Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

alloywheel wrote: »

If each country in the EU is the EU (as Leo infamously said "I am the EU) then there will have to be consistency among the EU when it comes to dealing with British immigrants, for example. If the Spanish treat them one way, the other EU countries will have to treat them the same? What about the Rep. of Ireland - we have many British living here.

Immigration from outside the EU is a national competence, the EU was never given a role to act in that area by its members. We currently have our own immigration rules for people coming from Africa, for example, Spain has its rules, France has different rules again. Whatever rules individual member states have for non-EU migrants will apply to the British after Brexit.

ThePanjandrum

Hurrache wrote: »

Hang on, this is nothing what you claimed happened!

Which part do you object to?

So, it turns out that Seaborne Freight was a front company for Ireland's Arklow Shipping which wrote to the DfT a fortnight ago pledging its continued support but has now reneged on its deal.

No doubt there will be messages waiting for me when I wake.

Hurrache

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Which part do you object to?
.

What you claim is in the article, and what is actually in the article. Two different realities.

Unless it's your paranoia about Paddy pulling one over on you again.

Junkyard Tom

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So, it turns out that Seaborne Freight was a front company for Ireland's Arklow Shipping which wrote to the DfT a fortnight ago pledging its continued support but has now reneged on its deal.

Why should we care?

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

If you have made assurances to win a contract then withdraw these assurances after being awarded the contract you have reneged on the deal.

renege
(also renegue)VERB

[NO OBJECT]
1Go back on a promise, undertaking, or contract.

‘the government had reneged on its election promises’

Seaborne is a supplier to a vastly bigger entity. If a supplier withdraws without doing the work or getting paid, it withdraws without doing the work or getting paid.....it's no big deal, an inconvenience at most.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I'm an accountant. It was meant to be the major equity partner, it could not be replaced and it hid its involvement.

It was a front company.

A subsidiary or shell company used to shield another company from liability or scrutiny.

I've used front companies before to disguise involvement.

But this goes against what Grayling said when asked about Seaborne and why he awarded them the contract, doesn't it?

“It’s a new start-up business, government is supporting new British business and there is nothing wrong with that,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“We have looked very carefully at this business, we have put in place a tight contract that makes sure they can deliver for us. I don’t see any problem with supporting a new British business.”

He said the firm would be ready to deliver services from April and had been “looked at very carefully by a team of civil servants who have done due diligence on the company and reached a view they can deliver”.

Grayling defends giving Brexit ferry contract to company with no ships

Also your link says they requested two weeks ago that their involvement be kept quiet but the contract was awarded before the new year. Seaborne Freight was then saying it was working on plans to provide services from Ramsgate since 2017.

No-deal Brexit ferry company owns no ships and has never run Channel service

Seaborne was established two years ago and has been in negotiations about running freight ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend, but no services are currently running. Narrow berths in the port mean there are few suitable commercial vessels available.

In a statement, the company said it had been working since 2017 on plans to reintroduce ferry sailings from Ramsgate from early 2019.

The business has been “financed by the shareholders” during a development phase involving “locating suitable vessels, making arrangements with the ports of Ostend and Ramsgate, building the infrastructure – such as bunkering – as well as crewing the ferries once they start operating”.

It added: “It was intended to start the service in mid-February but this has now been delayed until late March for operational reasons.

I hope you don't think I am taking you on, I am just looking at the public statements that were made since the contract came to light as this contract screamed corruption from the start.

Here is the DfT statement at the time,

A Department for Transport spokesman added: “This contract was awarded in the full knowledge that Seaborne Freight is a new shipping provider, and that the extra capacity and vessels would be provided as part of its first services. As with all contracts, we carefully vetted the company’s commercial, technical and financial position in detail before making the award.”

But in the link you provided you quote the following,

A DfT source said Arklow, which operates more than 50 ferries, sent a letter two weeks ago guaranteeing they would be Seaborne Freight’s major equity partner but requesting that its backing was not made public for “commercially sensitive reasons” as it was in the process of acquiring new ferries. Then without warning on Friday, Arklow withdrew its support from Seaborne Freight, throwing the start-up into crisis.

So something still doesn't add up here. Either they awarded the contract with the knowledge that a further deal was being done between Arklow and Seaborne for Arklow to become a major equity partner and in doing so it would supply the company with the needed ships.

Or they awarded the contract to a British firm who had no ships but were in the process of negotiations to obtain vessels with other companies. Arklow was one of these companies who they were in negotiations with but they pulled out of the deal.

The first scenario puts Grayling in a tough spot as the company is then not a startup British firm that needs a helping hand, but a front for another EU company that he just awarded a contract to without a tendering process.

In the second scenario his statement that they have meticulously looked at the company and civil servants also did their due diligence to ensure the company would be able to meet the terms of the contract seems full of hot air. If they only awarded the contract to this unknown company because they have done their background checks and they are sure they will deliver as per the contract, the fact that the (soon to be?) major equity partner has withdrawn support means they are incompetent at due diligence.

What a mess, but with Grayling in charge was it ever going to be different?

Infini

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He is correct. In a no deal scenario it won't be for the UK or EU to tell the Spanish government what to do with British immigrants.

There is a range of possible outcomes but it will be for the Spanish to decide.

Sadly it basically means the British Government are essentially abandoning them all to be fair but this is no suprise to be honest the EU side has shown more concern for them than their own incompetent government.

Chips Lovell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

downcow, you identify as you wish, I have no problem with that. But don't try and cod anyone you are anything but Irish.
My version of a UI is an accommodation of any identity, Irish, British, Polish, Ukrainian, Italian etc. A modern cosmopolitan state just like Britain says it is.

Banned. Anyone else who engages in this kind of off topic trolling may also be sanctioned.

nice_guy80

You'd wonder did Arklow even know they were being used in this whole fiasco

Hurrache

It is somewhat poetic that the Seaborne saga ended because its Irish backers pulled out.

lawred2

Why wouldn't Arklow want to be associated with this contract?

From a multinational shipping company's point of view, why the need for secrecy? Surely they have contacts for the provision of all sorts of state services..

I don't get that story..

Unless the secrecy was sought by Grayling who was hoping he could pretend that he was shopping at home and buying British! And Arklow ultimately didn't want the risk of inevitable exposure and pulled the plug now..

Hurrache

Seaborne's contractual terms and conditions were taken from a takeaway, without being changed.

It was as dodgy as a €25 note from the outset. Maybe Arklow thought they could run the entire thing but eventually realised they'd have no say and therefore didn't want to be associated with the inevitable ****show.

An Ciarraioch

A further article in the Guardian also describes Arklow as "backing" Seaborne , which suggests they gave some form of financial guarantee to the latter, but withdrew when Seaborne were unable to meet commitments to Arklow:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/government-cancels-brexit-ferry-contract-with-no-ship-firm

EdgeCase

It looks like a deal that simply fell through. It's not that unusual for companies to reassess things like this.

The main thing is it doesn't seem that any public money was spent. The speed this stuff is being put together at is going to cause situations like this.

Panrich

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A further article in the Guardian also describes Arklow as "backing" Seaborne , which suggests they gave some form of financial guarantee to the latter, but withdrew when Seaborne were unable to meet commitments to Arklow:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/government-cancels-brexit-ferry-contract-with-no-ship-firm

I don’t see that in the linked article though. It seems to say that the DfT pulled out because Seaborne was unable to meet its commitments to them because Arklow pulled out. It doesn’t addres why Arklow pulled out.

View

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Immigration from outside the EU is a national competence, the EU was never given a role to act in that area by its members. We currently have our own immigration rules for people coming from Africa, for example, Spain has its rules, France has different rules again. Whatever rules individual member states have for non-EU migrants will apply to the British after Brexit.

That’s not quite true. The EU has been given a joint competence to act in this area as it is a stated task of the EU that the member states will develop a common immigration and asylum system.

Progress in this area though has been very slow and, apart from EU agreements in a few special cases such as for academics and their families, it remains largely under the direct control of each individual member state.

Ironically Brexiters are actually asking for a major step forward in this area by the EU member states with their demand that the EU member states apply a common set of rules in their treatment of British citizens as the U.K. leaves.

Logically, if the EU member states agree and apply a common set of rules for British citizens, it rules out the opportunity for Brexiters to engage in “divide and conquer” tactics by offering one member state a more favourable deal than another. That could mean though that we should refuse a more favourable offer for us and politely insist Brexiters make a common offer for all EU citizens.

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't agree with downcow on anything else so far, but repeatedly insisting that a person is part of a culture they say they are not part of is bizarre. Sure isn't driving the conversation anywhere interesting.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Agreed, but saying that someone is geographically Irish fully acknowledges their right not to be considered culturally Irish.

Does it? I don't think many in Ireland would agree with that logic when it is used against us.

Geographically, we live on the second largest of a group of about 6000 islands labelled "the British Isles". What are we then? British? British Islanders? I expect folks here would feel it's fine for, say, English people to label us as British geographically whilst in their great magnanimity, fully acknowledging our right not to be considered culturally British? Right?

Maybe some would say yes, but as we're all no doubt aware, that'd be a very unpopular position in Ireland.

Geographical labels are just more arbitrary labels- to be used when useful. Or to needle the Northern Irish, apparently. I think we're better than that.

Quin_Dub

Thread Reopened


OK - Once again I have had to spend far too much time going through this thread cleaning up personal digs , glib one liners and stupid rat-hole discussions about definitions of Nationality and the like.

Simply not good enough.

This is a hugely important and emotive topic , currently running at about 300 new posts every day so it's very hard for Mods to keep up.

Cards and bans have been given out by the Mod team for some posters.

Zero tolerance from here on out, There have been more than enough Mod Notes and warnings.

Stick to the rules please.

Thank you.

robindch

Laois_Man wrote: »

Nice to see RTE keeping us all bang up-to-date on the important information

RTE wrote:

Discussions took place over a menu of cured organic salmon for starter and fillet of beef, dauphinoise potato, green beans and parsnip puree for the main course.

Green beans, potatoes and salmon? Elegant messaging right there.

Green, white and orange. Plus a reference to both farmers and fishermen.

Good work chefs plus RTE!

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

Why wouldn't Arklow want to be associated with this contract?

From a multinational shipping company's point of view, why the need for secrecy? Surely they have contacts for the provision of all sorts of state services..

I don't get that story..

Unless the secrecy was sought by Grayling who was hoping he could pretend that he was shopping at home and buying British! And Arklow ultimately didn't want the risk of inevitable exposure and pulled the plug now..

I would imagine that the uncertain legal position post brexit, would have necessitated that any involvement would perhaps have to be through a UK based company.

54and56

robindch wrote: »

Green beans, potatoes and salmon? Elegant messaging right there.

Green, white and orange. Plus a reference to both farmers and fishermen.

Good work chefs plus RTE!

So what was the actual outcome of the discussions last night? There seems to be zero coverage in the media.

Inquitus

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So what was the actual outcome of the discussions last night? There seems to be zero coverage in the media.

Well there is nothing to discuss, as has been stated infinitum, the deal is the deal, the backstop is the backstop, and nothing is going to be renegotiated. I wasn't expecting anything from Leo or May, its just more running down the clock from May. Clearly her tactic is hope she can jam this deal through against the background of a chaotic no deal.

Alan_P

lawred2 wrote: »

Why wouldn't Arklow want to be associated with this contract?

From a multinational shipping company's point of view, why the need for secrecy? Surely they have contacts for the provision of all sorts of state services..

I don't get that story..

Unless the secrecy was sought by Grayling who was hoping he could pretend that he was shopping at home and buying British! And Arklow ultimately didn't want the risk of inevitable exposure and pulled the plug now..

There may be a mundane answer. Arklow were apparently negotiating to buy/lease ships :- they may have been concerned that prices would rise if it was known how critically those ships were needed.

Infini

Inquitus wrote: »

Well there is nothing to discuss, as has been stated infinitum, the deal is the deal, the backstop is the backstop and nothing is going to be renegotiated. I wasn't expecting anything from Leo or May, its just more running down the clock from May. Clearly her tactic is hope she can jam this deal through against the background of a chaotic no deal.

Honestly if that's her tactic it's going to backfire just like it did for Cameron when he called that referendum in the first place. Both foolish and dangerous. The only thing that can realistically stop this is an A50 cancellation as it ultimately loses nothing. Parliament will not likely agree at the last minute as many could feel the deal is no better than a no deal where as if the choice is between the deal and remain it would be easier to get a solution as one option keeps the status quo.

Inquitus

Infini wrote: »

Honestly if that's her tactic it's going to backfire just like it did for Cameron when he called that referendum in the first place. Both foolish and dangerous. The only thing that can realistically stop this is an A50 cancellation as it ultimately loses nothing. Parliament will not likely agree at the last minute as many could feel the deal is no better than a no deal where as if the choice is between the deal and remain it would be easier to get a solution as one option keeps the status quo.

I agree I think it is a poor tactic with huge risk associated with it, but sadly that seems to be the path she has chosen to pursue.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would imagine that the uncertain legal position post brexit, would have necessitated that any involvement would perhaps have to be through a UK based company.

It can't be that. The other two ferry companies involved were DFDS (Danish) and Brittany Ferries (French).

LuckyLloyd

May continues to try and talk to individual leaders bilaterally because that helps the perception back home. Just as she came out from her meeting with the EU during the week saying 'talks would continue'. "Talks" mean discussions on what additional language or guarantees can be placed in the political declaration of course, but as always the detail doesn't matter. The negotiations are on going (even if they're not) and May is meeting Varadkar to sort out the backstop (even if she isn't). Meanwhile the clock ticks...

The EU have made it clear to her that the deal is the deal and her move is to reach across the aisle and form a cross party quorum to get it over the line. That is all that matters now. The irrelevant noise about what the ERG or DUP think will continue or nonsense about internal Conservative party compromises, but make no mistake - all that matters is May / Corbyn agreeing an approach acceptable to the EU. If they don't it's going to be No Deal and party political concerns will have triumphed over the national interest.

ThePanjandrum

Alan_P wrote: »

There may be a mundane answer. Arklow were apparently negotiating to buy/lease ships :- they may have been concerned that prices would rise if it was known how critically those ships were needed.

But then, as far as we know, the first time Arklow's involvement was known was after the deal fell through, so they could have bought their ships without it being public knowledge.

downcow

Inquitus wrote: »

Well there is nothing to discuss, as has been stated infinitum, the deal is the deal, the backstop is the backstop and nothing is going to be renegotiated. I wasn't expecting anything from Leo or May, its just more running down the clock from May. Clearly her tactic is hope she can jam this deal through against the background of a chaotic no deal.

I honestly don’t think she is going to get a deal through with the indefinite backstop in it. But I also think a complete no deal is unlikely. I know many keep telling me that the backstop can’t be modified but I cannot believe that Eu & Uk and indeed ireland are all going to cut of the nose to spite their face.
Some sort of time limit on the backstop seems the only solution- not exactly what anybody wants but a sensible compromise.
I was surprised chatting to a few fairly strong remainers who have spent a life in high management in finance and both said an indefinite backstop is just impossible to accept
Do you guys not think some compromise with come st the 11fh hour? Which many be so fudged that it will be the 13th hour before we all unravel what it means. It will contain a way out off the backstop for UK but this will not be needed because then relationships will improve and sense will prevail and find trade agreements that work for all. Anything else will hurt UK ireland and Eu significantly. Eu a has significant challenges ahead with or with UK. And if you believe in global warming then Southern Europe will be significantly more impacted than Northern Europe going forward

Inquitus

downcow wrote: »

I honestly don’t think she is going to get a deal through with the indefinite backstop in it. But I also think a complete no deal is unlikely. I know many keep telling me that the backstop can’t be modified but I cannot believe that Eu & Uk and indeed ireland are all going to cut of the nose to spite their face.
Some sort of time limit on the backstop seems the only solution- not exactly what anybody wants but a sensible compromise.
I was surprised chatting to a few fairly strong remainers who have spent a life in high management in finance and both said an indefinite backstop is just impossible to accept
Do you guys not think some compromise with come st the 11fh hour? Which many be so fudged that it will be the 13th hour before we all unravel what it means. It will contain a way out off the backstop for UK but this will not be needed because then relationships will improve and sense will prevail and find trade agreements that work for all. Anything else will hurt UK ireland and Eu significantly. Eu a has significant challenges ahead with or with UK. And if you believe in global warming then Southern Europe will be significantly more impacted than Northern Europe going forward

Its not a backstop if it is time limited or the UK can unilaterally leave, that is why it is not going to be changed. It's not cutting off our nose to spite our face, it's the only way no border on the Island of Ireland can be implemented. The sensible solution is to have a border in the Irish Sea, but that won't be countenanced by the DUP despite being the simplest and best solution.