Brexit (Old)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by denphone

The narrative is still the same though.

The narrative is not the same. Your post referred to a specific contract being withdrawn due to the companies backers (who own a fleet of ships) withdrawing their backing.

Continuing the contract would've been incompetant not cancelling it.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The narrative is not the same. Your post referred to a specific contract being withdrawn due to the companies backers (who own a fleet of ships) withdrawing their backing.

Continuing the contract would've been incompetant not cancelling it.

If HMG had done some proper thorough homework which they don't seem to have done in many cases they should have not given out the contract to them to start with.

The narrative is incompetence with this and most of the other things they have done since the vote.

Originally Posted by denphone

If HMG had done some proper thorough homework which they don't seem to have done in many cases they should have not given out the contract to them to start with.

The narrative is incompetence with this and most of the other things they have done since the vote.

I’m still not following you Den. What ‘homework’ should they have done - a field trip by Tardis to find out whether Arklow Shipping would at some point withdraw from their arrangement with Seaborne?

The problem with narratives is they stop you from seeing what’s actually happened. You’re tied to the narrative that HMG incompetently gave a contract to a company with no ships, which makes it impossible for you to see that in fact, HMG *did* do its homework, and knew that Seaborne was effectively acting as an intermediary or management operation, that planned to contract out the actual shipping to an experienced and trusted company called Arklow.

Because HMG *did* do its homework, it knew that when news broke that Arklow had severed its commercial relationship with Seaborne, then Seaborne would be unable to fulfil its government contract. That contract has therefore been terminated.

We did not previously know about Arklow because that was commercially sensitive information, which HMG quite correctly did not release even though it would have killed dead the narrative about them giving a shipping contract to a company with no ships.

You get the idea. Hopefully.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m still not following you Den. What ‘homework’ should they have done - a field trip by Tardis to find out whether Arklow Shipping would at some point withdraw from their arrangement with Seaborne?

The problem with narratives is they stop you from seeing what’s actually happened. You’re tied to the narrative that HMG incompetently gave a contract to a company with no ships, which makes it impossible for you to see that in fact, HMG *did* do its homework, and knew that Seaborne was effectively acting as an intermediary or management operation, that planned to contract out the actual shipping to an experienced and trusted company called Arklow.

Because HMG *did* do its homework, it knew that when news broke that Arklow had severed its commercial relationship with Seaborne, then Seaborne would be unable to fulfil its government contract. That contract has therefore been terminated.

We did not previously know about Arklow because that was commercially sensitive information, which HMG quite correctly did not release even though it would have killed dead the narrative about them giving a shipping contract to a company with no ships.

You get the idea. Hopefully.

If Grayling was half confident, he would have contracted out to a shipping company. That would have enabled him to sue a company with assets if it breached its contract. What does he do now? The Express says he will resign.

[papa smurf]

The Arklow fleet

http://www.asl.ie/fleet/

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

The Arklow fleet

http://www.asl.ie/fleet/

I cannot see any ferries in this fleet? The contract, as reported, was to provide RORO ferries?

UK to spend £103m on no-deal ferries

Three suppliers were awarded a total of £102.9m:

£46.6m to the French company Brittany Ferries
£42.5m (€47.3m) to Danish shipping firm DFDS
£13.8m to British firm Seaborne Freight
All three businesses will expand services on their fleets of "roll-on/roll-off" vessels, designed to carry lorries across the Channel.

So maybe the "narrative about them giving a shipping contract to a company with no ships" is still accurate?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I cannot see any ferries in this fleet? The contract, as reported, was to provide RORO ferries?

UK to spend £103m on no-deal ferries



So maybe the "narrative about them giving a shipping contract to a company with no ships" is still accurate?

The contract was with Seaborne Freight (UK) Ltd which has no ships. It looks like its contract with Arklow was not water tight.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I cannot see any ferries in this fleet? The contract, as reported, was to provide RORO ferries?

UK to spend £103m on no-deal ferries



So maybe the "narrative about them giving a shipping contract to a company with no ships" is still accurate?

There’s little point in bolding words that were written by a BBC journalist. As you’ve correctly surmised, whether or not the shipping contractors directly own the ships they would use is a point of interest. That being the case, you would need to discover whether the DfT or any of the contractors (not the BBC) ever claimed they already directly owned any Ro-Ro ferries. From there you would need to determine whether or not it’s a matter of concern whether an experienced shipping company owns a ship or leases one to fulfil a particular contract.

Or you could just ditch the pursuit of facts and cling to the narrative that the stupid Tories wanted to give money to people who couldn’t do the job they needed done in an emergency.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I cannot see any ferries in this fleet? The contract, as reported, was to provide RORO ferries?

UK to spend £103m on no-deal ferries



So maybe the "narrative about them giving a shipping contract to a company with no ships" is still accurate?

They are capable of carrying Wheat/grain, we import over 1,000,000 tons per year from the Eu [not the sort of thing you put on a ferry ] but essential to our food supply.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

There’s little point in bolding words that were written by a BBC journalist. As you’ve correctly surmised, whether or not the shipping contractors directly own the ships they would use is a point of interest. That being the case, you would need to discover whether the DfT or any of the contractors (not the BBC) ever claimed they already directly owned any Ro-Ro ferries. From there you would need to determine whether or not it’s a matter of concern whether an experienced shipping company owns a ship or leases one to fulfil a particular contract.

Or you could just ditch the pursuit of facts and cling to the narrative that the stupid Tories wanted to give money to people who couldn’t do the job they needed done in an emergency.

Maybe Hansward will suit your delicate tastes?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...eaborneFreight

The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)

A third, smaller contract, which is potentially worth £13.8 million, was awarded to Seaborne Freight, a new British operator, to provide a new service between the port of Ramsgate and Ostend. Let me stress that no money will be paid to any of these operators unless and until they are actually operating ferries on the routes we have contracted. No money will be paid until they are operating the ferries. No payment will be made unless the ships are sailing, and of course, in a no-deal scenario, money will be recouped through the sale of tickets on those ships.

So Seaborne Freight had no ferries and it seems the invisible backer may have none either? So yes, they did want to give money to people who couldn’t do the job they needed done in an emergency.

Just admit it, go on ..

Sorry but you’re grasping- what’s the significance of the words “operating” beyond the fact that it confirms ships are to be leased rather than owned? You’re still resting on the narrative you’ve bought into rather than thinking the situation through.

Leasing rather than owning is absolutely standard behaviour. Bus companies do it, train companies do it, airlines do it, shipping lines do it.

Your quote from Hansard is only really useful at demonstrating the limitations of using non-specialist journalists for reporting complex issues. Clearly I t’s the BBC’s misunderstanding that led to it reporting that these companies would be operating “their” fleets.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Or Jezza's deal?
Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit plan 'promising', Donald Tusk tells Theresa May

I don't trust JC to deal cards.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Talking of SNP - they got an absolute pasting on BBCQT last night.... By a Glaswegian in the Audience, reminded me of a certain Troll splatter....

The other week on radio 5 live, they were talking to Scottish kids about independence, and who they would ban from Scotland one girl said she would ban Jimmy Krankie, the puzzle interview said "Jimmy Krankie", before the penny dropped.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Or Jezza's deal?
Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit plan 'promising', Donald Tusk tells Theresa May

JC's "deal" stinks. We might as well remain in the EU. To be bound to the EU by a customs union defies the Referendum.

Just how bad it is is somewhat underlined by the perfidious EU's expression of interest.

[Pierre]

Just need to hold the course.

May’s deal isn’t a bad one, just need to agree something on the backstop.

If the backstop is the altar on which all sides would sacrifice Brexit, £41 billion, our whole future relationship - then they would be idiots. Politicians for all their woes ( barring a few notable exceptions) are not idiots.

It is 1no. Issue. Forget all the current theatrics, there will more. But as that date gets closer and closer something will agreed.

[1andrew1]

Back May’s deal, then hold people’s vote: plan to end Brexit deadlock
Theresa May could win parliament’s approval for her controversial Brexit deal in return for guaranteeing another referendum, under a new plan being drawn up by a cross-party group of MPs. The new vote would give the British people a simple choice: to confirm the decision or stay in the EU.
The initiative, aimed at breaking the political impasse, is being advanced by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and has won the support of prominent Remainers in the Tory party including Sarah Wollaston, Dominic Grieve and Anna Soubry.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ckbencher-plan