Millions given to shipping company with no ships!

Labaik
I'm sure the ferries exist somewhere, but if this company owns them is another matter. But they have been told that dredging is starting.

Is this for the ferries that actually exist or the imaginary ones? #findingitallabitsurreal

I was talking to a friend last night who works in Ramsgate harbour. She said the dredging is starting tomorrow in preparation for these ferries.

..oh and if The Express and The Telegraph are now pro remain [what about The Sun or have I missed something?] I think it's called 'rats leaving a sinking ship'.

'I meant every newspaper, even the Daily Mail now it has a new editor, plus ITV, Channel 4, BBC (so pro-Remain it's laughable - 3 Remainers and 1 Leaver on QT anyone?!) One newspaper is still proLeave but I can't remember if it's the Telegraph or the Express.'

...crikey; that must have been to one QT that I missed....

varian if only. We have already spent millions on Brexit and will either have to continue to pay all the extra civil servants or give them redundancy. The whole fiasco will cost each of us dearly I suspect.

You couldn’t make it up - in my news feed today:
“Brexit Ferry Firm Accused Of Copying Web Page From A Takeaway Shop”

They have copied the T&C page from a fast food delivery and takeaway website!

Lets just bin brexit and spend the millions saved on the NHS.

Is this anything to do with Failing Grayling?
(Sorry, not on topic- but the throwaway comment above that the MSM is pro remain made me laugh. Most of the newspapers, apart from the Guardian are very pro Brexit, the BBC is known as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation they had Nigel Farage on so many times even when he retired from UKIP, QT usually awash with pro Brexit views).
Back to topic- Giving a ferry contract to a company with no ferries just increases the beliefs that this is an incompetent government willing to throw money down an empty black hole.

Making decisions on the hoof is never a good idea.

That's interesting NotSpaghetti - especially that the promise of the new service was used in the Ostend local elections ?
It doesn't sound as though they were basing it on very much though really.
I still say we wait and see - it's only to be used in the 'unlikely event of a no-deal Brexit' anyway. I'm not trusting anything I read anywhere about Brexit, that's probably the safest way. ?

If you search beyond this you can find the name of the (suggested) first ship. This seems to be a major issue as finding seaworthy "not already in use" vessels is a big issue if it needs to run by March. The one they suggest used to serve the UK, was sold on, did some work in the med, was used for hazardous waste, was brought back into service and was (I think) last used in ?Portugal...
The main thing, I think, is they have previously used Ramsgate for stacking up freight trucks. They can use it for import/export overspill if necessary I suppose.

I meant every newspaper, even the Daily Mail now it has a new editor, plus ITV, Channel 4, BBC (so pro-Remain it's laughable - 3 Remainers and 1 Leaver on QT anyone?!) One newspaper is still proLeave but I can't remember if it's the Telegraph or the Express.

The original ferry service was planned for last year:
theisleofthanetnews.com/2017/10/09/ostend-mayor-announces-plan-for-ramsgate-ferry-operation/

Neither have I "Welshwife". I actually think that during the referendum the BBC must have been pro-Leave because they kept showing that awful bus but never said that it was all a lie. At the moment I think they are sitting on the fence.

Which MSM as I have not noticed that at all!

Main Stream Media - sorry.

I think the delay might be down to dredging the harbour to allow the ships to get in and out.

Sorry Beau MSM? Probably I'm being obtuse.

Everything I read says February 2019 delayed until March 2019. They are only going to operate 2 ships, rising to 4 by the summer. Their own website says recruitment begins January 2019. Let's just wait and see - the MSM is so pro-Remain that it's hard to see the truth through the webs of lies.

I think someone suddenly realised that the other two companies weren't British (one Danish, one French) thought OH B----R! that won't sound good when we've promised o get rid of the EU! and hurriedly picked the first British one that came to light (unless it was the only British bid of course). But I could be wrong they may just have been to school with someone high up. It does show that some people are going to make money from Brexit

I agree that we need another vote with three option

*leave with no deal
*leave with the deal that TM has on the table
*stay in EU

Then if there is no clear majority the option with the least votes should be taken off the table and another vote taken on the remaining two options.

I know the other two Ferry companies will get some money but I did not think it was all of it. Those companies have ships and will need to get them serviced etc and have extra staff in place - all costs for them.

Cinders I rather thought that too. It is impossible to believe that everything that has been said and done is what it appears to be on the face of it. Just a bit concerned that it is all designed to frighten MPs into voting for the appalling deal.

I don't think parliament should just call it off though, although I would like that to happen. I think the only democratic thing to do is to ask the electorate what they think. Now we know the outcome of the negotiations it would seem fair to ask us to vote on whether we wish to go ahead with a rubbish deal or benefit from all we now understand and call the whole thing off. Anything else will lead to extreme discontent and no one will be happy. Government will fall and we will have a very unpleasant general election.

Surely we should all have the right to demonstrate how we feel now everything is clear?

Perhaps they are making Brexit look so awful (which we all know it is) that Parliament is bound to reject the deal and call the whole thing off. The Tories will then blame everyone else for their failure to deliver the greatest fiasco since the South Sea Bubble.

True they won't get any money if they don't fulfill the contracts but the other two companies will, even if they are never used. This begs the question why are the contracts different? If the civil servants who negotiated the contracts have doubts about the ability of this company to operate successfully why did they award the contract?

Makes me wonder if the whole things is just a scheme to frighten MPs into voting for this appalling deal. Does the government have any intention of accepting a no deal?

Surely there must be a master plan? You couldn't make it up otherwise!