It's not for the bloody civil service to decide what is reasonable. Furthermore, if they think a directive in not feasible then they can say so and explain why. However, having done this they still have an obligation to do the best they can. Their own bloody website concedes this. If what they are being asked to do is legal then they have a duty to do it. Of course the civil service often seek to delay, obstruct or simply torpedo government directives. Again, by their own admission they shouldn't but they do it anyway.
So the civil service have the authority or power to criticize the government's plans? And they can do so impartially? Especially in this political climate? How, exactly? How else would a civil servant agency "say so and explain why"? And who determines whether or not they have sought to 'delay, obstruct, or simply torpedo government directives'?
You want to talk about subjective arguments? You argue that the civil service must be impartial, but use subjective criteria to determine that impartiality.
How the hell is determining what is unreasonable NOT subjective. Seriously...
You do realize that following this line of thinking eventually leads to 'the civil service are (at least partly) to blame for anything that I dislike' right?
Ultimately though, it comes down to a question of feasibility. If the police sector was tasked by Parliament and the government to double their patrols without additional aid, some would see that as unreasonable while others wouldn't regardless of actual feasibility.
I have gone over the role of the civil service and even quoted directly from their own webpage what their role is...and it's not what you seem to think.
I've not actually gone against anything that was said on that website. The ONLY things that have been asked in response is who determines wrongdoing here? If you'll choose to remember, I said at the very beginning that the civil service are not NECESSARILY (aka automatically) at fault for failing to fulfill political promises. NECESSARILY does not mean THEY ARE AT FAULT nor does it mean that THEY ARE NOT AT FAULT. You seem to be of the opinion that NO MATTER WHAT, the civil service bears responsibility for a politicians promises and agendas irregardless of anything else.
What is exactly?
I was under the impression that part of the whole Brexit fishing thing was to get foreign fisheries out of UK waters. How is this accomplished if UK fishermen are still allowed to sell their catch quotas and foreign vessels can still fish within UK waters?
I've explained this multiple times and I'm not going to simply keep repeating myself. If you seriously can't understand the difference then so be it.
You've repeatedly said that it's important. When asked for clarification, you've just reiterated that it was important and not explained why in any way that addresses any of my follow-up questions.
How does it not? It's simple maths. If you take the total fish caught in the UK's EEZ by foreign fishermen and compare that with the total fish caught by UK fishermen in waters controlled by the CFP (excluding British waters) you end up with a HUGE difference favouring foreign fishermen. In other words, even if UK fishermen lost ALL access to EU waters they would still come out well in front. Again, this is assuming the UK government don't rubber d*** them. So guess what, the simple maths agrees with me, disagrees with you.
'Simple maths' is rarely a true reflection of reality. In fact 'simple maths' often have underlying assumptions in place to make them 'simple' in the first place. Your scenario has several key assumptions in them that are REQUIRED to be fulfilled in order for such a prediction to be true. I've told you all of this before. If you're still asking me, 'how does it not', then...
By the way, other than gut feel what do you base your view that poaching in the UK's waters will inevitable increase? What exactly is that view based on?
Would you like me to list the long history of poaching and their traditional reasonings?
They didnt 'just' use their border claims. Their border claims were absolutely integral to their attempts to control fishing in 'their' waters. No border claims means no way of realistically controlling their fishing resources. So their border claims were absolutely critical to the cod wars.
Yes, but the whole point of creating that border claim in the first place was to control the fish in that area, not for s***s and giggles. That's what I mean when I say that the border issue was used. The border itself wasn't really the end goal, it was about the fish living in that border.