Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

SeaBreezes

Roanmore wrote: »

Michael Gove in the HoC just accused the EU of being anti Science and anti Innovation.
How can he lie so brazenly, just rolled off his tongue.

Meanwhile, hes dragging the UK back to the stone ages...

EU anti science? From the gov that BOUGHT THE WRONG satellites?

. Riighhtt.. and the idiots swallowing his palavar deserve his governance unfortunately.

Sam Russell

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Meanwhile, hes dragging the UK back to the stone ages...

EU anti science? From the gov that BOUGHT THE WRONG satellites?

. Riighhtt.. and the idiots swallowing his palavar deserve his governance unfortunately.

Not only did they scrap the project after paying GB£500,million for a dud project, they are now on the hook to clearing up all the space debris the satellites create as they fall to earth.

listermint

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not only did they scrap the project after paying GB£500,million for a dud project, they are now on the hook to clearing up all the space debris the satellites create as they fall to earth.

ahh .. These has to be the best analogy of Brexit... ever!!!!

Sam Russell

listermint wrote: »

ahh .. These has to be the best analogy of Brexit... ever!!!!

I think the best one is the (failing) Grayling project giving a £13.8 million contract to a ferry company only in existence 6 months, that had no ferries nor experience of ferries, and had copied its terms and conditions from a pizza delivery company, to operate from a silted up harbour that had jetties that could not take the ferries, and had contacted an Arklow shipping company to loan it some ferries. The Arklow shipping company had no contract and only deals in bulk carriers, not RoRo. So failed on every count.

That is Brexit - fail on every count.

VinLieger

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the best one is the (failing) Grayling project giving a £13.8 million contract to a ferry company only in existence 6 months, that had no ferries nor experience of ferries, and had copied its terms and conditions from a pizza delivery company, to operate from a silted up harbour that had jetties that could not take the ferries, and had contacted an Arklow shipping company to loan it some ferries. The Arklow shipping company had no contract and only deals in bulk carriers, not RoRo. So failed on every count.

That is Brexit - fail on every count.

New addition to this they filed for voluntary liquidation on September 8th and owe 2 million

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-grayling-seaborne-freight-ferries_uk_5f6a276dc5b68400a231dc3f

Papers filed with Companies House show Seaborne decided to enter voluntary liquidation on September 8. Quantuma have been appointed joint liquidators.
The company’s assets amount to nearly £32,000-worth of computer equipment, nearly £4,500-worth of furniture and equipment, and £2,620 cash in the bank.
The company will go bust owing nearly £2m – made up of £1.2m to trade and expense creditors, a £400,000 loan, £323,000 in directors loans and a £100 corporation tax bill to HMRC.

Sam Russell

VinLieger wrote: »

New addition to this they filed for voluntary liquidation on September 8th and owe 2 million

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-grayling-seaborne-freight-ferries_uk_5f6a276dc5b68400a231dc3f

It would have been poetic if they had waited to liquidate until Jan 1st 2021.

swampgas

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the best one is the (failing) Grayling project giving a £13.8 million contract to a ferry company only in existence 6 months, that had no ferries nor experience of ferries, and had copied its terms and conditions from a pizza delivery company, to operate from a silted up harbour that had jetties that could not take the ferries, and had contacted an Arklow shipping company to loan it some ferries. The Arklow shipping company had no contract and only deals in bulk carriers, not RoRo. So failed on every count.

That is Brexit - fail on every count.

The ferry contract did succeed in one respect: it was an attempt to funnel millions from taxpayer funds to cronies of the government. It was corruption spun as incompetence.

There was never any serious intention of providing ferries, the intention was to defraud the state in a (barely) technically legal way. I would not be surprised to find that money has since been squirreled away behind shell companies and trust funds in an offshore British tax haven somewhere.

That such blatant corruption hasn't brought down the government (it has barely remained as a news story) shows how far gone the UK is on the road to autocratic kleptocracy.

Sam Russell

swampgas wrote: »

The ferry contract did succeed in one respect: it was an attempt to funnel millions from taxpayer funds to cronies of the government. It was corruption spun as incompetence.

There was never any serious intention of providing ferries, the intention was to defraud the state in a (barely) technically legal way. I would not be surprised to find that money has since been squirreled away behind shell companies and trust funds in an offshore British tax haven somewhere.

That such blatant corruption hasn't brought down the government (it has barely remained as a news story) shows how far gone the UK is on the road to autocratic kleptocracy.

I think that level of corruption, if that is what it is, is in the halfpenny place compared what has gone on with the PPE contracts (over £1 billion in total). One contract was handed out to a sweet wholesaler, another to a business consultant, and another to a start-up company. Little of the PPE stuff has been delivered or is otherwise unsuitable.

It is like Trump playbook - no sooner is one scandal identified for fact checking, than another one hoves into view for fact checking - they cannot keep up. Remember the Russian interference report, that the Gov sat on for 9 months - well now because it is 9 months old, it is out of date.

AbusesToilets

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that level of corruption, if that is what it is, is in the halfpenny place compared what has gone on with the PPE contracts (over £1 billion in total). One contract was handed out to a sweet wholesaler, another to a business consultant, and another to a start-up company. Little of the PPE stuff has been delivered or is otherwise unsuitable.

It is like Trump playbook - no sooner is one scandal identified for fact checking, than another one hoves into view for fact checking - they cannot keep up. Remember the Russian interference report, that the Gov sat on for 9 months - well now because it is 9 months old, it is out of date.

Sure isn't the whole Brexit endeavour built around corruption and funneling public money into private hands.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the best one is the (failing) Grayling project giving a £13.8 million contract to a ferry company only in existence 6 months, that had no ferries nor experience of ferries, and had copied its terms and conditions from a pizza delivery company, to operate from a silted up harbour that had jetties that could not take the ferries, and had contacted an Arklow shipping company to loan it some ferries. The Arklow shipping company had no contract and only deals in bulk carriers, not RoRo. So failed on every count.

That is Brexit - fail on every count.

Eurotunnel got £33m.

While they used to have ferries technically they are banned by UK competition laws from operating them now.


Grayling wasted about £3Bn so letting him play with the ferries was probably saving the govt money.

Cona

Today’s announcement that the EU is intent to sue the UK, I would have said it’s the final nail in the coffin and a no deal is now inevitable. That being said, sterling went up slightly today and is/was at 1.10 today....not sure how this happens unless there is something else we don’t know. Surely sterling should take a sip over the next week??? Possibly the central bank have ways and methods to artificially keep it up but still...

druss

Cona wrote: »

Today’s announcement that the EU is intent to sue the UK, I would have said it’s the final nail in the coffin and a no deal is now inevitable. That being said, sterling went up slightly today and is/was at 1.10 today....not sure how this happens unless there is something else we don’t know. Surely sterling should take a sip over the next week??? Possibly the central bank have ways and methods to artificially keep it up but still...

Probably helps that UK side is briefing that their ploy with the Bill has worked and a chastened EU is now ready to move. Only fisheries left to solve etc etc.

allthedoyles

Quote - On 31st December, 2020 the Brexit transition period with the EU is due to end, so we’re taking action to make sure our Irish customers are not affected when the UK leaves the EU.

In two months, we will be moving our European customers to the electronic money licence held by Revolut in Lithuania . - end quote

Delighted that Revolut has left UK behind and moving to Lithuania.

An Ciarraioch

On the one hand, Katya Adler speculates that Barnier not saying anything tomorrow is the preliminary to the "tunnel", but on rather firmer ground, the German Foreign Ministry makes its position clear:

https://twitter.com/germanydiplo/status/1311744460787798017

Cona

Apparently the legal proceedings is just a smoke show and a deal being much more important can still be done...

listermint

Cona wrote: »

Apparently the legal proceedings is just a smoke show and a deal being much more important can still be done...

Apparently from whom ?

Sam Russell

listermint wrote: »

Apparently from whom ?

Believers - Brexit just need people to believe harder. The EU will capitulate any time now.

Just believe.

Imreoir2

If the UK were to do a pants on fire level backtrack then a deal is still possible, though their recent nonsence would make any such deal even more stringent in its requirements.

It seems unlikely that the UK will be willing to about face in such a way, but then again, they did it last year...

Leroy42

Why have the EU given the UK yet anoth month? They said they needed to revoke the IM bill by yesterday, and today seem to have issued a strongly worded letter. Yes it mentions start of legal proceedings but is that such an issue?

THe aim of the IM was to get the EU to focus on the talks and get things moving, it seems to me that that is exactly what it has done.

I don't understand why the EU are playing so softly with the UK. They signed the WA, and basically threatened to tear it up and the EU did very little, continued to talk and now it seems that some movement is coming.


I expect mos of the movement to come from the UK, despite how they try to sell it, but it seems to me that the EU would be hurting its standing quite considerably to be see to have taken part in the whole thing. Do they not think US and China are watching?

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why have the EU given the UK yet anoth month? They said they needed to revoke the IM bill by yesterday, and today seem to have issued a strongly worded letter. Yes it mentions start of legal proceedings but is that such an issue?

THe aim of the IM was to get the EU to focus on the talks and get things moving, it seems to me that that is exactly what it has done.

I don't understand why the EU are playing so softly with the UK. They signed the WA, and basically threatened to tear it up and the EU did very little, continued to talk and now it seems that some movement is coming.


I expect mos of the movement to come from the UK, despite how they try to sell it, but it seems to me that the EU would be hurting its standing quite considerably to be see to have taken part in the whole thing. Do they not think US and China are watching?

In what way are they hurting. Deadline is end of month. They've issued proceedings just like they said they would.

What is it you would have expected them to do.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

Believers - Brexit just need people to believe harder. The EU will capitulate any time now.

Just believe.

You should read the sun comment section online; every legal expert (all of 'em) pointing out how "ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK since we left" and "might as well sue us in an Uganda court" etc. That was until one brave soul pointed out all international treaties would include the court of jurisdiction for settling dispute which happened to be the ECJ and the fact UK signed the deal. Directly started to get down voted though for daring to tell the truth....

johnnyskeleton

Roanmore wrote: »

Michael Gove in the HoC just accused the EU of being anti Science and anti Innovation.
How can he lie so brazenly, just rolled off his tongue.

Said in the context of why the UK has to spend a billion pounds to pay for a regulator for the chemical industry. When asked why, Gove said this:

Gove, the minister handling Brexit divorce issues for Britain and one of the leading advocates for the break with Brussels, said extra red tape was the price of securing autonomy and independence to become more competitive in the future.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-chemicals-idUKKBN26M5TB

Far from the stated aim of Brexit to reduce red tape.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why have the EU given the UK yet anoth month? They said they needed to revoke the IM bill by yesterday, and today seem to have issued a strongly worded letter. Yes it mentions start of legal proceedings but is that such an issue?

THe aim of the IM was to get the EU to focus on the talks and get things moving, it seems to me that that is exactly what it has done.

I don't understand why the EU are playing so softly with the UK. They signed the WA, and basically threatened to tear it up and the EU did very little, continued to talk and now it seems that some movement is coming.


I expect most of the movement to come from the UK, despite how they try to sell it, but it seems to me that the EU would be hurting its standing quite considerably to be see to have taken part in the whole thing. Do they not think US and China are watching?

The legal process takes time as the wheels turn slowly. If you are taking legal action, then the subject of the action has to be given time to repent.

It follows the old sgt Major refrain - 'First I asks you, then I tells you, then I makes you!' We are at stage two.

Of course, the EU could start playing outside the nice rules and decide to use strong tactics, like tariffs, fines, sanctions against individuals or the UK state. If the UK refuse to provide proper customs and SPS checks at NI ports, the the EU could take action at EU ports like Calais or Rotterdam, or remove some fifth freedom rights for UK aircraft.

It could get nasty, and quite quickly.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why have the EU given the UK yet anoth month? They said they needed to revoke the IM bill by yesterday, and today seem to have issued a strongly worded letter. Yes it mentions start of legal proceedings but is that such an issue?


I don't understand why the EU are playing so softly with the UK.

This kind of legal action is much like firing an employee: there are steps to follow if you want to ensure a "satisfactory" outcome, one that later on stands up to scrutiny in front of a tribunal. This is the EU thinking ahead, and playing the long game with a third country.

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

THe aim of the IM was to get the EU to focus on the talks and get things moving, it seems to me that that is exactly what it has done.

I don't understand why the EU are playing so softly with the UK. They signed the WA, and basically threatened to tear it up and the EU did very little, continued to talk and now it seems that some movement is coming.

Could you maybe explain this a bit more to me please? My understanding is that since the Internal Markets Bill was published, the only concessions have been that the UK has suggested a 3 year transition period for fishing, and I haven't heard any response from the EU about same. It seems like a pretty crumby concession from the EU's point of view, but has caused considerable angst amongst the hard Brexiteers.

If anything, the attitude of the EU since the Internal Markets Bill was published is that they are willing to talk, but their position remains the same, and that they aren't going to negotiate if the IMB is used as a gun to their heads. So I struggle to see how the IMB has got the EU moving. If anything, the UK has offered one small concession after they published the bill, but saying that that was prompted by the IMB doesn't really follow.

Joe_ Public

The IM bill is pretty much just more clear cut evidence of a lack of good faith on the uk side. I still fail to see any useful purpose to it. They surely always knew it was doomed on its passage through the lords anyway, so other than antagonising and throwing another spanner in the works, what was it ever designed to achieve? If they somehow thought it was going to give them some leverage in the talks, then they've learned nothing in four very painful years. Are they just trolling now? Either Johnson backs down like he did last year or they go full kamikaze to the end, that's the only way this process ascends to next level.

looksee

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Said in the context of why the UK has to spend a billion pounds to pay for a regulator for the chemical industry. When asked why, Gove said this:



https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-chemicals-idUKKBN26M5TB

Far from the stated aim of Brexit to reduce red tape.

https://www.ft.com/content/a1c4a5dc-f627-4689-97ae-909d4aaf6162 as laid out in this article, firms will have to absorb huge expenses at no particular advantage to continue business in the UK chemical industry.

Why would a German firm, for example, pay out 60 to 70m in costs just to reregister chemicals when presumably they could up-sticks and head back to Europe, especially as this is just one item in the list of reasons why the UK will be less attractive as a place to do business?

The article and the links in it give a lot of information, though most of it is well beyond my ability to fully assess all the implications, but it does really indicate that the like of Johnson are in well over their heads. I'm sure there is an analogy on the lines of 'burning your house down because you don't want to pay property tax'.

Hurrache

Cona wrote: »

Apparently the legal proceedings is just a smoke show and a deal being much more important can still be done...

Nothing apparently about it, it's not a smoke show, it's just the reality of a law and rule based organisation, despite what some in the UK to want their audience to believe.

Strazdas

looksee wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/a1c4a5dc-f627-4689-97ae-909d4aaf6162 as laid out in this article, firms will have to absorb huge expenses at no particular advantage to continue business in the UK chemical industry.

Why would a German firm, for example, pay out 60 to 70m in costs just to reregister chemicals when presumably they could up-sticks and head back to Europe, especially as this is just one item in the list of reasons why the UK will be less attractive as a place to do business?

The article and the links in it give a lot of information, though most of it is well beyond my ability to fully assess all the implications, but it does really indicate that the like of Johnson are in well over their heads. I'm sure there is an analogy on the lines of 'burning your house down because you don't want to pay property tax'.

I've thought for ages that people have seriously underestimated just how bad Brexit will be for the UK. There could be so many unexpected and unanticipated knock on effects on the economy that it could turn into an absolute s-show, calamity stuff.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

.... the the EU could take action at EU ports like Calais or Rotterdam, or remove some fifth freedom rights for UK aircraft.

It could get nasty, and quite quickly.

The only 'old Chicago Convention rights' are freedom 1 and 2, that will not directly involve the UK leaving the EU. (fly over and landing for refuel and/or repair only)

Freedom 3: 'fly out and land', and 4: 'take off and fly home' - with passengers/cargo/post.

The EP has - last year iirc - asked for freedom 3 and 4 to be outside the 'No Deal => No Mini-deals' policy.

But much has changed since, and I believe, freedom 3 and 4 could be limited to fewer flights and even only to non English airports. (lack of EU feeder routes will kill BA overseas and half Heathrow Airport).

I can get very ugly very soon.

Lars