3 ms·
It’s right there in the article: >The Financial Times quoted government insiders who rebutted the document, saying it is not a realistic scenario for a no-deal
by creaghpatr 7y ago
It’s right there in the article:
>The Financial Times quoted government insiders who rebutted the document, saying it is not a realistic scenario for a no-deal Brexit and pointing out that it was written under the leadership of Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, and does not reflect the preparations spearheaded by Johnson that are now underway.
>”This document is from when ministers were blocking what needed to be done to get ready to leave and the funds were not available. It has been deliberately leaked by a former minister in an attempt to influence discussions with EU leaders," a source told the paper.
- bertil 7y agoWhether the previous government (same party, same Parliament, same mandate, same objective) is “the opposition” is debatable. It’s not Labour. It’s not Remainers. Both governments want a deal with the EU. It’s unclear if the minister who leaked that document voted for the existing Deal (several ministers voted against their own government).
- DanBC 7y agoYour use of the word "opposition" is confusing because in the UK that would mean the party not in power, it wouldn't mean people in the same party.
- jimnotgym 7y agoStill not quite right. The document was prepared by the civil service while Teresa May was Prime Minister. Teresa May is in the same party as Boris, not the opposition as you claim. Boris' team are claiming, not that this document is wrong, but that it is an out of date analysis, and that Boris has turned things around since he took office on 24th July. Perhaps he really is that good that he has done in 3 weeks what May couldn't do in 3 years (some of which time he was a senior cabinet member himself). Paint it on the side of a bus, with 350 million other lies.