannot possibly be the UK government's fault ?

[RobboM]

19 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As has been posted repeatedly such contracts are routinely awarded to companies who don't own ships but lease them from third parties or otherwise subcontract to third parties. Arklow is described as a major shipping company and this is not really that major a contract. We don't know why Arklow have pulled out, without  notice it seems. But of course the default reaction is to blame the UK government.

A panicked last minute contract awarded after bypassing normal procurement safeguards cannot possibly be the UK government's fault ?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

A good sign of how sturdy our plans are though. I wonder what backups they have in place, do we reckon they'll be watertight, well thought through plans with reputable companies able and willing to do what they promise for a fair price?

 

If someone makes a promise to you and then backs out of it, then it doesn't matter how careful or diligent you have been, it's the person/company who has made the promise who is unreliable, besides it's not as if the British Government choose some tinpot company based in some tinpot country to work with, no the Government choose Ireland's largest shipping company based in Co. Wicklow, a company renowned and respected throughout Europe/the World, a company you should have been able to trust and depend upon.

We don't know the reasons why Arklow have backed out of being the major shareholder of Seaborne Freight, perhaps we'll never know.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Ah the blame game. 

 

This is the bit where all the 'project fear' stuff starts to come to fruition and it all becomes everyone else's fault other than HM Government and the shitehawks and charlatans that have backed the country into this position. 

 

Chris Grayling broke his neck to bypass the government's own procurement procedures under some obscure emergency measure to award a contract to a company with no ships, no port and no clue (but no doubt some links to the Tory party) and when that surprisingly goes the way of the dodo, it's an Irish companies fault. 

 

This will be the rhetoric going forward, as the enormity of the shit show heading our way becomes apparent. It's everyone else's fault and the Mail, Express and Sun will be conducting the band for the hard of thinking.

[Cade]

Awards contract to newly formed company with no ships or no expertise of running ships without going through a proper tender process, using emergency powers to force the contract through.

 

But it's all a conspiracy by the Irish

 

[Justin Z]

33 minutes ago, RobboM said:

A panicked last minute contract awarded after bypassing normal procurement safeguards cannot possibly be the UK government's fault ?

 

Nope, nobody else on the entiiiiiiire thread or in the entiiiiiire country is using their brains about this. Just Franny.

[Ulysses]

31 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

.....it's not as if the British Government choose some tinpot company based in some tinpot country to work with, no the Government choose Ireland's largest shipping company based in Co. Wicklow, a company renowned and respected throughout Europe/the World, a company you should have been able to trust and depend upon.

 

 

They're also a company with no spare capacity. All they could bring to Seaborne was experience in chartering ships.  They have experience in that in both Ireland and the Netherlands, but they have to operate in the same competitive market as everyone else in the business. I've no idea why they pulled out, and it was news to me that they were even involved.  But it strikes me as a poor exercise in due diligence - and just a bit "meta" - to award a contract to a company with no ships and no experience of running ships because they have a new partnership with a company with no ships but who can rent them from elsewhere, and then to do all that without a competitive tendering process and using special powers to force the approval through.

 

Has anyone even seen the partnership arrangement between these companies? Was it a contract between them? Did they set up a jointly owned subsidiary to bid?  Was the arrangement robust enough to withstand any dispute between the companies?  And why wasn't the public told about the role of a second non-UK operator in the contract at the time it was announced?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

They're also a company with no spare capacity. All they could bring to Seaborne was experience in chartering ships.  They have experience in that in both Ireland and the Netherlands, but they have to operate in the same competitive market as everyone else in the business. I've no idea why they pulled out, and it was news to me that they were even involved.  But it strikes me as a poor exercise in due diligence - and just a bit "meta" - to award a contract to a company with no ships and no experience of running ships because they have a new partnership with a company with no ships but who can rent them from elsewhere, and then to do all that without a competitive tendering process and using special powers to force the approval through.

 

Has anyone even seen the partnership arrangement between these companies? Was it a contract between them? Did they set up a jointly owned subsidiary to bid?  Was the arrangement robust enough to withstand any dispute between the companies?  And why wasn't the public told about the role of a second non-UK operator in the contract at the time it was announced?

 

Arklow Shipping being the proposed biggest shareholder in Seaborne Freight was news to everyone when this broke this morning, in fact before this morning I'd never even heard of them before and I'd guess I wouldn't have been the only one either.

You are asking me questions which you know there is no possible way that I could know the answer to, indeed outside of the British Government & Arklow Shipping, I'd doubt many will know the answers and may never know.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Arklow Shipping being the proposed biggest shareholder in Seaborne Freight was news to everyone when this broke this morning, in fact before this morning I'd never even heard of them before and I'd guess I wouldn't have been the only one either.

You are asking me questions which you know there is no possible way that I could know the answer to, indeed outside of the British Government & Arklow Shipping, I'd doubt many will know the answers and may never know.

 

I recognised the name, but that's mainly because I've been to Arklow occasionally.  Otherwise they don't make much of an impact.  I managed to find out today that they are between 500 and 600 on a list of Ireland's 1,000 biggest companies, but that's not a big deal in the wider world.

 

They might possibly be the biggest Irish shipping company in particular niche areas, but they aren't the biggest overall.  Irish Continental Line has four times Arklow's turnover, and is a public company with a stock exchange listing; Arklow Shipping is a private company with 2 shareholders. And in any case, the Irish shipping trade is dominated by Dublin Port, and Dublin's market leaders are mainly non-Irish companies such as Maersk, P&O, Hapag-lloyd and Gwynedd.

 

In fairness the public have a right to know what went on.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

32 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I recognised the name, but that's mainly because I've been to Arklow occasionally.  Otherwise they don't make much of an impact.  I managed to find out today that they are between 500 and 600 on a list of Ireland's 1,000 biggest companies, but that's not a big deal in the wider world.

 

They might possibly be the biggest Irish shipping company in particular niche areas, but they aren't the biggest overall.  Irish Continental Line has four times Arklow's turnover, and is a public company with a stock exchange listing; Arklow Shipping is a private company with 2 shareholders. And in any case, the Irish shipping trade is dominated by Dublin Port, and Dublin's market leaders are mainly non-Irish companies such as Maersk, P&O, Hapag-lloyd and Gwynedd.

 

In fairness the public have a right to know what went on.

 

I doubt very much we ever will, we rarely ever do.

[Mikey1874]

Money has been spent all over the place without the normal publicly reportable oversight. 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I doubt very much we ever will, we rarely ever do.

 

If it happened in Ireland, we would find out.  If it happened under EU procurement rules, we would find out. 

[Ulysses]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

If it happened in Ireland, we would find out.  If it happened under EU procurement rules, we would find out. 

 

By "it happened", I mean "the contract was awarded".

[Jambo-Jimbo]

39 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If it happened in Ireland, we would find out.  If it happened under EU procurement rules, we would find out. 

 

Tbh I haven't paid a great deal of attention to it, just bits here and there, so I'm assuming that normal protocol wasn't followed as per the procurement rules, if so then that would explain quite alot, especially the secrecy behind who Seaborne Freight's backers were and just the whole way the contract seems to have been awarded.

I posted something at the time that there was something odd about it, but I didn't really follow it up, probably got side tracked with something else and never got back to it.

 

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Tbh I haven't paid a great deal of attention to it, just bits here and there, so I'm assuming that normal protocol wasn't followed as per the procurement rules, if so then that would explain quite alot, especially the secrecy behind who Seaborne Freight's backers were and just the whole way the contract seems to have been awarded.

I posted something at the time that there was something odd about it, but I didn't really follow it up, probably got side tracked with something else and never got back to it.

 

 

Yep, it was one of three contracts announced at the same time, and the basis on which they were all awarded wasn't clear, though the Department for Transport insisted it was as a result of a competitive process.  As I recall it the other two contracts went to big-name shipping operators, and the Seaborne contract was the smallest of the three.  You'd imagine that in an open tender scenario companies like DFDS, P&O, Brittany Ferries or even Irish Continental Line could have tendered for the contract - and would surely have produced a better bid than someone who had no experience of the industry.  But the Department for Transport must have written out to operators or advertised in some way.  There's no way Arklow Shipping or anyone else randomly decided to get involved in this - they were responding to something issued by the Department.

 

On the subject of due diligence, Seaborne's chief executive does have some prior experience of ship chartering.  He previously ran a shipping chartering company that collapsed owing £1.8 million to creditors, including HMRC.  Perhaps that might go so way towards explaining why Arklow Shipping are no longer interested?

[Ulysses]

The Japanese believe they can get more favourable terms from the UK for a trade deal than they got from the EU.  And it seems that the Japan-EU trade deal includes a clause preventing Japan from offering a better deal on services to the UK than they have already given to the EU.

 

Guardian: Japan seeking big concessions from Britain in trade talks

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

The Japanese believe they can get more favourable terms from the UK for a trade deal than they got from the EU.  And it seems that the Japan-EU trade deal includes a clause preventing Japan from offering a better deal on services to the UK than they have already given to the EU.

 

Guardian: Japan seeking big concessions from Britain in trade talks

 

Easy trade deals we were told

[NANOJAMBO]

???     Anyone seen the statement from Sinn Fein today? Powerful stuff and they have shredded May and her attitude to NI/RoI. 

[Francis Albert]

EU employing restrictive practices by attaching conditions to agreements between third parties. Nice.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

???     Anyone seen the statement from Sinn Fein today? Powerful stuff and they have shredded May and her attitude to NI/RoI. 

There was one a few days ago by the sinn fein leader. Has there been another one?

McDonald and Foster shredding May in tandem!

[ri Alban]

13 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Ah the blame game. 

 

This is the bit where all the 'project fear' stuff starts to come to fruition and it all becomes everyone else's fault other than HM Government and the shitehawks and charlatans that have backed the country into this position. 

 

Chris Grayling broke his neck to bypass the government's own procurement procedures under some obscure emergency measure to award a contract to a company with no ships, no port and no clue (but no doubt some links to the Tory party) and when that surprisingly goes the way of the dodo, it's an Irish companies fault. 

 

This will be the rhetoric going forward, as the enormity of the shit show heading our way becomes apparent. It's everyone else's fault and the Mail, Express and Sun will be conducting the band for the hard of thinking.

It was the plan all along. No deal brexit blamed on the EU. And when the dust settles and if it does not work out, Scotland will be the fall guy.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

EU employing restrictive practices by attaching conditions to agreements between third parties. Nice.

Awww, diddums. Get it right fecking intae them. They did it in 2014, I hope the EU destroys this place.

[ri Alban]

March deadline to be extended is the most likely outcome when May comes back to the house.

[The Mighty Thor]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

EU employing restrictive practices by attaching conditions to agreements between third parties. Nice.

Imagine one side in a negotiation inserting a clause to ensure it gets the best deal. Who'd have thunk it. 

 

The EU has probably inadvertently done the UK a huge favour here by stopping our top negotiating team, led by Liam 'easiest trade deals ever' Fox, from signing away the family silver in sheer desperation to a get a trade deal signed up with a major economic player, who would undoubtedly have taken down our trousers at the negotiations. 

[The Mighty Thor]

46 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

March deadline to be extended is the most likely outcome when May comes back to the house.

But but but 

 

She said on time and in full on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday........

[Mikey1874]

Actual negociations between government and EU are back on over May's request based on recent vote in Parliament to change the Backstop.

 

Seems like they will move to vote at end February. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

They really don't like democracy in the eu do they.

 

 “I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious. I am for secret, dark debates.” 

 

No wonder we voted leave. 

[Mikey1874]

42 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

They really don't like democracy in the eu do they.

 

 “I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious. I am for secret, dark debates.” 

 

No wonder we voted leave. 

 

Britain voted to leave the EU. The EU has respected that vote. Just UK government has proven incapable so far of delivering it. 

[sairyinthat]

My the bogeymen are coming to get yiz stories grow more frantic as the clock ticks.Were Ooot understand that.