I've written a few times about how much more confident you become when you see your opponent resorting to the flimsiest possible argument to support a weak case. We saw this a lot in the campaign when everything negative about Brexit was either project fear or scaremongering. Yet, although the leave campaigns rarely came up with any alternative evidence at the time, one would have thought by now there would be evidence a-plenty of Brexit's advantages - but there isn't.
He takes a single page (page 10) of an 80 page presentation to shareholders (HERE) which claims the "likely outcome" of the Brexit negotiations is, 'an agreement with a time limited transition period for implementation of customs and animal and plant health controls. Technology will speed up border processing' " - to support his argument that border issues are "scaremongering". But is it so?
First of all, bear in mind it was a presentation to shareholders. These are not noted for giving negative messages of any kind. Bad news is always presented as good news, no matter how bad it actually is. But more importantly, it actually confirms the scaremongering although Staines is too dim to see it. From GetLink's team, which is "closely involved in practical preparations with authorities on both sides" of the Channel with "key insights", it is clear there will definitely be both customs and animal and plant health checks (SPS checks as they're known) at the border.
And GetLink don't say there will be no changes, only that technology will speed up "border processing" and thus confirming that scaremongers were right and we won't get a frictionless border or indeed anything like it. Border processing is what will cause the delays. GetLink don't use Dover but the port authorities there should be very worried by the presentation.
So, when your opponent is so clueless as to use evidence showing you are right in support of his claim that you're wrong, you know it's just a matter of time.
I used to think Guido Fawkes was a bit of harmless right wing mischief but now I see him as a nasty, vindictive and malign influence goading the mob over a cliff. It will not end well, but at least we are on the right side of the argument, as is becoming increasingly clear.
