Jump to content

UK Gov settles "no ferry" dispute for £33 million


Bulletguy

Recommended Posts

Absolutely staggering! 8-)

 

Government will pay £33m to Eurotunnel in an agreement to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

 

In December, the Department for Transport (DfT) contracted three suppliers to provide additional freight capacity on ferries for lorries.

 

But Eurotunnel said the contracts were handed out in a "secretive" way. In January, Eurotunnel wrote to Mr Grayling to complain that it had not been considered when the contracts were awarded.

 

It argued that unlike Seaborne, it has actually run a cross-Channel ferry service (MyFerryLink, which closed in 2015) and should have been approached.

 

Brexiteers should be billed for this fiasco.....i don't see why any Remainers should pay. Works out at £1.90 for each Brexit voter so put your hands in your pockets and get used to paying out....this is just the start.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eurotunnel-claim-brexit-ferry-contracts-grayling-a8802681.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 3:30 PM

 

Absolutely staggering! 8-)

 

Government will pay £33m to Eurotunnel in an agreement to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

 

In December, the Department for Transport (DfT) contracted three suppliers to provide additional freight capacity on ferries for lorries.

 

But Eurotunnel said the contracts were handed out in a "secretive" way. In January, Eurotunnel wrote to Mr Grayling to complain that it had not been considered when the contracts were awarded.

 

It argued that unlike Seaborne, it has actually run a cross-Channel ferry service (MyFerryLink, which closed in 2015) and should have been approached.

 

Brexiteers should be billed for this fiasco.....i don't see why any Remainers should pay. Works out at £1.90 for each Brexit voter so put your hands in your pockets and get used to paying out....this is just the start.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eurotunnel-claim-brexit-ferry-contracts-grayling-a8802681.html

 

Never mind that. How much have we lost so far? Was it £80bn or something. whats that divided between 17.4 million? I cant work it out as I havent got a powerful enough calculator but Im gonna bet its more than £1.90 each. Lets have that off them as well. Who do I invoice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2019-03-01 6:10 PM

 

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Hush money. Government wanted this buried as quickly as possible after the Seaborne fiasco. DfT and Grayling were given clear warnings about Seaborne by the National Audit office but they chose to ignore and blunder on. May and her coalition of clowns knew they were in trouble and about to face litigation so settled out of court. Brexiteers should be billed for all these cock up's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 3:30 PM

 

Absolutely staggering! 8-)

 

Government will pay £33m to Eurotunnel in an agreement to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

 

In December, the Department for Transport (DfT) contracted three suppliers to provide additional freight capacity on ferries for lorries.

 

But Eurotunnel said the contracts were handed out in a "secretive" way. In January, Eurotunnel wrote to Mr Grayling to complain that it had not been considered when the contracts were awarded.

 

It argued that unlike Seaborne, it has actually run a cross-Channel ferry service (MyFerryLink, which closed in 2015) and should have been approached.

 

Brexiteers should be billed for this fiasco.....i don't see why any Remainers should pay. Works out at £1.90 for each Brexit voter so put your hands in your pockets and get used to paying out....this is just the start.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eurotunnel-claim-brexit-ferry-contracts-grayling-a8802681.html

 

So you are complaining a one of payment of 33 million ;-) .........

 

But your happy to pay more than that every week 8-) ............

 

Damn you Remoaners are thick >:-) .........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jumpstart - 2019-03-01 6:58 PM

 

These clowns obviously think they are doing well ,as they have just had a pay rise.

Amazing isn't it? When i was employed anyone not doing their job properly got kicked out but this lot reward themselves for plundering the public purse.

 

This is Grayling's horrendous track record of catastrophes. A grand total of £2,7 billion which Failing Grayling cost the taxpayer and economy.

 

 

£33m to Eurotunnel to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services in event of no deal Brexit.

 

£800k on consultants' fees assessing the bid of a company with no ships temporarily awarded a Brexit related ferry contract.

 

£50m - 70m on Gatwick drone fiasco.

 

£38m cost to economy in north of England due to rail chaos July 2018.

 

£2bn cost to taxpayers over collapse of Virgin trains east coast franchise.

 

£72k blown on defending a book ban for prisoners (overturned by Gove).

 

£15m a year in additional costs to the Carillion contract to run facilities management in prisons.

 

£467m in additional projected payments to CRC's.

 

£32m of charges unlawfully collected which government were ordered to pay back.

 

£23m contract to develop a new generation of GPS tracking tags for dangerous offenders....written off after the project proved "too challenging".

 

£60m over the £130m budget relating to the wider electronic tagging programme described by PAC as "fundamentally flawed" and "a catastrophic waste of public money".

 

£1.9m paid back to benefit claimants.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 6:32 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 6:10 PM

 

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Hush money. Government wanted this buried as quickly as possible after the Seaborne fiasco. DfT and Grayling were given clear warnings about Seaborne by the National Audit office but they chose to ignore and blunder on. May and her coalition of clowns knew they were in trouble and about to face litigation so settled out of court. Brexiteers should be billed for all these cock up's.

 

 

Sounds like you don't know what the 33 million was for either.

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2019-03-01 9:07 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 6:32 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 6:10 PM

 

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Hush money. Government wanted this buried as quickly as possible after the Seaborne fiasco. DfT and Grayling were given clear warnings about Seaborne by the National Audit office but they chose to ignore and blunder on. May and her coalition of clowns knew they were in trouble and about to face litigation so settled out of court. Brexiteers should be billed for all these cock up's.

 

 

Sounds like you don't know what the 33 million was for either.

 

 

;-)

 

Your on the money there Malc :D .........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2019-03-01 9:07 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 6:32 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 6:10 PM

 

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Hush money. Government wanted this buried as quickly as possible after the Seaborne fiasco. DfT and Grayling were given clear warnings about Seaborne by the National Audit office but they chose to ignore and blunder on. May and her coalition of clowns knew they were in trouble and about to face litigation so settled out of court. Brexiteers should be billed for all these cock up's.

 

 

Sounds like you don't know what the 33 million was for either. ;-)

Tells you in the opening link Malc in case you missed it. Also on this evenings C4 news if you want further confirmation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 9:47 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 9:07 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 6:32 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 6:10 PM

 

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Hush money. Government wanted this buried as quickly as possible after the Seaborne fiasco. DfT and Grayling were given clear warnings about Seaborne by the National Audit office but they chose to ignore and blunder on. May and her coalition of clowns knew they were in trouble and about to face litigation so settled out of court. Brexiteers should be billed for all these cock up's.

 

 

Sounds like you don't know what the 33 million was for either. ;-)

Tells you in the opening link Malc in case you missed it. Also on this evenings C4 news if you want further confirmation.

 

 

 

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

 

:-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 9:47 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 9:07 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-01 6:32 PM

 

malc d - 2019-03-01 6:10 PM

 

I'm not sure what the 33 million is for.

 

Seems to be because the negotiations with the ferry companies were in secret - and Eurotunnel didn't know about them.

 

Well - I didn't know about the negotiations either - so how much will I get ?

 

;-)

Hush money. Government wanted this buried as quickly as possible after the Seaborne fiasco. DfT and Grayling were given clear warnings about Seaborne by the National Audit office but they chose to ignore and blunder on. May and her coalition of clowns knew they were in trouble and about to face litigation so settled out of court. Brexiteers should be billed for all these cock up's.

 

 

Sounds like you don't know what the 33 million was for either. ;-)

Tells you in the opening link Malc in case you missed it. Also on this evenings C4 news if you want further confirmation.

 

 

 

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

 

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.

 

Well yes, "whats another £33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence".....particularly from a country that's spending more than double our EU budget costs.

 

A spoof article link here but most appropriate.....in fact it's very believable!! (lol)

 

http://tinyurl.com/y4hogfra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

 

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 7:48 AM

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

No Dave: I'm sorry, but the above is really stupid.

 

It is Grayling's (or his department's) inability to follow simple, clear, well known, regularly used, rules that has cost "us" £33 million. In short, it is sheer incompetence.

 

Those rules have been in force since well before the UK joined the EEC. They established through the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and have governed procurement by central and local government institutions by all member states since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-03 10:24 AM

No Dave: I'm sorry, but the above is really stupid.

 

It is Grayling's (or his department's) inability to follow simple, clear, well known, regularly used, rules that has cost "us" £33 million. In short, it is sheer incompetence.

 

Those rules have been in force since well before the UK joined the EEC. They established through the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and have governed procurement by central and local government institutions by all member states since then.

 

Partly in an attempt to stop corruption, keep your eyes peeled for a hefty donation from the directors of Seaborne Freight to the Tory party in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fast Pat - 2019-03-03 12:55 PM

 

From Twitter "If we gave Chris Grayling a MILLION POUNDS every day,

 

and every day he just F*@KING BURNT IT....

 

It would STILL be cheaper than letting him go to work."

 

 

 

He is one of our group of top level U.K. politicians who are taking back control from the EU.

 

 

What could possibly go wrong after Brexit ?

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
malc d - 2019-03-03 2:15 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-03-03 12:55 PM

 

From Twitter "If we gave Chris Grayling a MILLION POUNDS every day,

 

and every day he just F*@KING BURNT IT....

 

It would STILL be cheaper than letting him go to work."

 

 

 

He is one of our group of top level U.K. politicians who are taking back control from the EU.

 

 

What could possibly go wrong after Brexit ?

 

;-)

 

NI is a case in point ;-) ..........

 

It seems to be ticking over quite nicely without any input from their elected gobsh*tes :D .......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 7:48 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

 

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

 

https://goo.gl/images/pG2uYH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Bulletguy - 2019-03-03 3:39 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 7:48 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

 

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

 

https://goo.gl/images/pG2uYH

 

Com'n Bullet why do I need to google some pathetic Remoaner image? *-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 3:43 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-03 3:39 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 7:48 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

 

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

 

https://goo.gl/images/pG2uYH

 

Com'n Bullet why do I need to google some pathetic Remoaner image? *-) ........

Que? :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Bulletguy - 2019-03-03 4:17 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 3:43 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-03 3:39 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 7:48 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

 

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

 

https://goo.gl/images/pG2uYH

 

Com'n Bullet why do I need to google some pathetic Remoaner image? *-) ........

Que? :-S

 

It's a link that say's google *-) ........and I've had a gut full of your pathetic whinging >:-) .......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 4:45 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-03 4:17 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 3:43 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-03 3:39 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-03-03 7:48 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2019-03-02 4:17 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-03-02 2:55 PM

malc d - 2019-03-02 11:21 AM

I've see that link, and I have had a cursory glance through a number of websites on Google, but I still don't know :

 

A) What law was broken

or

B) How the 33 million was calculated.

 

I understand that Eurotunnel spent a few million preparing for a " no- deal " Brexit - but so have a lot of other firms, and as far as I know they are not all getting compensation.

 

Can't say I'm all that bothered about it really - what's another 33 million wasted in the current state of political incompetence - but usually the media gives a fuller explanation of each cock-up as it happens.

:-|

Contracting for the services should have been open from the start and it turns out it wasn't so hopefully that answers your question A.

 

As for B i expect that was based more on a 'damage limitation' exercise than anything else, ie; faster they pay Eurotunnel out the quicker they can get the embarrassing fiasco buried. Had government or Eurotunnel insisted on dragging it into a full blow court battle, 1) it would have cost much more and 2) the damaging publicity would have filled the media for weeks, possibly months.………………….

I'm sure Paul is right on A and B.

 

Under normal circumstances government contracts should be open to "expressions of interest" from any competent contractor, and to facilitate that the requirement should be advertised in the Official Journal of the EU.

 

It may be that due to urgency the formal OJEU advertisement could have been side stepped, but I'd guess that omission was the basis of Eurotunnel's case. So, on that issue they had the government "bang to rights", with no reasonable defence.

 

Under those circumstances, the cheapest course of action will have been for the government to seek an out of court settlement rather than fight a basket case. Being an out of court settlement it is unlikely that the calculations will become public unless the government (or its successor) chooses to publish them. There may even be a NDO against publication! Oh, surely not! :-D Otherwise, just send Grayling the bill! :-D

 

So basically its a EU rule that's costs us 33 million *-) ...........

 

https://goo.gl/images/pG2uYH

 

Com'n Bullet why do I need to google some pathetic Remoaner image? *-) ........

Que? :-S

 

It's a link that say's google *-) ........and I've had a gut full of your pathetic whinging >:-) .......

So quit whining if you don't want to open it. *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...