Brexit negotiations thread

[Tangled up in Blue]

Neither UK nor EU Parliaments want no deal. I think the only way it would come about is literally through May being so incompetent that she doesn't have the mechanism to prevent it.

Then that's a real possibility.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm certainly not suggesting that he should come back as some kind of saviour all I was indicating was that, at the time, if he had been chosen in preference to his brother, the history of the Labour Party and indeed British politics could have been very different today.

Nobody who'd voted in favour of the Iraq war-as David Miliband did- could possibly have been elected leader of the PLP after Blair/Brown left office.That's precisely why Ed got the gig instead of Dave (remember Ed wasn't in parliament at the time) and Corbyn got it afterwards (winning against Andy Burnam and Yvette Cooper, who'd also voted for the war (Can't remember about Liz Kendall but I don't think Miss 5% was in parliament at the time of the war either).

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

You really couldn't make this stuff up. Seaborne Freight only existed on paper as a start up business with no assets and no ships or ferries. There must have been an almighty backhander, or some other explanation to give it a £13.8 Million contract. The man behind it already had a dodgy past, knocking shipping firms and the tax man. How did it ever pass the DD test? As time was running out, the penny finally dropped with the Government that they would be nowhere near ready in the case of a no deal Brexit. They still had no assets, no ships and no ferries. This contract was a risk from day one. And yet just a month ago Chris Grayling defended the Seaborne Freight contract, insisting it was "not a risk". Now the government has to start again with only a few weeks to go and find some other shipping firm. Unbelievable.

At last the big row broke out about this today on PMs question time. I thought Chris Grayling was going to get away with it. He is a staunch May supporter, so she backs him back, anyone else would have been sacked. More scandal is now leaking out about this. Chris Grayling told the house that the procurement regarding Seaborne Freight was done properly in a way that conforms with government rules. But that is a huge whopper, as a freedom of information request reveals that Chris Grayling bypassed those rules to deny the Procurement Assurance Board, a senior panel of experts and Lawyers were denied the chance to scrutinise the deal, a clear breach of parliamentary rules. So you have to ask why he gave such an important contract potentially worth £13.8 Million to a worthless start up company, and why did he remove the main hurdle for them to be given the contract? They rightly wouldn't have got through the Procurement Assurance Board, and it would have saved all this time and money. It's going to be about £1 Million to the tax payer for being sued over Seaborne by Eurotunnel. The Seaborne fiasco is also going cost Thanet Council nearly £2 Million as mentioned in the house of commons today.

 

[Bielzibubz]

At last the big row broke out about this today on PMs question time. I thought Chris Grayling was going to get away with it. He is a staunch May supporter, so she backs him back, anyone else would have been sacked. More scandal is now leaking out about this. Chris Grayling told the house that the procurement regarding Seaborne Freight was done properly in a way that conforms with government rules. But that is a huge whopper, as a freedom of information request reveals that Chris Grayling bypassed those rules to deny the Procurement Assurance Board, a senior panel of experts and Lawyers were denied the chance to scrutinise the deal, a clear breach of parliamentary rules. So you have to ask why he gave such an important contract potentially worth £13.8 Million to a worthless start up company, and why did he remove the main hurdle for them to be given the contract? They rightly wouldn't have got through the Procurement Assurance Board, and it would have saved all this time and money. It's going to be about £1 Million to the tax payer for being sued over Seaborne by Eurotunnel. The Seaborne fiasco is also going cost Thanet Council nearly £2 Million as mentioned in the house of commons today.

The whole fiasco reeks of backhanders, financial fraud and corporate corruption no matter which way you decide to slice it. And what makes it even more scandalous is the absolute brazenness with which it's all been undertaken.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Here's a thought and one that kinda makes sense.

In short summary

1. It's a tense negotiating game of who blinks first and who's got the biggest kahoonas.
2. It will go right down to the wire but everyone knows a deal will be found and struck at the 11th hour.
3. The overheard conversation in the bar about May taking it to the wire and forcing MP's into making a take it or leave it decision is true.
4. The horror stories of a No Deal Brexit we've all been treated to these past few months are all an unintended part of the overall plan and she's using them (see 5)
5. That overall plan is to make a No Deal Brexit and the consequences of continued uncertainty with an extended delay in leaving the EU (see 3) so horrific that it forces May's deal deniers to fall into line.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

At last the big row broke out about this today on PMs question time. I thought Chris Grayling was going to get away with it. He is a staunch May supporter, so she backs him back, anyone else would have been sacked. More scandal is now leaking out about this. Chris Grayling told the house that the procurement regarding Seaborne Freight was done properly in a way that conforms with government rules. But that is a huge whopper, as a freedom of information request reveals that Chris Grayling bypassed those rules to deny the Procurement Assurance Board, a senior panel of experts and Lawyers were denied the chance to scrutinise the deal, a clear breach of parliamentary rules. So you have to ask why he gave such an important contract potentially worth £13.8 Million to a worthless start up company, and why did he remove the main hurdle for them to be given the contract? They rightly wouldn't have got through the Procurement Assurance Board, and it would have saved all this time and money. It's going to be about £1 Million to the tax payer for being sued over Seaborne by Eurotunnel. The Seaborne fiasco is also going cost Thanet Council nearly £2 Million as mentioned in the house of commons today.

It actually reveals nothing of the sort. I have personally dealt with hundreds of FOIs on behalf of my previous government department and this stinks to high heaven.

A group calling itself the 'Transport Network' and styling itself 'progressive', i.e. Labour/Union lefties (progressive sounds like a lovely fluffy word that is the opposite of conservative isnt it comrades? At least, it says so in the dictionary. Therefore we must all be good and they must all be bad. Lovely. Trebles all round) say they put in a disclosure request under the Freedom of Information Act. They received the following text within the reply (which they do not publish in full):

'A maritime subgroup of the Board of Investment and Commercial Committee reviewed all bids submitted as part of the department's additional freight capacity procurement including that by Seaborne Freight. There was progressive assurance and assurance oversight during the procurement process, but no formal Procurement Assurance Board was convened.'

That reply will have been completed by a civil servant in DfT, probably quite junior, in their commercial directorate. It will have been signed off by the senior civil servant (SCS grade) with oversight of the procurement process. Ministers will have had no involvement in the FOI process.

The quoted text describes DfT internal governance around procurement for this type of contract. We do not have the question posed under the FOI request or the full text of the response.

It is quite possible (in fact very likely, since 'Transport Network' will have been monitoring DfT procurement and governance approaches over many years ) that a 'full PAB' in civil service parlance was not required for one or other reason (contract value, breadth of skills on overall PAB relative to a specific procurement) etc. The proper place with the proper experts to consider the procurement is the subgroup because that is simply a name for the group of experts with maritime knowledge rather than rail or airports.

Transport Network may well have known all this and that full PAB wasn't required by DfT internal procurement governance arrangements (nothing to do with parliamentary rules - or indeed parliament at all). TN will have specifically framed a question to ask how this was approved, and whether a PAB was convened (knowing the answer would be no to that).

They have now published the excerpt saying no PAB was convened, without setting that in any context, and feeding off the back of the 'no ships sherlock' mess to try to further embarrass the government - without cause in this instance.

All this does show, I'm afraid, other than the systemic dodgy tactics that surround politics on all sides (this is a perfect example of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story) is that whoever approved that FOI response (the senior civil servant) needs to be spoken to because the response should not have included that line. Our job is to recognise what the dodgy opposition tactics are behind this kind of thing a sidestep it. The job of the civil service is to deliver with full commitment and discretion for the government of the day, whoever they may be and whether or not we personally agree with the policies they were elected to deliver. We do that whoever is in government and I have personally for Labour, the Coalition and now the Tories. It would have been easy to respond accurately and fully to this FOI without referring to PAB specifically.

To summarise, Grayling hasn't lied on this point and there is no evidence that any procurement rules were broken. DfT procurement rules are established and audited by the NAO. This followed that governance approach and Grayling said as much.

The sad thing is that nobody will get to hear the truth, they will just absorb this bollocks and if it fits their views they will take it as gospel.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Here's a thought and one that kinda makes sense.

In short summary

1. It's a tense negotiating game of who blinks first and who's got the biggest kahoonas.
2. It will go right down to the wire but everyone knows a deal will be found and struck at the 11th hour.
3. The overheard conversation in the bar about May taking it to the wire and forcing MP's into making a take it or leave it decision is true.
4. The horror stories of a No Deal Brexit we've all been treated to these past few months are all an unintended part of the overall plan and she's using them (see 5)
5. That overall plan is to make a No Deal Brexit and the consequences of continued uncertainty with an extended delay in leaving the EU (see 3) so horrific that it forces May's deal deniers to fall into line.

This ,of course,gets blown out of the water if the Cooper amendment is actually passed by the commons at the end of this month.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

It actually reveals nothing of the sort. I have personally dealt with hundreds of FOIs on behalf of my previous government department and this stinks to high heaven.

A group calling itself the 'Transport Network' and styling itself 'progressive', i.e. Labour/Union lefties (progressive sounds like a lovely fluffy word that is the opposite of conservative isnt it comrades? At least, it says so in the dictionary. Therefore we must all be good and they must all be bad. Lovely. Trebles all round) say they put in a disclosure request under the Freedom of Information Act. They received the following text within the reply (which they do not publish in full):

'A maritime subgroup of the Board of Investment and Commercial Committee reviewed all bids submitted as part of the department's additional freight capacity procurement including that by Seaborne Freight. There was progressive assurance and assurance oversight during the procurement process, but no formal Procurement Assurance Board was convened.'

That reply will have been completed by a civil servant in DfT, probably quite junior, in their commercial directorate. It will have been signed off by the senior civil servant (SCS grade) with oversight of the procurement process. Ministers will have had no involvement in the FOI process.

The quoted text describes DfT internal governance around procurement for this type of contract. We do not have the question posed under the FOI request or the full text of the response.

It is quite possible (in fact very likely, since 'Transport Network' will have been monitoring DfT procurement and governance approaches over many years ) that a 'full PAB' in civil service parlance was not required for one or other reason (contract value, breadth of skills on overall PAB relative to a specific procurement) etc. The proper place with the proper experts to consider the procurement is the subgroup because that is simply a name for the group of experts with maritime knowledge rather than rail or airports.

Transport Network may well have known all this and that full PAB wasn't required by DfT internal procurement governance arrangements (nothing to do with parliamentary rules - or indeed parliament at all). TN will have specifically framed a question to ask how this was approved, and whether a PAB was convened (knowing the answer would be no to that).

They have now published the excerpt saying no PAB was convened, without setting that in any context, and feeding off the back of the 'no ships sherlock' mess to try to further embarrass the government - without cause in this instance.

All this does show, I'm afraid, other than the systemic dodgy tactics that surround politics on all sides (this is a perfect example of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story) is that whoever approved that FOI response (the senior civil servant) needs to be spoken to because the response should not have included that line. Our job is to recognise what the dodgy opposition tactics are behind this kind of thing a sidestep it. The job of the civil service is to deliver with full commitment and discretion for the government of the day, whoever they may be and whether or not we personally agree with the policies they were elected to deliver. We do that whoever is in government and I have personally for Labour, the Coalition and now the Tories. It would have been easy to respond accurately and fully to this FOI without referring to PAB specifically.

To summarise, Grayling hasn't lied on this point and there is no evidence that any procurement rules were broken. DfT procurement rules are established and audited by the NAO. This followed that governance approach and Grayling said as much.

The sad thing is that nobody will get to hear the truth, they will just absorb this bollocks and if it fits their views they will take it as gospel.

It was JC who said that Chris Grayling bypassed those rules. JC told the house today that the Procurement Assurance Board, a senior panel of experts and Lawyers were denied the chance to scrutinise the deal by Chris Grayling. It was him that said Chris Grayling broke parliamentary rules. Theresa May was questioned on it but ducked it with spin as usual with any question a politician won't answer. So do you think JC is lying?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The whole fiasco reeks of backhanders, financial fraud and corporate corruption no matter which way you decide to slice it. And what makes it even more scandalous is the absolute brazenness with which it's all been undertaken.

pretty sure you were telling those of us that were highlight this a month ago that we were clutching at straws (not your actual words and think I'm downplaying your actual sentiments....)

 

[Bielzibubz]

This ,of course,gets blown out of the water if the Cooper amendment is actually passed by the commons at the end of this month.

Remind us all again what Labours plans are to ensuring the UK leave the EU and not be tied down to a customs union and single market. Two things that were specifically voted against staying in back in 2016.

 

[Bielzibubz]

pretty sure you were telling those of us that were highlight this a month ago that we were clutching at straws (not your actual words and think I'm downplaying your actual sentiments....)

I don't know how to search back through one's own posts but I was saying pretty much the same when the story broke. What I think your eluding to is that I used the news as a way of pointing out that it was just another moan and whine post about the ineptitude of this government, the same we hear day in day out without fail, and all to no end.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

It was JC who said that Chris Grayling bypassed those rules. JC told the house today that the Procurement Assurance Board, a senior panel of experts and Lawyers were denied the chance to scrutinise the deal by Chris Grayling. It was him that said Chris Grayling broke parliamentary rules. Theresa May was questioned on it but ducked it with spin as usual with any question a politician won't answer. So do you think JC is lying?

As I said before the PAB is a run of the mill internal DfT governance board in their commercial directorate. It is not a political body or a parliamentary body. It operates within DfT procurement governance, which itself complies with government procurement strategy.

There are no provable lies in JC's statement. To lie, you have to know what you are saying is incorrect. JC has been fed the same extract from the FOI response which Transport Network' received, without JC having the context of the full response or the question asked. Transport Network and JC are interpreting that response as a breach of rules - most likely because they have edited out the words which show it was nothing of the sort.

Let's be clear: Transport Network initiated this process fishing for a chance to embarrass the government. They have cobbled together a story, but it is a non-story. JC is fighting the good fight on their behalf and while he is not lying, he is at best uninformed and at worst disingenuous. Transport Network are beyond disingenuous.

The parliamentary rules that Grayling is alleged by Labour to have breached are not procurement rules. They are those governing accuracy and honesty of Ministerial statements. He claimed that DfT followed government procurement guidelines. DfT's audited procurement process and governance follows government guidelines. There is no requirement under that process for a full PAB (which would be unnecessary) to be called to review the proposal, for the reasons I gave before. So Grayling spoke accurately. The cobbled together TN/JC story alleges rules were breached (without evidencing the rule which the extract they have breached - see the problem?) and that therefore Grayling lied to or misinformed parliament.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Remind us all again what Labours plans are to ensuring the UK leave the EU and not be tied down to a customs union and single market. Two things that were specifically voted against staying in back in 2016.

This is a good listen.https://www.theguardian.com/news/au...remy-corbyn-really-think-about-brexit-podcast

As I've told you before there was no specific question in the 2016 referendum at to how the UK should leave the EU in the event of a leave vote.That's precisely why we're in the mess we're in now.

Also it's a Tory Brexit.Cameron's government called for the referendum in the first place and left May in charge of HMG to see it through.

 

[rigsby]

This is a good listen.https://www.theguardian.com/news/au...remy-corbyn-really-think-about-brexit-podcast

As I've told you before there was no specific question in the 2016 referendum at to how the UK should leave the EU in the event of a leave vote.That's precisely why we're in the mess we're in now.

Also it's a Tory Brexit.Cameron's government called for the referendum in the first place and left May in charge of HMG to see it through.

Yes you have told us before, on so many occasions. Did it also say how we would remain ? Of course not, we did try the most basic of reforms but the EU stuck two fingers up at as and laughed. That's why we voted out

You, like some remainers also claim we are in a mess but that will only happen if we sign a bad deal....The sort of deal the Labour party want. The sort of deal the Tories will blame Labour for in the next GE.....It works with immigration so why not with an EU deal, especially if it was remain.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

As I said before the PAB is a run of the mill internal DfT governance board in their commercial directorate. It is not a political body or a parliamentary body. It operates within DfT procurement governance, which itself complies with government procurement strategy.

There are no provable lies in JC's statement. To lie, you have to know what you are saying is incorrect. JC has been fed the same extract from the FOI response which Transport Network' received, without JC having the context of the full response or the question asked. Transport Network and JC are interpreting that response as a breach of rules - most likely because they have edited out the words which show it was nothing of the sort.

Let's be clear: Transport Network initiated this process fishing for a chance to embarrass the government. They have cobbled together a story, but it is a non-story. JC is fighting the good fight on their behalf and while he is not lying, he is at best uninformed and at worst disingenuous. Transport Network are beyond disingenuous.

The parliamentary rules that Grayling is alleged by Labour to have breached are not procurement rules. They are those governing accuracy and honesty of Ministerial statements. He claimed that DfT followed government procurement guidelines. DfT's audited procurement process and governance follows government guidelines. There is no requirement under that process for a full PAB (which would be unnecessary) to be called to review the proposal, for the reasons I gave before. So Grayling spoke accurately. The cobbled together TN/JC story alleges rules were breached (without evidencing the rule which the extract they have breached - see the problem?) and that therefore Grayling lied to or misinformed parliament.

However you want to look at it Grayling has ****ed public time and money up the wall by looking to contract out work to a company who on the very basic information would have been rejected by anyone with any common sense.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

However you want to look at it Grayling has ****ed public time and money up the wall by looking to contract out work to a company who on the very basic information would have been rejected by anyone with any common sense.

On the face of it, yes that’s how it looks to me too. On that basis, there’s probably a bit more to it.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

On the face of it, yes that’s how it looks to me too. On that basis, there’s probably a bit more to it.

Good! I did think that the inner workings of FOI was an unexpected focus.
Chris Grayling has overseen the issuing of a £13.8 million contract to a company who have no monetary value, no experience, no stock and are proposing to work out of a port where the Tory Councillors have had no approach from the government or the company and a foreign port saying similar things. Grayling stated over and over again that everything is above board and followed acceptable procedures and will deliver. He kept this up despite more and more information about company policy based on pizza delivery T&Cs, bankruptcy among the company's owners, Eurotunnel threatening to sue, etc etc. No one is surprised that the deal eventually falls through and Grayling's new assurances that the public purse didn't lose out cannot be true because all of the checks and balances on the company/contract do not happen for free and are resources that are presumably in high demand for other No Deal planning.

Very few people absorbed the bollocks that Grayling was dishing out - nearly everyone knew this would **** up.

 

[Bielzibubz]

This is a good listen.https://www.theguardian.com/news/au...remy-corbyn-really-think-about-brexit-podcast

As I've told you before there was no specific question in the 2016 referendum at to how the UK should leave the EU in the event of a leave vote.That's precisely why we're in the mess we're in now.

Also it's a Tory Brexit.Cameron's government called for the referendum in the first place and left May in charge of HMG to see it through.

And how did you expect the referendum questions to be framed exactly? And how many? Three, four, six? And what questions. Would you ask Joe Public whether they wanted to stay in the single market without explaining exactly what that entails? Would you have asked them if they'd like to stay a part of the single market without explaining exactly what that entails? How much detail do the questions go into in order to make them readily understood and at the same time comprehensive to avoid confusion.

A referendum, by its nature, has to be a vote between simple choices. That's what they are. A piece of paper on which someone has to place their cross is NOT the place to put a set complex questions to help that person make up their mind. All the reasons for and against leaving were out there in the public domain before anyone went into the voting booth. They had the chance to do their research if they wished or to blindly believe all the lies and half truths told to them by all sides. Some chose the former, many chose the later. Like it or loath it that is how referendums are supposed to work.

Unless of course you're a far left socialist government and you ignore the will of 62% of your countries population.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

And how did you expect the referendum questions to be framed exactly? And how many? Three, four, six? And what questions. Would you ask Joe Public whether they wanted to stay in the single market without explaining exactly what that entails? Would you have asked them if they'd like to stay a part of the single market without explaining exactly what that entails? How much detail do the questions go into in order to make them readily understood and at the same time comprehensive to avoid confusion.

A referendum, by its nature, has to be a vote between simple choices. That's what they are. A piece of paper on which someone has to place their cross is NOT the place to put a set complex questions to help that person make up their mind. All the reasons for and against leaving were out there in the public domain before anyone went into the voting booth. They had the chance to do their research if they wished or to blindly believe all the lies and half truths told to them by all sides. Some chose the former, many chose the later. Like it or loath it that is how referendums are supposed to work.

Unless of course you're a far left socialist government and you ignore the will of 62% of your countries population.

it would have been sensible if it had been stated exactly what Leave meant during the referendum.
May saying 'Brexit means Brexit' after the vote implies that it means something specific yet the two prominent Leave campaigners Johnson and Gove now back very different things.
It's a big mess, but if the campaign had a clear message then it needn't be a mess now.

 

[Bielzibubz]

it would have been sensible if it had been stated exactly what Leave meant during the referendum.
May saying 'Brexit means Brexit' after the vote implies that it means something specific yet the two prominent Leave campaigners Johnson and Gove now back very different things.
It's a big mess, but if the campaign had a clear message then it needn't be a mess now.

It was. We were told. Unfortunately we were told by two opposing sides with different views and they did it with lies and half truths. What leave meant to you is wholly at odds with what it means to me. Who is the great British public to believe? You get my drift.

It's exactly as DC said in his pre vote speech. Leave means leave. He then went on to explain what we were leaving. He told the country exactly what it was voting for. There were multitudes of different sources one could choose from to find out what leaving those particular elements of the EU meant. When someone tells you you've got the choice of leaving a club and a particular part of the club and also names that particular part of that club it's down to you to find out what it is you've either got to lose or gain from leaving, not the person that's just told you.

Now, there are some that could have predicted and expected the kind of intransigence the EU would put up. It was inevitable given what's at stake for the Eurogroup, The Troika and the Euro.