Brexit discussion thread IV

Leroy42

What gets me is that when the likes of Airbus, JLR etc come out and state that investment will be effected, supply chains will be hit etc people simply either ignore it or claim they are wrong.

Yet at the same time get upset if anyone points out that maybe they didn't fully understand what leaving the EU would mean.

When possible economic negatives are brought up, 1st response is "Project Fear" and then if that doesn't work then they claim it will be worth it to 'take back control'.

So do they accept that there is a economic effect or not? They want it both ways. If economic effects are worth it for control, then why do the likes of Boris and JRM try to ridicule the statements from these companies. Surely they knew this, and unfortunate as it is, control will be worth it.

I really believe at this point that anything other than a hard brexit is a waste of time. I am now looking for hard brexit, my whole life has been spent with the UK being in the EU, I can see no justification for that changing. But wishing it doesn't make it so. Clearly the UK is deeply divided on this issue, and as such there is no hope for the EU to ever make a deal that will be long lasting of possibly even accepted by the UK.

So why put its own existence is jeopardy for a 'partner' that has clearly set out to diminish it over time?

trellheim

He also said they've solved the Irish border question, which I found baffling. No they haven't unless I've missed something in the news. Until the referendum how many people in the UK(outside of NI) even knew there was such a thing as the Irish border ?

They did include the backstop in the Great Withdrawal Bill. Solving the border will not have easy answers * ( no s***t sherlock)

Imreoir2

breatheme wrote: »

But Northern Ireland...

Thats a valid point sir, and eloquently put.

For any FTA, or any deal, the backstop must be put in place first. May has ruled out a workable backstop again and again. Without the backstop, even a free trade deal is impossible. Until the UK moves it's position, no-deal is the only possible outcome.

The UK is trying to isolate Ireland, to make the border issue the only outstanding item of the withdrawl agreement, with a view to pressuring us to dropping our demands, or to blame us for no-deal if it comes to that.

McGiver

Itssoeasy wrote: »

El Weirdo wrote: »

I just heard a Tory MP on BBC R4 (didn't catch his name), saying that the EU should be snatching their arm off when they offer them the Chequers deal.

Dillusional.

Well does the chequers deal fulfill the EUs mantra of "workable and practible" on the proposals from the UK government ? I would say no.

And Hunt, himself a remainer, says:

“My principal job at a time of massive importance for our country is to stand four square behind the Prime Minister so that we can get through an agreement with the European Union based on what was agreed by the Cabinet last week at Chequers,” he said.

The plan is unworkable and he must know it, what is this all about? He is either ignorant or extremely dishonest (Emperor's New clothes type of politician).

Imreoir2

trellheim wrote: »

They did include the backstop in the Great Withdrawal Bill. Solving the border will not have easy answers * ( no s***t sherlock)

They did not include the backstop in the withdrawl bill. The included provisions to prevent the erection of border infastructure. The backstop is about more than infastructure, it is about preventing the conditions that requires infastructure, ie: regulatory divergence. That is why NI must stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.

The UK simply saying "we wont put up a border" does not mean that a border is not required or that it wont have to be put up anyway.

Water John

I think that all know, that it will end up a long way from what was agreed at Chequers through the negotiations with the EU. Chequers is their starting point.

First Up

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They did not include the backstop in the withdrawl bill. The included provisions to prevent the erection of border infastructure. The backstop is about more than infastructure, it is about preventing the conditions that requires infastructure, ie: regulatory divergence. That is why NI must stay in the Single Market and Customs Union.

The UK simply saying "we wont put up a border" does not mean that a border is not required or that it wont have to be put up anyway.

Exactly. The "backstop" was really no more than another of David Davis' "it'll be grand" type of response to any issue. I note Davis was getting some sympathetic reviews last night ("nice guy" being the gist of it) but as a negotiator he was utterly pathetic. His successor seems to have more of an appetite for detail (although his task is just as hopeless.) At least Barnier's team might finally have someone to talk to.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

I think that all know, that it will end up a long way from what was agreed at Chequers through the negotiations with the EU. Chequers is their starting point.

Yeah, and look at the level of angst and resignations that has lead to. There is a query about just how far May can bring them? There is significant compromise needed on the UK side, compromise that I am not sure that the Tories can deliver (or that even the country wants).

The Chequers agreement is pretty much the lowest starting position that they could have adopted, doesn't deal with many of the issues that have been highlighted from the start, and yet even at that it has caused almost a collapse of the government.

If making, what I would consider, a half hearted attempt, can you imagine if May concedes even more? This option is useless, it gives nobody what they want. The UK will end up paying money, still being under EU regulations but having no say at all in them.

There are three options.
1) EU agree to this - highly unlikely
2) UK moves to almost no Brexit - might as well cancel A50 - this looks impossible
3) Hard Brexit - Cannot see how anything other than this is possible given the current UK political climate

flatty

McGiver wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

El Weirdo wrote: »

I just heard a Tory MP on BBC R4 (didn't catch his name), saying that the EU should be snatching their arm off when they offer them the Chequers deal.

Dillusional.

Well does the chequers deal fulfill the EUs mantra of "workable and practible" on the proposals from the UK government ? I would say no.

And Hunt, himself a remainer, says:

“My principal job at a time of massive importance for our country is to stand four square behind the Prime Minister so that we can get through an agreement with the European Union based on what was agreed by the Cabinet last week at Chequers,” he said.

The plan is unworkable and he must know it, what is this all about? He is either ignorant or extremely dishonest (Emperor's New clothes type of politician).

Hunt is actually pretty impressive. He is relatively intelligent, courageous, and was a good minister for health. As someone pointed out all four main pillars in the cabinet are now remainers.
Give them a chance at least. It's an opening gambit. They will have to move, and I think they might. Whether it will be enough I'm beyond caring now. I live, sadly, in England, though I have investment in Ireland. I can't move home for personal reasons, and think brexit is wrong on every level, in fact, I'd pay 5% more tax to stay in the EU, but the brits need a hard lesson here. Problem is over 17 million don't deserve one, and the architects of brexit will end up either unaffected or wealthier than ever.
Boris was right in one thing. It is a turd, but a bit of polish is better than nothing.

flatty

I'd add that Hunt is a cause for hope. He is neither ignorant nor stupid. What exactly was he supposed to say?

trellheim

No-one can deny that the utter chaos that was the Cabinet needs a hard and realistic outlook. All of the border nations - Turkey, Switzerland, Norway etc give a pretty good example of what is possible. Being in the EU means you know what they will and will not go for.



None of this stops there being 20 mile queues at Dover !

ancapailldorcha

flatty wrote: »

I'd add that Hunt is a cause for hope. He is neither ignorant nor stupid. What exactly was he supposed to say?

The NHS is the closest thing the British have to a national religion so any perceived slight on that front effectively tarnishes anyone's career. Doubly so for Health ministers. I think Hunt is a big improvement on his predecessor who seems to have commanded nothing but ire and resentment abroad.

judeboy101

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The NHS is the closest thing the British have to a national religion so any perceived slight on that front effectively tarnishes anyone's career. Doubly so for Health ministers. I think Hunt is a big improvement on his predecessor who seems to have commanded nothing but ire and resentment abroad.

Isn't the church of England, technically, the national religion? The UK has freedom of religion but the CoE is the national religion, its peppered in all its law, heck, the head of state and the PM have to belong to it.

McGiver

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have to say, history tells us that it really doesn't matter what the EU does. No matter how many opt-outs, buy-ins etc, they will continually be unhappy. Fundamentally, I think this all comes down to the UK being unable to work in cooperation with other nations, it needs to feel it is in charge.Even the latest Chequers agreement mentions UK parliament having a lock on all future EU regulations in the UK.

Spot on, been telling that all the time.
Their political class are essentially supremacist bullies and they are not able to cooperate with others as equal partners. From the times of the Empire, just mere 100 years ago, by the momentum are still used to tell others what to do, bully, threaten and coerce. It must be as they say or no deal. Stuck in the time of the Empire. But no guns, navy or empire to accomplish that as back then. And large share of the public also reflect that.
Given that, as much as I would like the UK to stay in the EU so as to bring a "pragmatic" (we don't see that much lately) view balancing the French and the Germans, I think if they stayed they would continue to destabilise the EU as a grumpy, never happy, always complaining and undermining half-member. Also, I think their political class and public need this experience to get rid of their post-imperial syndrome and to understand that they need to cooperate if they want to be a successful European country.

ancapailldorcha

judeboy101 wrote: »

Isn't the church of England, technically, the national religion? The UK has freedom of religion but the CoE is the national religion, its peppered in all its law, heck, the head of state and the PM have to belong to it.

On a mere technical level, sure but the high regard for the NHS crosses cultural boundaries and ideologies in a way that a single religion just can't. It has strong support in most demographics.

BonnieSituation

judeboy101 wrote: »

Isn't the church of England, technically, the national religion? The UK has freedom of religion but the CoE is the national religion, its peppered in all its law, heck, the head of state and the PM have to belong to it.

There's a whoosh right there.

---

@flatty, I'm surprised at your positive feedback re Hunt. His reputation from my pov isn't that great and that he's involved in the dismantling of the NHS as it stands through chronic underfunding.

Am I missing something?

I was out in a pub last night in Crystal Palace as the news came through of his appointment. Both of us exhaled exasperationally. So I'm defo missing something it seems.

Sierra Oscar

Looks like the possibility of the British Government collapsing has subsided considerably for now. However I reckon a showdown is coming soon. We all know the Chequers 'deal' will need to be diluted considerably in order for it to be palatable for the EU negotiation team.

Theresa May's problem is that she was hopeful that the resignations would not come until this Chequers climb down took place. That political buffer so to speak is now already gone in advance of that inevitable climb down. Further resignations could prove fatal for the Government and Johnson in particular will cause consternation on the backbenches in the lead up to that climb down.

judeboy101

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

On a mere technical level, sure but the high regard for the NHS crosses cultural boundaries and ideologies in a way that a single religion just can't. It has strong support in most demographics.

Totally agree, but the NHS is falling apart and one of the reasons for leaving was the bogey man Johnny foreigners flogging up NHS resources.

McGiver

flatty wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

El Weirdo wrote: »

I just heard a Tory MP on BBC R4 (didn't catch his name), saying that the EU should be snatching their arm off when they offer them the Chequers deal.

Dillusional.

Well does the chequers deal fulfill the EUs mantra of "workable and practible" on the proposals from the UK government ? I would say no.

And Hunt, himself a remainer, says:

“My principal job at a time of massive importance for our country is to stand four square behind the Prime Minister so that we can get through an agreement with the European Union based on what was agreed by the Cabinet last week at Chequers,” he said.

The plan is unworkable and he must know it, what is this all about? He is either ignorant or extremely dishonest (Emperor's New clothes type of politician).

Hunt is actually pretty impressive. He is relatively intelligent, courageous, and was a good minister for health. As someone pointed out all four main pillars in the cabinet are now remainers.
Give them a chance at least. It's an opening gambit. They will have to move, and I think they might. Whether it will be enough I'm beyond caring now. I live, sadly, in England, though I have investment in Ireland. I can't move home for personal reasons, and think brexit is wrong on every level, in fact, I'd pay 5% more tax to stay in the EU, but the brits need a hard lesson here. Problem is over 17 million don't deserve one, and the architects of brexit will end up either unaffected or wealthier than ever.
Boris was right in one thing. It is a turd, but a bit of polish is better than nothing.

I'm not talking about his qualifications, I trust he is qualified (anyone is better than BoJo). So he knows it's BS and not workable but pretends it's worth fighting for?

Leroy42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Looks like the possibility of the British Government collapsing has subsided considerably for now. However I reckon a showdown is coming soon. We all know the Chequers 'deal' will need to be diluted considerably in order for it to be palatable for the EU negotiation team.

Theresa May's problem is that she was hopeful that the resignations would not come until this Chequers climb down took place. That political buffer so to speak is now already gone in advance of that inevitable climb down. Further resignations could prove fatal for the Government and Johnson in particular will cause consternation on the backbenches in the lead up to that climb down.

One would hope that TM has sidelined her plan for Boris etc, ie that it is better to have them in that outside the tent, and has now gone for ministers that back her.

The whole point of Chequers on Friday was to get the cabinet all on one page. That didn't work for long, but May now has the opportunity to replace those that couldn't agree with those that do. So Raab, I assume, was sounded out of his acceptance of the Chequers agreement and his continued support for the direction that TM is going.

Chequers would have been a complete waste of time if she will need to do it all again with the new cabinet in a few weeks.

ancapailldorcha

judeboy101 wrote: »

Totally agree, but the NHS is falling apart and one of the reasons for leaving was the bogey man Johnny foreigners flogging up NHS resources.

None of this is Hunt's fault though. He voted Remain if I recall.

cml387

A lot of hate this morning for Boris this morning across all media.

I wonder is he being misjudged.

I had the opportunity to read "All Out War" by Tim Shipman (highly recommeneded read about Brexit and the aftermath).

Johnstone's demeanour the day after the referendum was not due to shock at winning (they pretty well knew they had won) but shock at David Cameron's resignation. Brexiteers rather naively thought that Cameron would stay on.

Michael Gove kick-started Boris' leadership campaign, and for someone who is supposedly determined to be leader, Boris' leadership campaign was lacklustre and downright casual. That's why Gove stabbed him in the back.

His resignation yesterday was I believe genuinely because he sees quite clearly that Brexit,as he imagined it, is dead. If he's taken this long to see that, well he's still ahead of some of his colleagues.

Rather than being a cool calculating politician, I see him more as a hopeless romantic, buoyed up initially by winning the referendum but gradually ground down by the process and facing the ultimate disappointment of a Brexit in name only,which he just cannot support.

Leroy42

He left a delegation of foreign ministers waiting for a meeting he never bothered to turn up to yesterday.

The day after a british citizen died because she came into contact with a poison that was deliberately used by a foreign power on UK soil, he didn't even have the decency to make a comment. Instead he choose to look after his own, narrow, political career.

One thing that cannot be said about Boris is that he is principled.

steddyeddy

cml387 wrote: »

A lot of hate this morning for Boris this morning across all media.

I wonder is he being misjudged.

I had the opportunity to read "All Out War" by Tim Shipman (highly recommeneded read about Brexit and the aftermath).

Johnstone's demeanour the day after the referendum was not due to shock at winning (they pretty well knew they had won) but shock at David Cameron's resignation. Brexiteers rather naively thought that Cameron would stay on.

Michael Gove kick-started Boris' leadership campaign, and for someone who is supposedly determined to be leader, Boris' leadership campaign was lacklustre and downright casual. That's why Gove stabbed him in the back.

His resignation yesterday was I believe genuinely because he sees quite clearly that Brexit,as he imagined it, is dead. If he's taken this long to see that, well he's still ahead of some of his colleagues.

Rather than being a cool calculating politician, I see him more as a hopeless romantic, buoyed up initially by winning the referendum but gradually ground down by the process and facing the ultimate disappointment of a Brexit in name only,which he just cannot support.

He wrote two articles on Brexit before the vote. One on the joys of the EU and one describing it as a costly folly. He's also been sacked twice from jobs for lying and making up quotes. He has to be one of the most dishonest, unprincipled men in politics.

Water John

Boris is all about Boris, first and last. He's deserving of any obrium that comes his way.

ancapailldorcha

cml387 wrote: »

A lot of hate this morning for Boris this morning across all media.

I wonder is he being misjudged.

I had the opportunity to read "All Out War" by Tim Shipman (highly recommeneded read about Brexit and the aftermath).

Johnstone's demeanour the day after the referendum was not due to shock at winning (they pretty well knew they had won) but shock at David Cameron's resignation. Brexiteers rather naively thought that Cameron would stay on.

Michael Gove kick-started Boris' leadership campaign, and for someone who is supposedly determined to be leader, Boris' leadership campaign was lacklustre and downright casual. That's why Gove stabbed him in the back.

His resignation yesterday was I believe genuinely because he sees quite clearly that Brexit,as he imagined it, is dead. If he's taken this long to see that, well he's still ahead of some of his colleagues.

Rather than being a cool calculating politician, I see him more as a hopeless romantic, buoyed up initially by winning the referendum but gradually ground down by the process and facing the ultimate disappointment of a Brexit in name only,which he just cannot support.

It's a fair question.

However, Boris as romantic as he may be not only adovcated for Brexit with his experience as a former Mayor of London and an MP giving him a better insight of how the British state works than most people, he did so using downright dirty tactics including the £350 million pounds per week for the NHS bus and the usual fake news rebuttals.

Then, he got his way and more or less disappeared. Now, he's jumping ship instead of taking responsibility. That he comes from the Etonian class will spare him from any real consequences.

The tragic thing is, given his criticism of Trump before the referendum and the US election, coming out for Remain would have made him the next Ken Clarke, ie a Tory it's ok to like. Instead he chose to put himself and his career above the country's welfare.

kunst nugget

cml387 wrote: »

Rather than being a cool calculating politician, I see him more as a hopeless romantic, buoyed up initially by winning the referendum but gradually ground down by the process and facing the ultimate disappointment of a Brexit in name only,which he just cannot support.

Bollocks to that, the guy is a complete prick. He campaigned, knowing the potential economic shock it was likely to cause (he said in the unpublished article he had written for the Telegraph urging people to vote Remain days before announcing he was becoming part of the Leave campaign), not because of some romantic notion of a proud Great Britain but because he want to appeal to a populist base to increase his profile to eventually vie for leadership of the Tory party.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-secret-remain-article-revealed-10619546

cml387

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a fair question.

However, Boris as romantic as he may be not only adovcated for Brexit with his experience as a former Mayor of London and an MP giving him a better insight of how the British state works than most people, he did so using downright dirty tactics including the £350 million pounds per week for the NHS bus and the usual fake news rebuttals.

Then, he got his way and more or less disappeared. Now, he's jumping ship instead of taking responsibility. That he comes from the Etonian class will spare him from any real consequences.

The tragic thing is, given his criticism of Trump before the referendum and the US election, coming out for Remain would have made him the next Ken Clarke, ie a Tory it's ok to like. Instead he chose to put himself and his career above the country's welfare.

I think his Euroscepticism was deeply felt. As mentioned in another post, he did have a an alternative message written for the remain argument but that was mainly written to convince himself.

As for the Vote Leave campaign, Gove and Alan Cummings were the evil geniuses behind the 350M, I doubt Boris in his heart believed it, but still, if you think a casue is just you don't cavill at some of the tactics employed.

I don't say he is a paragon of virtue, but there are far, far worse still in place.

lawred2

cml387 wrote: »

A lot of hate this morning for Boris this morning across all media.

I wonder is he being misjudged.

I had the opportunity to read "All Out War" by Tim Shipman (highly recommeneded read about Brexit and the aftermath).

Johnstone's demeanour the day after the referendum was not due to shock at winning (they pretty well knew they had won) but shock at David Cameron's resignation. Brexiteers rather naively thought that Cameron would stay on.

Michael Gove kick-started Boris' leadership campaign, and for someone who is supposedly determined to be leader, Boris' leadership campaign was lacklustre and downright casual. That's why Gove stabbed him in the back.

His resignation yesterday was I believe genuinely because he sees quite clearly that Brexit,as he imagined it, is dead. If he's taken this long to see that, well he's still ahead of some of his colleagues.

Rather than being a cool calculating politician, I see him more as a hopeless romantic, buoyed up initially by winning the referendum but gradually ground down by the process and facing the ultimate disappointment of a Brexit in name only,which he just cannot support.

hard to tally all that with reality I'm afraid... he was pro EU when mayor of London and had to sniff the wind to decide which side of the referendum he was going to be on..

Boris is about Boris. That's it. A cynical opportunist.

The core of the Leave campaign was an outright lie too so he's not deserving of anything beyond contempt.

breatheme

Or maybe if he had come out in favour of Remain, they could've won.

jimmycrackcorm

Leroy42 wrote:

I really believe at this point that anything other than a hard brexit is a waste of time. I am now looking for hard brexit, my whole life has been spent with the UK being in the EU, I can see no justification for that changing. But wishing it doesn't make it so. Clearly the UK is deeply divided on this issue, and as such there is no hope for the EU to ever make a deal that will be long lasting of possibly even accepted by the UK.

I'm inclined to agree. I think a hard brexit is a necessity for both sides. The Brits want out regardless of the consequences. The EU needs to just give them the list of acceptable models such as Norway etc. Any sweet deal otherwise will mark the end of the EU. Imagine the Germans thinking, why should they not just do the same?

A hard brexit would cause a lot of pain, not least to us, but we should be adapting to the reality and take advantage of our access to the SM and reduce our exposure to the UK.

trellheim wrote:

They did include the backstop in the Great Withdrawal Bill. Solving the border will not have easy answers * ( no s***t sherlock)

I regard the border and NI as more a British problem than an EU one. Even with a hard brexit, the UK still has to validate the GFA.

First Up

breatheme wrote: »

Or maybe if he had come out in favour of Remain, they could've won.

Very possibly.

I know of some young, bright (but not very politically aware) Londoners who voted for Brexit for the simple and only reason that they liked him.

Water John

Sadly, many didn't see through him. With his hair carefully tousled before he comes out the door. A bloody fraud and as Andrew Marr said to him, a nasty piece of goods. His failure to empathise with the death of Dawn Sturgess, indicates well where his priorities lie.

Leroy42

One other issue that the EU needs to be very careful about is not being seen to give in just because of the size of the UK economy.

It sounds reasonable and logical, but what is to then stop the likes of Germany of threatening to leave if, for example, the Irish don't agree to tax harmonisation.

ancapailldorcha

cml387 wrote: »

I think his Euroscepticism was deeply felt. As mentioned in another post, he did have a an alternative message written for the remain argument but that was mainly written to convince himself.

As for the Vote Leave campaign, Gove and Alan Cummings were the evil geniuses behind the 350M, I doubt Boris in his heart believed it, but still, if you think a casue is just you don't cavill at some of the tactics employed.

I don't say he is a paragon of virtue, but there are far, far worse still in place.

It probably was sincere. I've read both of his Telegraph articles and the Leave won certainly has the passion behind it.

Boris still climbed atop the bus and deliberately misled the public. That's the reason that so many hate him.

An Ciarraioch

British voters seem somewhat betwixt and between:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016584997556375552

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016614744990642176

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

British voters seem somewhat betwixt and between:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016584997556375552

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016614744990642176

knew what they voted for alright :rolleyes:

VinLieger

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

British voters seem somewhat betwixt and between:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016584997556375552

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1016614744990642176

It wouldn't be possible could it that Brexit is possibly too complicated to fit into a binary question?

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

It sounds reasonable and logical, but what is to then stop the likes of Germany of threatening to leave if, for example, the Irish don't agree to tax harmonisation.

Common sense and a firm grasp of the blindingly obvious could be two reasons....

Rjd2

breatheme wrote: »

Or maybe if he had come out in favour of Remain, they could've won.

Remain would have certainly have won in such a scenario. Ignore the echo chambers of twitter, at that time he was arguably the most popular politician in the UK so he converting to leave was huge. The likes of Gove, Leadsom, and Farage don't have close to the appeal to the public that Johnson had back then.

Yesterday turned out okish for May, 2 divisive leavers in top places gone and replaced by hassle free loyalist remainers. She stared down the extremists and knows well they don't have the numbers to replace her.

trellheim

Yesterdays Hansard . 95 PMQs re Brexit and the Chequers wp


Everyone should have a read

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-09/debates/DFF149CD-3762-4293-82A3-ED03A0BA48D5/LeavingTheEU

An Ciarraioch

Robert Peston thinks there could be a Corn Laws style Tory split:

https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2100466520278082/

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, it seems the White Paper will be published on Thursday, after all.

VinLieger

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Robert Peston thinks there could be a Corn Laws style Tory split:

https://m.facebook.com/1498276767163730/posts/2100466520278082/

Such a split is inevitable, if they had lost the referendum by a similar margin they would have eventually split when Cameron who would still have been leader and fulfilled his promise to them refused to run another which they would deffinitely have called for. Even if the result had been 60-70% remain some portion would have still undoubtedly split.

FrancieBrady

Did anyone hear Jeffery Donaldson on Pat Kenny this AM. As usual you are listening and screaming at the radio for the host to ask something you want to know. Maybe those here can answer my question.

JD was saying that an Irish sea solution would mean ripping up the GFA because in effect it changes the tenets of the agreement.

Putting the fact that the DUP never signed up to the GFA aside, surely if the EU (which includes the Irish Gov) and the UK reach an agreement then the GFA can be amended to reflect this as it has been amended a number of times already and then seek to ratify that amendment with the majority of the parties in the north.

Will the DUP not signing up to it originally and their claiming that they didn't agree to a language act come back to bite them in the proverbial?

dfx-

Rjd2 wrote: »

Remain would have certainly have won in such a scenario. Ignore the echo chambers of twitter, at that time he was arguably the most popular politician in the UK so he converting to leave was huge. The likes of Gove, Leadsom, and Farage don't have close to the appeal to the public that Johnson had back then.

Yesterday turned out okish for May, 2 divisive leavers in top places gone and replaced by hassle free loyalist remainers. She stared down the extremists and knows well they don't have the numbers to replace her.

I don't think he especially care who won if it's true he wrote a pro-Remain article at the same time he made his decision to back Leave.

It was a judgement call for power in the Conservative Party as it seems most of his decisions are. I don't think he thought they would win, but it would place him in direct competition with Cameron and look like the only choice for the next leader.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did anyone hear Jeffery Donaldson on Pat Kenny this AM. As usual you are listening and screaming at the radio for the host to ask something you want to know. Maybe those here can answer my question.

JD was saying that an Irish sea solution would mean ripping up the GFA because in effect it changes the tenets of the agreement.

Putting the fact that the DUP never signed up to the GFA aside, surely if the EU (which includes the Irish Gov) and the UK reach an agreement then the GFA can be amended to reflect this as it has been amended a number of times already and then seek to ratify that amendment with the majority of the parties in the north.

Will the DUP not signing up to it originally and their claiming that they didn't agree to a language act come back to bite them in the proverbial?

Implementing the backstop does not affect the GFA, the DUP are just trying to subvert concerns over the GFA to suit their own agenda. The GFA merely requires that NI stay part of the UK politically unless and until a referendum allows for it to join a United Ireland.

The backstop is merely an economic border, not a political one. NI would remain constitutionally part of the Uk even if it remained in the Single Market and Customs Union while the rest of the UK left.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Implementing the backstop does not affect the GFA, the DUP are just trying to subvert concerns over the GFA to suit their own agenda. The GFA merely requires that NI stay part of the UK politically unless and until a referendum allows for it to join a United Ireland.

The backstop is merely an economic border, not a political one. NI would remain constitutionally part of the Uk even if it remained in the Single Market and Customs Union while the rest of the UK left.

Also, their is already a border with NI and GB and it concerns agricultural products and phyto-sanitary controls. There is also an All-Island electricity market.

steddyeddy

Jesus the New York Times really rip into Boris. Rightfully so in my view. They also have a pop at the leave group in general.

LONDON — For the second time in three years, Boris Johnson, a politician whose ambition and superficial charm far outstrip his ability, judgment or principles, is destabilizing the British government and threatening the country’s future.

On Monday, Mr. Johnson, in protest against Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans for Brexit, resigned from his post as foreign secretary. Now Mrs. May’s authority, longevity and ability to deliver a Brexit without causing an economic crisis are in question. But further political paralysis seems certain.

Britain is in this mess principally because the Brexiteers — led largely by Mr. Johnson — sold the country a series of lies in the lead up to the June 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union. They did so because neither Mr. Johnson nor his fellow leader of the Leave campaign, Michael Gove, intended, wanted or expected to win.

At the start of 2016, Mr. Johnson was perhaps the most popular politician in Britain. Supporters and fans mobbed him at train stations and traffic lights; pollsters and pundits thought he could reach the parts of the country that other Conservatives could never touch. But he was also driven and insecure, so desperate to guarantee he would be the next prime minister that he cynically abandoned his own previous positions on the European Union in order to try to secure support from his party’s Euroskeptic right wing.

Because Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gove were confident that the Leave campaign was a hopeless cause, they were free to make ridiculous claims that they had no expectation of ever having to fulfill. They said that Brexit would make Britain both richer and more independent, with more money for the National Health Service, much greater control of immigration and continued friction-free trade with Europe.
Every earnest warning from the other side — about how any Brexit would damage trade, business and jobs — was dismissed airily by the Brexiteers. There were no costs or downsides in this vision of the future.

This casual dishonesty has had devastating consequences.

In the two years since the Leave campaign unexpectedly won, nobody, from the prime minister to Mr. Johnson to the Labour Party, has been able to come up with a plan for exiting the European Union that can satisfy both a majority in Parliament and the expectant public. Why? Because fulfilling the false promises peddled by Mr. Johnson during the campaign is impossible.

The gulf between the easy, prosperous, productive Brexit that its voters are impatiently expecting, and the grim, complicated cost of disentangling economies that have been intertwined for decades has poisoned and paralyzed British politics.

The Conservatives’ leaders cannot admit to the electorate that they were deceived without splitting the party. And instead of apologizing for misleading voters, Mr. Johnson and the other Brexiteers have doubled down, taking refuge in optimistic slogans and vapid promises, refusing to believe the increasingly agitated evidence from hospitals, airlines, farmers, supermarkets and factories that a hard Brexit will damage them all.

Last week, Mrs. May finally attempted to force a recognition of reality on her divided cabinet by coming up with a compromise; a partial Brexit that allows goods free access in and out of Europe at the cost of accepting many European rules. It was an imperfect plan, but still it provided, finally, a starting point for negotiations with Brussels.

For three days, that compromise held, until the first political delusionist, the Brexit Secretary David Davis, broke free, still claiming that in some magical future Britain could get almost everything it wanted, if only the country would just stand by its demands.
Petrified of being outflanked, Mr. Johnson followed suit, bringing with him the implicit threat that he could lead a rebellion against the government that other hardline Brexiteers will follow. It is a desperate move by a man who has lost almost all the credibility he had three years ago.
All of Mr. Johnson’s weaknesses have been exposed: his lazy reluctance to do detail, his preference for bluster over thinking, his contempt for business. The campaign was meant to secure his future; instead, in damaging the country, he fears he has wrecked his own future, too. As one of his allies told me last month: “He knows that the verdict of history is about to come down on him — and bury him.”

Mr. Johnson seems to believe that this is his last chance to become prime minister: After his resignation this week, he hopes to be reborn as a rebel who will lead the party. But more likely is that he will once again create political chaos without delivering what he wants.

Two years ago, the side effect of Mr. Johnson’s ambitious maneuvering was to split the country and risk the prosperity and security of all Britons for decades. Now, just as a fragile basis for negotiation emerges, his selfish drive for vindication, attention and admiration threatens that, too.
It is petrifying that the deliberate deceptions and wild ego of one man can so mislead a nation. (Americans know all about that.) One insider told me that Mrs. May was prepared for Mr. Johnson’s defection, and will outflank him, persuading wavering Conservatives that the time for fantasy has passed.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jesus the New York Times really rip into Boris. Rightfully so in my view. They also have a pop at the leave group in general.

Excellent article. Johnson toasted May's deal on Friday night and resigned because he couldn't stomach the deal on Monday. Shallow, elitist and incompetent ambition in a nutshell.