Brexit

"No one's cracking open the champagne… don't even pour a pint of warm Guinness," joked one of the few people familiar with what actually happened on Thursday after talks between Boris Johnson and Leo Varadkar.

Nothing that happened in the privacy of a country house wedding venue on the Wirral means there will be a deal with the EU in the next seven days. Nothing has made the obstacles in the way of reaching an agreement magically disappear.

But something has changed today.

After days of various EU players publicly scorning the UK's proposals, explaining the objections and lamenting the weaknesses, there is a tangible willingness, on the bloc's side at least, to see seriously if they can work.

We've discussed here so many times why Ireland's attitude matters so much, so the very public positivity from Mr Varadkar - his "maybe", instead of "no" to Mr Johnson's proposals - is extremely important.

There is hardly any detail out there of the compromises or concessions that might be actually in play to make a deal work so don't give too much credence to even the best informed speculation that's already whirring online as to how it could happen.

A joint statement said that Johnson and Varadkar had a "detailed and constructive discussion".

"Both continue to believe that a deal is in everybody's interest," the statement said. "They agreed that they could see a pathway to a possible deal."

The talks concentrated on "the challenges of customs and consent", Downing Street said.

"They agreed to reflect further on their discussions and that officials would continue to engage intensively on them."

Johnson put forward fresh proposals for a Brexit deal last week, but Mr Varadkar said "big gaps" remained between the UK and the EU.

So..... what's on the table here...?

Northern Ireland would leave the EU's customs union alongside the rest of the UK, at the start of 2021 but Northern Ireland would continue to apply EU legislation relating to agricultural and other products, if the Northern Ireland Assembly approves.

This arrangement could, in theory, continue indefinitely, but the consent of Northern Ireland's politicians would have to be sought every four years.

Customs checks on goods traded between the UK and EU would be "decentralised", with paperwork submitted electronically and only a "very small number" of physical checks

These checks should take place away from the border itself, at business premises or at "other points in the supply chain"


This is a version of Teresa May's original WA arrangements with a few tweaks. Enough to get through Parliament..? Hmmm... that remains to be seen. Nobody can tell with the volatile atmosphere in British politics at this time.

If Ireland were to accept it, then their decision would carry a lot of weight with the EU, but again, that has to be seen.

At least there is some hope that we might pull back from a disastrous No Deal scenario.

But there is still a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry long way to go.

Funny that seeing as, according to some, BJ is apparently not interested in a deal.

I love how remoaners get their knickers in a knot over some people calling Germans 'Krauts' and referencing the two world wars whilst these same people call those who support Leave fascists, Nazis, rascists etc etc etc.

Now personally I don't like it when any war is brought into the Brexit debate, and I don't like Germans being referred to as 'Krauts'.

...but people in glass houses...

You and I must have very different definitions of what a 'working plan' looks like. To me, if the major component of the plan has failed, then it doesn't really matter what the other parts of it are doing. Which brings us back to my original statement. If 'Project Fear' in this plan has failed, then my original statement is the natural result. Namely that the plan becomes one where the government delays indefinitely until the EU gets tired of them.



Even if you were of the mind that the EU is conducting negotiations like this, it does not then give the UK free license to act the same way. That's what children and hypocrites do.

I, for one, fail to see how this is a 'major concession' to the EU at all. Usually, a concession involves giving something up of value to the other side in order to move negotiations along. In this instance, it seems more like the UK have proposed a 'concession' that does nothing but hurt both parties.



Disregarding the use of the word 'apparently' indicating a rumor, and not a fact...

Why would they accept that the people of NI get final say on what the border looks like for both parties? They have a say and they will use it to protect their own interests.



Are we discussing how poltical parties view opinion polls or how you view them here? Either way, it doesn't really work like that. General opinion polls cannot be takes as indicators of support for specific policies since it gets muddied together with other issues. There are some things people like about certain parties and some things people don't, no party will 100% keep it's own voters happy.

As for the gauging of popular support for their leader, such a thing is a future prediction in a GE and why parties sometimes oust especially poor polling ones.



Just because you believe it, does not make it true.



Only one of these is an underlying assumption. The rest are predictions BASED on those assumptions.

Let's address the underlying assumption first. 2's assumption is that both public and private sectors are ill prepared for a no-deal scenario and that it will continue to worsen. Let's first remember that such an assumption was made at the beginning of August, when the government was very much still in a wheel spinning state and not a brinkmanship one. Second, let's address the idea that you put forward about how BJ's presence has actually girded businesses to prepare for no-deal. Conceptually that makes little sense, since most businesses do not make investment and market decisions in a time frame of months. Similarly, most government agencies can only do so much with the information they have. The meat of the paperwork actually has to be done in Parliament, because they're the ones who have to set up agencies as quickly as possible to cover for what the EU already took care of in regards to regulation. The ports can say they're prepared to send all the paperwork as fast as they can, but if they have no place to send them to, then it doesn't really matter. It's a matter of logistics, not of efficiency.

1 is an extension of 2, but let's address several minor points here.

1. Just because space was set aside for unready HGV's does not then mean that there will be no blockages or delays at ports.

2. The actual report states that the 40% you mention is "a pre-mitigation reasonable worst case flow rate". This means that sans any mitigating factors at all, the flow rate is predicted to be about 40% of normal in a reasonable worst case scenario. Obviously, if you add in mitigating factors, then the number will be higher.

3. Any future prediction must be based on current data, not on future musings. The report had no choice BUT to use current data on unready HGV's in order to estimate impact. Anything else would have been impractical, and impossible to justify.

3 is rather simple logic. The SEM functions on the same basic principles as the rest of the single market. If the UK is intent on 'going it's own way, not tied down by EU regulation' then the question of what happens if the EU and the UK begin to diverge in regulation regarding energy becomes an issue. The logical conclusion of that issue is that the SEM agreement between the two powers comes into risk and may collapse sometime in the future.

4 carries three major problems.

1. Remember that this is a report on a 'reasonable worst case scenario' meaning it assumes no or very little government intervention or mitigation, BY DEFAULT.

2. All government interventions and mitigations are things that are still to be decided on and ironed out IN THE FUTURE, and as such making predictions on what those interventions or mitigations will look like and how they will affect the country are irresponsible.

3. You assume that such things as you've mentioned can be accomplished in a timely manner. Remember that most trade negotiations take years, and while that's being hammered out businesses, not governments, both large and small will have to employ most of the strategies you list there to survive. Typically, such strategies increase cost of production. Ultimately, all this ends up meaning is that businesses hold most of the cards when it comes to price adjustment and the government can promise whatever it likes in regards to that, but it doesn't end up meaning much.



Which are entirely separate issues from what we have been discussing.



What a ludicrous statement. We all have limited time on this Earth, and I for one would prefer experts to be focused on their own fields to advance and study them rather than addressing all the nonsense that the media and general public engages in regarding their work.

Says the person who got all huffy at me for using the term crash out and yet continues to use terms like remoaner.

I know.... he does that to me too . His latest rant at me attempts to get all high and mighty about me describing Brexit politicians as Nazis, and yet I don't like others using words like "Kraut".

The difference between the two is lost on him.

"Nazi" is a legitimate term used in UK to describe a political extremist of the right wing bent. The meaning of the word has extended from its original definition as a member of the National Socialist Party to now being legitimately used as an adjective of or pertaining to Nazism.


On the other hand, "Kraut", in the manner it is used by Brexiters is a racist pejorative. In the Oxford English Dictionary it is defined as Derogatory. A German. Another example of his false equivalence.... conflating a legitimate political term with a racist slur.

Probably (yet) another attempt at deflecting away from the main point when his argument is being debunked (yet again).

Or it could just be that being brought up speaking - what Australians themselves call - 'Strine he doesn't quite understand the finer nuances of the English language and its usage by native speakers.



PS..... Actually, I don't really mind being called a Remoaner. It's no big deal. See the tagline beneath my screen name.

Today in the Daily Telegraph:



Northern Ireland Is A Burden On The Rest Of The UK. We Can't Let It Get In The Way Of Brexit.

The Daily Torygraph.... sorry, Telegraph.... carries a story today suggesting that Britain should cut Northern Ireland loose for no other reason than that it is proving a difficult obstacle to Brexit.

snip:

Northern Ireland has long been a millstone round the neck of the rest of the UK and to fail to take back our independence because of it would be an historic tragedy. It is not widely known that it costs the UK more to support Northern Ireland than it does to be in the EU.

Strange in that the same paper, during the referendum campaign, said that the Northern Ireland border would be an easy problem to resolve and the people of NI could rest assured that Britain would never sell them out to the Republic.


Now the Torygraph is saying we should just drop those same people.... sell them out..... That Brexit is more important than they are. Well, there's showing your true colours for you.

A couple of weeks ago, the excellent and widely respected Bonnie Greer appeared on Question Time and totally owned the Brexiters on the panel who were talking about a post Brexit trade deal with the USA. I'll quote her verbatim here:

"Often at times, I hear people talking about Ireland as if this country (UK) owns Ireland. Ireland owes this country nothing. Ireland owes this country no concessions, it owes it no quarter, it owes it nothing."

She continued to echo the point made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, as she outlined the importance of the Good Friday Agreement to American politics.

"The second thing that I'd add too is that the Good Friday Agreement - in spite of its rather benign name - is a truce. It's a truce because the United States of America and the EU sat down with this country to make it happen. We have to be much more serious about this.

The third thing that I'd like to say is that the United States is Irish. If anyone thinks that they're going to get a deal through and have a trade relationship with the United States that shafts Ireland, you've got another think coming. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. I'm from Chicago and you know what we do on St. Patrick's Day? We dye the river green."

She warned: "People are very serious about Ireland in the United States. Don't mess with it, don't make it look bad."

She totally owned that show.

Her comments were received rather well in ireland....

Bonnie Greer's Electric Performance On Question Time - Irish Press

What she said is very true. And if the Irish have any influence in the US.... which I believe they do..... then I think they will use it to influence the response in the House of Representatives to any trade deal the English try to make with USA.

She was also right in what she said about the English attitude to Ireland. The hard right in this country still thinks of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as territorial possessions.

I'd be interested to read the opinion of Americans on this forum as to just who it is that REALLY has a "special relationship" with the USA.

A poster campaign has begun this weekend where posters created by the pro-remain group "Led By Donkeys" will be placed all over the country parodying the governments "Get Ready For Brexit" campaign.

















A Boris Johnson clown in the style of the horror film It is among the images that will grace billboards going up around the country this weekend after a competition to redesign the government’s “Get Ready for Brexit” campaign.

The image is among five winning entries picked by the writer-director Armando Iannucci and the actor and comedian David Schneider, following the competition run by the pro-remain group Led By Donkeys, which described it as a push to give the public more accurate information.

Donald Trump, who was also a strong theme among more than 3,000 entries to the competition, also features in one of the winners. In a nod to fears that the future of the NHS would be on the table in any post-Brexit US-UK trade deal, the billboard shows Trump gobbling up the health service’s logo.

The first wave of billboards are to go up in Neath, Coventry, Havant, Salisbury and Weymouth.

The other three winners include one featuring Nigel Farage holding up an “I am ready” slogan at a Brexit party rally, alongside billboard lettering stating: “My kids have their EU passports.” Michael Gove, who was criticised for claiming during the referendum on EU membership that Britons have “had enough of experts” is pictured in another winning entry with the wording “People have had enough of exports.”

Johnson also makes an appearance in the fifth winner, which pictures him as he was about to knock over a 10-year-old child while playing touch rugby in Japan in 2015. “Get ready to tackle kids in the biscuit aisle,” the poster states.

The prime minister has already been accused of misleading the public with the government’s Get Ready campaign, which went live at the beginning of September*. MPs and experts urged the civil service chief, Sir Mark Sedwill, to intervene to make clear the UK was highly unlikely to leave without a deal.

As part of their satirical assault on the £100m government advertising campaign, Led By Donkeys launched a mock-up of a government website and an online tool that lets users design their own “get ready” poster.

“I remember when we did the satire show Friday Night Armistice in the 1990s, we used to joke about how a particular comment was definitely going to single-handedly bring down the government,” said Schneider. “I’m not saying Led By Donkeys are going to single-handedly bring down the government, but, thanks to their billboards and other excellent real-world hypocrite-felling, they may well be able to claim at least an assist.”




*During the referendum campaign, Johnson criticised the Cameron government for spending £9 million of taxpayers money on sending a leaflet to every household in Britain spelling out the risks of voting leave.

Johnson's much more extensive disinformation campaign is costing the taxpayer £100 million.

As for further comment on (alleged) BBC pro-remain bias.

The female in the cartoon is Laura Kuenssberg, BBC's political editor and well known for being able to get 1 2 1 interviews with Johnson. She gets access to him because she never asks him a difficult question and never follows up when he makes gaffes that any responsible journalist would be on like a flash.

Project Fear was/is a component. I have certainly never suggested that it's THE major component.

I can't for the life of me see how you can conclude that the failure of project fear to sway Leave voters means that "the plan becomes one where the government delays indefinitely until the EU gets tired of them." How does that make any sense? The simple reality is that without the EU approving delays the default outcome is that the UK leave without a deal...which most MP's are fighting hard to prevent. So why would they be hoping that the EU eventually gets tired of them? In truth, far from hoping the EU eventually get tired of them, those MP's looking to prevent Brexit from happening have been, and are, working with the EU. That has become extremely obvious in the past 6 weeks or so. For example you had Jo Swinson inviting Guy Verhofstadt to the Lib Dems party conference, and then meeting him in Brussels just days ago. Then you have Bercow holding a private meeting with Sassoli. So no, the plan isnt, and has never been, to delay, delay, delay until the EU get tired of them.


It is hardly childish for the UK to have minimum requirements that need to be met in any deal.


Leaving N.I in the single market for a known min period of time, but for an unknown max period of time, IS a major concession. What concessions have the EU made?


I used the word 'apparently' as I havent heard a recording of the conversation, and the German government havent confirmed that what Merkel is reported to have said is what she did indeed say. So I don't treat what she is reported to have said as being a 'fact'. That said, neither Merkel herself, nor the German government, have denied that she said what has been reported. I think therefore that it's highly likely that she did indeed say what has been reported. So more than simply a rumour.


Why would the UK agree that the bureaucrats in Brussels get the final say on when/if N.I is allowed to leave the single market?


Political parties


Only they can and they are.


Problem is the assumptions fly in the face of what is known eg the state of preparedness in Calais and Dover.



Yes, under May, one could assume that Government and private sectors were, in general, not adequately prepared for the UK leaving under WTO terms. No surprise there as the government at the time wasn't seriously prepared to leave without a deal. That however all changed when BJ became PM.


The paper was prepared before August. It was infact written in June.


That is often true re strategic decisions. We are however NOT talking about investment or market decisions. We are simply talking about administrative issues. Many of which are extremely simple. Furthermore, since BJ became PM the Government have invested significantly more time and money preparing the UK for a no deal exit whilst stressing to businesses what they need to do to be ready themselves. The result is that just recently the government released a 159 page report detailing exactly how the Government had prepared for a no deal exit. Futhermore, there has been a very significant increase in the number of businesses that have completed the necessary administrative tasks required to operate efficiently in the event of no deal.



Nope. Almost all of the necessary Government agencies already exist eg HM Revenue and Customs etc etc etc. Furthermore Parliament has already passed bills on taxation, healthcare and road haulage. There are no outstanding bills that need to be passed before October 31.



Again, the places where the paperwork needs to be sent to already exist.


The substantial space set aside for unready HGVs is such that the relevant Port Authorities are stating that they anticipate no disruption to the flow of traffic entering the UK, and little disruption leaving. Personally I trust the relevant Port Authorities and their years of experience more than civil servants who didnt even bother to visit, or even speak to, the Calais Port Authority.


And the relevant Port Authorities are saying this is complete BS. The Calais Port Authority have been especially strong on this. Again, I trust their predictions more than that of civil servants.


Only they didnt use CURRENT data. For example, they totally ignored the CURRENT data published by the Calais Port Authority months before their report, and confirmed around the time the report was being prepared. The biggest 'scare' stories of yellowsnow all stem from the unjustifiable assumption that there will be major delays at Calais and at Dover. The Calais Port Authority couldnt be more clear in stating that they expect no delays. This is based on their planning and testing of said plans they have put in place. Now that was available current data which was ignored by the authors of yellowsnow. As I have previously stated no one involved in preparing the yellowsnow report even bothered to speak to the Calais Port Authority. So where the hell was their 'current data' coming from?

Not long ago I listened to an interview with the former head of the Port of Dover who was in charge when yellowsnow was being prepared. He stated that at that time they already had measures in place to ensure there were no delays to HGVs coming from the EU. So again, where the hell did the yellowsnow authors get their 'current data' from? Certainly not from the people actually running the Ports. And that is why everything they say about delays at the Ports is total BS. Their failure to visit the Ports, to speak to those in charge is what makes their predictions 'impossible to justify.


Which is but one of the MANY reasons why it's not worth the paper it's printed on. For since the report was prepared there has been very significant changes re Government planning and intervention.


Actually making predictions on what will happen re the flow of goods via Ports like Calais without ever actually speaking to those who run the ports, and without ever visiting the ports, is irresponsible. And again, since the report was prepared there has been very significant changes re Government planning and intervention.


We are for the most part simply talking about pretty straightforward administrative matters.


Ultimately supply and demand sets the price more than any other single factor.


Not at all. Yellowsnow is a (highly flawed) risk assessment report. The briefings and literature you get on airplanes are also the result of risk assessment.


Really? You would rather 'experts' remained quiet when the information they give is bastardised and misrepresented to the public. Wow.

I'm glad to see my comments debunking the ludicrous assertion that the BBC is pro-remain are not being challenged.

I must be saying something right.

It's the natural outcome of such a plan. I don't understand how you can't see that. If we assume that the plan is as you have outlined, then if 'Project Fear' fails the rest of the plan falls apart. It becomes a plan in which the planners hope for something that does not materialize and delay for an indefinite length of time. In practice this will simply mean that the UK government can only delay as long as the EU allows them to do so.

I'm not saying that the MPs wish for this to be the outcome, that the plan is supposed to go in this direction. The only thing I've been saying is that if this is the plan, and we assume 'project fear' fails, then the natural outcome is what I have outlined.



Which is what I have been saying about BOTH of the negotiating positions from the start. I don't understand how you can claim that the UK having minimum requirements for a deal is not duplicitous, but that the EU having the same is.



It's a major concession to NI, not to the EU.



What incredibly flimsy logic to base anything on. You and I must have entirely different definitions of the word 'rumor', because what you've just described sounds exactly like a rumor to me.



So we both agree that neither party would agree to the terms the other proposed. Which begs the question why either of them would propose these things in the first place? If BJ were serious about making a deal, then why would he propose a deal that the EU would never agree to?

As for the EU, they seem to have mostly followed May's lead on hashing out her deal. Whether or not that was a wise decision is another matter entirely.



Whatever you say. Discussing this is getting us nowhere.



Administrative issues are never simple.

I would also like to know where you get the data to back the claim 'there has been a very significant increase in the number of businesses that have completed the necessary administrative tasks required to operate efficiently in the event of no deal'.



Of which they already have other duties as well. Typically, when one uses existing government agencies to fill holes, it creates efficiency and workflow problems. That's even assuming that the governments in question even bother to increase budget to deal with the increased workload to begin with.



Do you not understand what the phrase 'sans pre-mitigating factors' means?



And why should we believe the officials at Calais anymore than Yellowhammer? You say that you don't trust the Yellowhammer report partly because you don't know how they got their data. Well I don't know what assessments Calais made in order to reach their conclusions either, so I don't trust their assertions anymore than Yellowhammers.

I have never stated that Yellowhammers report is accurate, or that I trusted it. The only thing I've ever stated regarding it is that your objections to it are mostly nonsensical.



Personally, I would very much like to know what the 'reasonable worst-case scenario' of any given situation is. I'd imagine it's doubly true for governments, who are typically slow to respond and try to find the cheapest alternatives to avoid the majority of risk.



But basing assessments on scenarios and trade relations that have shown no concrete evidence of being true up to this point IS reasonable?



Any product with value added in the UK will risk a shift in supply due to the price of the components used to make it. Any product that comes into the UK risks a demand decrease due to price increases.



Which is an entirely separate point from "yet remoaners view yellowsnow like it was an airline safety briefing where cabin crew tell you what could happen, and they assume that they mean this is what will happen."

How parts of the public view risk assessment does not in any way reflect on the veracity of risk assessment. Hence why I said these two are entirely different points.



As opposed to speaking endlessly into a sea of people who don't understand even basic statistics or how research is conducted? Yes. I don't consider the job of researchers to be to educate the public about their work. The efforts of people of science to educate the public have already not been particularly successful in any given field, and drawing more people away from research in order to combat the deluge of misconception seems counterproductive.

Nice game of Forum Tennis you guys have got going. Only, while you both fiddle, Rome continues to burn.

Be that as it may. Out here in the real world..............

The Queen's Speech takes place today.

Things might start to get interesting.

Only clearly it doesnt. All of the indications are that 'Project Fear' is continuing to fail but the overall remoaner plan is working well. The UK hasnt left the EU and it seems highly likely that the Government will be forced to go to the EU and ask for yet another extension. I'm tipping 6 months would be the min the Government would be forced to accept. Meanwhile the Zombie Parliament have the numbers to push through another referendum that this time around would deny the people the chance to simply leave the EU. There will be no in/out option. Instead it will be leave under May's awful deal or remain. So up to this point the remoaner plan is working very well.



Nope. The remoaners control the House so they are able to be pro-active. And they are working hand in glove with the EU so they know they will get as many delays as they need (provided they continue to control Parliament).


Only very clearly it's not. Look at how everything is playing out despite the apparent failure of "Project Fear". The Remoaners are in a very strong position at the moment and their overall plan is working quite well.


You show me where I have said that it's ok for the UK to have min acceptable objectives but that it is not ok for the EU to do the same.


Under Article 50 the default position is that the UK leaves the EU. That means leaving the customs union, leaving the single market etc etc etc. This is what the UK Government want. The EU however want N.I to remain indefinitely within their customs union, single market etc until they decide otherwise. In response the UK Government have made a major concession by offering to allow N.I to remain within the single market (and all that entails) for an indefinite period of time (set not by the EU but by the people of N.I). I really don't understand how this is anything other than a major concession to the EU. Telling N.I that they can't leave the EU when the rest of the UK does is hardly a concession to N.I.


Flimsy logic. Really. No 10 report what Merkel said. Merkel doesnt deny it. No one in her Government deny it. But to you it's unreasonable to assume that what No 10 claim she said is in all likelihood what she did infact say.



Obviously any deal needs to be first accepted by both negotiating parties. The deal would then need to be passed by the UK Parliament and then by the EU Parliament. May's approach was to accept what the EU negotiators offered, knowing that the EU Parliament would likely pass the agreement, and hope she could somehow persuade the UK parliament to agree to the deal. Only she couldn't and they wouldnt. BJ has taken a different approach. Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru (how dare they not give their party an English name) have all said they will NOT vote for ANY plan BJ comes up with. So in order to get any plan through Parliament BJ needs to come up with a plan that will be acceptable to the ERG and potential Labour 'rebels'. If the DUP can be brought on board so much the better. And so that's his starting point. TM showed it's a waste of time negotiating with the EU if you end up with a plan that has NO chance of passing through parliament. So it's not that BJ is proposing a plan he knows the EU will never accept, but more about proposing a plan he thinks has a chance of getting sufficient support in the HoC.

It is extremely difficult when you have two parties who want very different outcomes, and when you have to have 4 distinct groups all agreeing to the deal. Again, I hope a deal can be reached. One that the EU can live with and one that sees the UK actually leave the EU. Not partially leave, not take one step out but actually leave. Problem is I just dont see how such a deal will be agreed upon by all parties.


May's deal was an absolute corker for the EU so it's no surprise they want to stick to it.


Fair enough


Sometimes they actually are relatively simple. Other times less so. In many cases it's simply the matter of filling out and lodging one extra form. Not the end of the world.


HMG


Well we know depts like HM Revenue and Customs have received significant increases to their budget and have taken on extra staff.


Really. So you think civil servants who havent even visited the offices of the Port of Calais know as much about it operations and contingency planning as those who actually run it. Are you serious? The Port of Calais is a huge business. They have a lot riding on their ability to efficiently cope with a no deal exit. They started serious planning straight after the results of the people's vote was announced back in 2016. They have stress tested their contingency plans both by using computers AND by using over 800 trucks. And they have done this multiple times. They have reported their results multiple times. But hey, if you think they dont know any more about how their Port is run (and how they will deal with a no deal scenario) than civil servants in Whitehall then fine.


Uhuh. Nonsensical, like trusting the knowledge and expertise of those running one of the world's biggest ports more than civil servants.

What is nonsensical is the failure of the reports authors to speak to those who run the PoCA and to visit same etc etc etc. The report runs for all of 5 pages and could have been written up in a couple of hours by a school kid.


The key here is 'reasonable'. If for example one of the key assumptions of a 'reasonable' worst case scenario involves a dramatic slow down at the PoC then you would hope that the authors were basing that assumption on information gathered after having actually visited to Port and spoken to the Authority re how the Port operates, what measures they had taken to min. any impact of no deal, what testing they had done to see that their measures are effective etc. And yet they did NONE of this and so their entire 'reasonable' worse case scenario is worthless. Might as well have got JS to write it over a caffè latte.