I gotta admit I've become so jaded by this whole process, that it really wouldn't surprise me if Ed uses the exact same or very similar set of reasons to refuse the application as ScoMo did.
All Ed would have to say is "Unlike SM, I made my decision impartially and without bias".
Remember how easy it was to prove ScoMo of apprehended bias because he kept crapping on about his opposition to PEP11 (prior to making the decision) thinking he would win election because of it. Ed on the other hand hasn't breathed a word about his sentiments towards PEP-11.
My only hope is that David Breeze has been proactive in addressing any issues surrounding the "force majeure" so as to make it impossible to for Ed to list that particular point as a valid reason for rejection.
If this is the case, then there would be only two reasons (from the original set) left to argue for rejection; a) financial capacity and b) community opposition.
Citing doubts over financial capacity always struck me as particularly unfair as a reason for rejection, given all of this political meddling has actually resulted in financial harm to the company.
