Brexit discussion thread IV

kowtow

Boris' speech was very un-theatrical by his own standards, more analytical - I thought - than forward looking.

What he did do, quite effectively, is identify the way the Irish border issue has been developed and treated, by both sides, as the fulcrum around which negotiations have so far failed to balance. He gives quite a good insight, from a Brexiteer point of view, of the point. Whatever ones view there is no question that this point has been highly politically charged, in what has sometimes seemed to be a deliberate move.

Whether that will work out for good or for ill for us here in this Ireland, remains to be seen.

and worst of all we allowed the question of the Northern Irish border

– which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble –

to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate

No one wants a hard border. You couldn’t construct one if you tried

But there certainly can be different rules north and south of the border to reflect the fact that there are two different jurisdictions.

In fact there already are.

There can be checks away from the border, and technical solutions, as the PM described at Mansion House. In fact there already are.

But when I and other colleagues proposed further technical solutions to make customs and regulatory checks remotely

they were never even properly examined

as if such solutions had become intellectually undesirable in the context of the argument

and somehow after the December joint report

– whose backstop arrangement we were all told was entirely provisional, never to be invoked –

it became taboo even to discuss technical fixes.

seamus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1019339412583403520


White paper translated into various EU languages . Irish not one of them nor is Swedish. Dutch and German translations called a joke

Whatever about the quality of the translations, it reads like election material. The first two paragraphs of the summary;

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 and begin to chart a new course in the world.

The Government will have delivered on the result of the 2016 referendum – the biggest democratic exercise in this country’s history. And it will have reached a key milestone in its principal mission – to build a country that works for everyone. A country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking.

It's so incredibly fluffy, it feels like it was written for a navel-gazing UK audience, not for opening negotiations with an EU one.

judeboy101

May dodged the status of a border post no deal brexit at the committee just now. She was repeatedly asked about it and wouldn't say they would put a border up or wouldn't.

Leroy42

More fantasy stuff from Boris.

Is he really claiming that Ireland should have just sat on our hands whilst the UK fecked about with the GFA and the economy on the island? Of course we made it political, since we are so small economically we needed another angle.

The likes of JRM have stated in the past that we should simply side with the UK because of our relative size. So it was the right way to do things.

But even if we remove his point, the failure lies with the Brexiteers who simply never came up with a solution to the border issue. Clearly they never even thought of it before the vote, and seemed genuinely surprised that others (ie ROI and EU) have taken it so seriously.

The reason why their 'solutions' were rejected were because they were fantasy. This is the man that claimed that the NI border was akin to travelling between London Boroughs! He simply has no concept of the changes that Brexit demands be made.

What effectively Boris is asking for, is that Brexiteers want control of their borders, but the NI one seems very complicated so can we just stick to EU rules for that one!

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This seems open to potential farce when it transpires that they just ran it through google translate. Or more likely that unspotted errors in the translation lead to them giving the Bulgarians a text totally different in meaning to that which the Italians receive. Or a deliberately unfaithful translator.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1019339412583403520


White paper translated into various EU languages . Irish not one of them nor is Swedish. Dutch and German translations called a joke

Called it two weeks ago, not the most difficult call obviously.

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

why is it our government that is expected to face a fight with the WTO?

We are members of the EU, the only border our government would not want to enforce would be with the UK, which is clearly in breach of WTO rules if the UK crashes out.

The UK on the other hand could in theory leave open the border with Ireland if they choose not to enforce a border with the rest of the world also. This would be a nightmare for the UK economey, but would be totally fine as far as the WTO is concerned. Even if they wanted to emulate ireland and only leave open the border with the Republic, then both of us would be in trouble with the WTO, and by extension we would potentially be in trouble with the EU as we are members of the WTO through the EU.

I personally can't see much hope of us not having to enforce a border in the event of a no-deal Brexit, though government might feel it is important not to admit that before Brexit happens.

seamus

kowtow wrote: »

What he did do, quite effectively, is identify the way the Irish border issue has been developed and treated, by both sides, as the fulcrum around which negotiations have so far failed to balance. He gives quite a good insight, from a Brexiteer point of view, of the point. Whatever ones view there is no question that this point has been highly politically charged, in what has sometimes seemed to be a deliberate move.

What he has failed to recognise however is just why that border is the fulcrum of the debate.

He's exasperated that a trifling issue has been allowed to block everything - because he doesn't understand that it's not a trifling issue. He doesn't understand that you can't just steamroll small countries that get in your way so you can deal with the big ones. The Irish border is an EU border, one with complicated rules that the UK agreed to. It can't be put aside to be dealt with "later". If it's not dealt with first, then there is no "later".

Once again, a perfect example of just why the UK has failed to make any progress; because they refuse to recognise the roadblocks that are in the way and kept insisting that they just drive over them.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1019597658720292864


As so the end game begins. Hard border next.

Dyr

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1019597658720292864


As so the end game begins. Hard border next.

There's no panic lol

They're trying to sound like Corporal Jones when they feel like Corporal Frazer.

While Captain Manwearing Rees-Mogg hufs and puffs from the wings

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Criticism of Israel by Corbyn in that regard is reasonable. Only three days ago, Netanyahu's party proposed a bill that would allow for Jewish only communities, some Jewish religious laws to be implemented and removal of Arabic as an official language. Anti-Semitism should be rightly condemned but the actions of a far right party should be equally condemned.

To be fair, it is possible to argue that the worst of the Israli actions in some way resemble the German occupation of some Western European countries during the war, but Israel has not done anything that comes anywhere near to the brutaity that the Nazis exhibited in the east or inflicted on the Jewish community in Europe.

To make a Nazi comparrison, I think, is unjust, and given the history, probably comes from a place of anti-semitisim.

I think I will leave it at that, I don't want to derail the thread.

Imreoir2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1019339412583403520


White paper translated into various EU languages . Irish not one of them nor is Swedish. Dutch and German translations called a joke

The perfidious DUP stricks again.

Zubeneschamali

Bambi wrote: »

There's no panic lol

A customs border would obviously be a setback for Ireland North and South, but it would not be critical for the South, just a costly and unnecessary nuisance.

It can't last long in any case.

Professor Moriarty

Imreoir2 wrote: »

To be fair, it is possible to argue that the worst of the Israli actions in some way resemble the German occupation of some Western European countries during the war, but Israel has not done anything that comes anywhere near to the brutaity that the Nazis exhibited in the east or inflicted on the Jewish community in Europe.

To make a Nazi comparrison, I think, is unjust, and given the history, probably comes from a place of anti-semitisim.

I think I will leave it at that, I don't want to derail the thread.

Which Labour MPs have made that comparison?

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1019597658720292864


As so the end game begins. Hard border next.

They think they need 700 people? Holland and Belgium has recruited close to 1000 custom agents each due to Brexit...

mickmac76

If the UK crashes out without a deal how badly will the economies of Ireland and the UK be hit relative to the financial crisis in 2008? Will the economies be hit harder in terms of unemployment and governments having to borrow more? And could a hard brexit lead to another financial crisis or has enough been done since then to strengthen our banking system.

Infini

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A customs border would obviously be a setback for Ireland North and South, but it would not be critical for the South, just a costly and unnecessary nuisance.

It can't last long in any case.

If anything if the UK is in no doubt it's going to crash out hard and they make a hams of it they should be liable for any costs through tarriffs in causing this situation and should be hammered hard if it causes civil war up there. If a UI is the only solution a border poll should be held on the grounds that NI did not adk for this, headbangers were allowed to cause this and people should be given the option to walk away.

Zubeneschamali

mickmac76 wrote: »

If the UK crashes out without a deal how badly will the economies of Ireland and the UK be hit relative to the financial crisis in 2008?

Government estimates were Ireland - 0.5%, much less than 2008/9, UK 6%, worse then 2008/9.

Both of these now look low to me as a crashout gets more likely, they might be twice that for UK, three times for Ireland.

Worse, but still not enough to push into a recession with the UK.

Brexit has cost the UK perhaps 2% before it even happens.

An Ciarraioch

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1019597658720292864


As so the end game begins. Hard border next.

The plans will be published whenever the Cabinet meeting ends, so should be online around 7 at the latest.

Imreoir2

mickmac76 wrote: »

If the UK crashes out without a deal how badly will the economies of Ireland and the UK be hit relative to the financial crisis in 2008? Will the economies be hit harder in terms of unemployment and governments having to borrow more? And could a hard brexit lead to another financial crisis or has enough been done since then to strengthen our banking system.

It depends on the Brexit, though my understanding is that the worst no-deal outcome would be drasticly worse for the UK than the 2008 crash, knocking up to 8% off GDP and seeing millions of job losses. The hardship in the UK would have a knock on effect here, though I believe that it is not expected to be even similar to the 2008 crash for us.

Infini

mickmac76 wrote: »

If the UK crashes out without a deal how badly will the economies of Ireland and the UK be hit relative to the financial crisis in 2008? Will the economies be hit harder in terms of unemployment and governments having to borrow more? And could a hard brexit lead to another financial crisis or has enough been done since then to strengthen our banking system.

I'd say given the difficulties caused by the UK being not of our own making we could see if the EU could help out with investment and helping us build new infrastructure to get around the UK cutting off our land routes to the continent, like upgrading the rosslare dublin line and europort as one way of getting stuff between us and france.

An Ciarraioch

Leroy42 wrote: »

More fantasy stuff from Boris.

Is he really claiming that Ireland should have just sat on our hands whilst the UK fecked about with the GFA and the economy on the island? Of course we made it political, since we are so small economically we needed another angle.

The likes of JRM have stated in the past that we should simply side with the UK because of our relative size. So it was the right way to do things.

But even if we remove his point, the failure lies with the Brexiteers who simply never came up with a solution to the border issue. Clearly they never even thought of it before the vote, and seemed genuinely surprised that others (ie ROI and EU) have taken it so seriously.

The reason why their 'solutions' were rejected were because they were fantasy. This is the man that claimed that the NI border was akin to travelling between London Boroughs! He simply has no concept of the changes that Brexit demands be made.

What effectively Boris is asking for, is that Brexiteers want control of their borders, but the NI one seems very complicated so can we just stick to EU rules for that one!

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1019601343101767680

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The plans will be published whenever the Cabinet meeting ends, so should be online around 7 at the latest.

Apparently, behind the scenes this week and in discussions between the negotiating teams, the EU has torn Britain's latest proposals apart and now believes that a hard Brexit is moving from possible to likely. For their part, the British negotiating team is "despairing" at the EU's intransigence.

trellheim

Boris' resignation statement

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1019586379771203584


Noteworthy mentions 2 1/2 years to do the border but this is wrong IIRC ?

trellheim

the mood music out of brussels is horrible at the moment - look at the dutchmen


e.g https://twitter.com/JDeMeulemeester/status/1019569488734322688



translate: Paul Dalmacio and @peeters_kris1 after consultation with Michel Barnier about real chance of hard #Brexit. "Exceptionally turbulent times. Additional initiatives: By early September impact scan for companies and

hopefully we'll get a presser from Raab/Barnier when it breaks up later on today

Ellian

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which Labour MPs have made that comparison?

None did as far as I know. Apologies - I should not have side-barred. In my post above, I was making the point that my understanding that Corbyn was trying to re-assess the definition of anti-Semitism because it contained a couple of line items that indicated any comparison between current Israeli policy and those of Nazi Germany would be anti-Semitic. As would any allegation that Israel's foreign policy was in any way racist. However the former head of the Shin Bet said exactly this in the documentary The Gatekeepers and so presumably would be considered anti-Semitic by that definition. So if Corbyn was asking for a re-assesmment of the definition because of that he may have a point. Apologies again - really didn't want to derail thread.

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Apparently, behind the scenes this week and in discussions between the negotiating teams, the EU has torn Britain's latest proposals apart and now believes that a hard Brexit is moving from possible to likely. For their part, the British negotiating team is "despairing" at the EU's intransigence.

Have you go a source for that?

An Ciarraioch

May appears to be thinking similarly:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1019594403525136384

Rjd2

The accusations of antisemitism has been aimed at the Labour party for ages and plenty of people who have been lionised here such as David Lammy, Milliband brothers and Chuka have called it out.

Hodge probably should not have swore at Jez, but the fact that the Corbyn white walkers are out in force to destroy a veteran MP who took on the BNP is shameful.


https://twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/1019349749223317504


For what its worth, Chuka who has been the voice of reason Brexit has been hammered constantly by the Corbyn disciples, expect it to step up even more.

An Ciarraioch

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Have you go a source for that?

Grauniad article:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/18/eu-assault-on-mays-white-paper-heightens-no-deal-brexit-fears

Enzokk

Just to add my 2 cents on what would happen should a second referendum be run again. I think that the remain side this time would be better prepared to show people exactly what either option means. We have had countless papers on what Brexit would mean with numbers for people to decide. The myths of extra money for services like the NHS has also been dispelled and the information is now out there about what EU membership means as well regarding EURATOM, EASA and the EMA etc.

So if there is a second referendum and the remain side cannot win with 60% then they have true idiots in charge. There is enough information out there for people to see what it would mean to leave the EU.

kunst nugget

Enzokk wrote: »

Just to add my 2 cents on what would happen should a second referendum be run again. I think that the remain side this time would be better prepared to show people exactly what either option means. We have had countless papers on what Brexit would mean with numbers for people to decide. The myths of extra money for services like the NHS has also been dispelled and the information is now out there about what EU membership means as well regarding EURATOM, EASA and the EMA etc.

So if there is a second referendum and the remain side cannot win with 60% then they have true idiots in charge. There is enough information out there for people to see what it would mean to leave the EU.

What happens if there is a second referendum and they vote to stay in terms of Article 50 already being triggered..

Taytoland

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The plans will be published whenever the Cabinet meeting ends, so should be online around 7 at the latest.

Apparently, behind the scenes this week and in discussions between the negotiating teams, the EU has torn Britain's latest proposals apart and now believes that a hard Brexit is moving from possible to likely. For their part, the British negotiating team is "despairing" at the EU's intransigence.

I have been saying this for ages. Only now are others waking up to what I knew since day dot.

Leroy42

Great speech by Boris. Calling out the PM, and the entire cabinet, for the total failure in the negotiations with the EU.

Whenever he does get the chance to be a member of Government, I expect great things from him.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

Just to add my 2 cents on what would happen should a second referendum be run again. I think that the remain side this time would be better prepared to show people exactly what either option means. We have had countless papers on what Brexit would mean with numbers for people to decide. The myths of extra money for services like the NHS has also been dispelled and the information is now out there about what EU membership means as well regarding EURATOM, EASA and the EMA etc.

So if there is a second referendum and the remain side cannot win with 60% then they have true idiots in charge. There is enough information out there for people to see what it would mean to leave the EU.

One place where Leave absolutely stomped Remain was in public relations with blue collar/working class voters. Nigel Farage may be a businessman from the City, but he had a way of connecting, even if he was selling snake oil. All Remain seemed to have was lecturing politicians from the established parties, concerned experts, and comedians who somehow had fooled themselves into believing they could go toe-to-toe in late night TV debates.

So, what I'm saying is that Remain can't frame their argument as 'Leave = Apocalypse' and they have to be careful in who is delivering it. For many of those already ensconced in the Leave mentality, it's not even an argument they'll hear, especially by Eddie Izzard in his pink beret. It'll have to be an argument that both attempts to reach across the divide and hear the concerns of the Leavers and offer some sort of solution that isn't just more of the status quo.

And even if it all gets to another vote, which is completely up in the air at this point.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Great speech by Boris. Calling out the PM, and the entire cabinet, for the total failure in the negotiations with the EU.

Whenever he does get the chance to be a member of Government, I expect great things from him.

Yes. He's extremely brave and outspoken when he doesn't have to do the heavy lifting. :rolleyes:

kunst nugget

briany wrote: »

One place where Leave absolutely stomped Remain was in public relations with blue collar/working class voters. Nigel Farage may be a businessman from the City, but he had a way of connecting, even if he was selling snake oil. All Remain seemed to have was lecturing politicians from the established parties, concerned experts, and comedians who somehow had fooled themselves into believing they could go toe-to-toe in late night TV debates.

So, what I'm saying is that Remain can't frame their argument as 'Leave = Apocalypse' and they have to be careful in who is delivering it. For many of those already ensconced in the Leave mentality, it's not even an argument they'll hear, especially by Eddie Izzard in his pink beret. It'll have to be an argument that both attempts to reach across the divide and hear the concerns of the Leavers and offer some sort of solution that isn't just more of the status quo.

And even if it all gets to another vote, which is completely up in the air at this point.

I wonder will we still hear that wonderful 'Germany needs us more than we need them because of car sales' argument...

Trasna1

lawred2 wrote: »

why is it our government that is expected to face a fight with the WTO?

Essentially they are saying they will have a fight with WTO since it is not politically possible to erect a physical border on the border.

That article is nonsense. The government are contingency planning for a full customs border.

kunst nugget

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. He's extremely brave and outspoken when he doesn't have to do the heavy lifting. :rolleyes:

It's why you'll never see any of those people before profit fúckers actually getting involved in government. Much handier to just shout shíte from the sidelines.

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

Great speech by Boris. Calling out the PM, and the entire cabinet, for the total failure in the negotiations with the EU.

Whenever he does get the chance to be a member of Government, I expect great things from him.

For a moment there...

BonnieSituation

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's why you'll never see any of those people before profit fúckers actually getting involved in government. Much handier to just shout shíte from the sidelines.

Let's not forget that PBP advocated for us leaving the EU and campaigned for Brexit in the north.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

One place where Leave absolutely stomped Remain was in public relations with blue collar/working class voters. Nigel Farage may be a businessman from the City, but he had a way of connecting, even if he was selling snake oil. All Remain seemed to have was lecturing politicians from the established parties, concerned experts, and comedians who somehow had fooled themselves into believing they could go toe-to-toe in late night TV debates.

So, what I'm saying is that Remain can't frame their argument as 'Leave = Apocalypse' and they have to be careful in who is delivering it. For many of those already ensconced in the Leave mentality, it's not even an argument they'll hear, especially by Eddie Izzard in his pink beret. It'll have to be an argument that both attempts to reach across the divide and hear the concerns of the Leavers and offer some sort of solution that isn't just more of the status quo.

And even if it all gets to another vote, which is completely up in the air at this point.

Keep in mind that the Leave campaign could promise the most outlandish and fantastical things for life post-Brexit. They were never going to be in position to implement a single bit of it. It was the easiest thing in the world for them to put forward their theoretical proposition of Brexit when they didn't even have a plan for the blasted thing (or even have to have a plan).

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

Keep in mind that the Leave campaign could promise the most outlandish and fantastical things for life post-Brexit. They were never going to be in position to implement a single bit of it. It was the easiest thing in the world for them to put forward their theoretical proposition of Brexit when they didn't even have a plan for the blasted thing (or even have to have a plan).

We're all fairly well-aware of all the stuff Leave said to get over the line at this stage. The problem with it (from a Remain perspective) was that it played great with a certain section of the electorate, for whom it was an emotional argument. I don't know if it's going to cease being that for those people.

The worry for Remain would be that, in another vote, they don't really change their strategy so much as hope that circumstances become more amenable to it. And there's grounds to believe that alone would swing it for them, but just
going back to the status quo may not be enough, long term. There's still reconciliation to be done with Leave supporters or British society will remain very divided, politically. No good telling the other half to just sit down and shut up whichever way it goes.

J Mysterio

Enzokk

kunst nugget wrote: »

What happens if there is a second referendum and they vote to stay in terms of Article 50 already being triggered..

Then no single market or customs union it will be. As long as voters make an informed decision. But there was no defined meaning to Brexit. If leave campaigns on leaving the single market and customs union and doesn't conflate it by one person promising to stay in the single market but not the customs union and another to stay in the customs union but not the single market then the people have spoken.

briany wrote: »

One place where Leave absolutely stomped Remain was in public relations with blue collar/working class voters. Nigel Farage may be a businessman from the City, but he had a way of connecting, even if he was selling snake oil. All Remain seemed to have was lecturing politicians from the established parties, concerned experts, and comedians who somehow had fooled themselves into believing they could go toe-to-toe in late night TV debates.

So, what I'm saying is that Remain can't frame their argument as 'Leave = Apocalypse' and they have to be careful in who is delivering it. For many of those already ensconced in the Leave mentality, it's not even an argument they'll hear, especially by Eddie Izzard in his pink beret. It'll have to be an argument that both attempts to reach across the divide and hear the concerns of the Leavers and offer some sort of solution that isn't just more of the status quo.

And even if it all gets to another vote, which is completely up in the air at this point.

The reason they won us because they promised people they would not be worse off but would have control of immigration. They also promised that more money would be available to be spent on the NHS. None of these things were true and the remain campaign was not able to articulate their warnings. David Cameron and George Osborne were warning about recessions but there was no data. Now we have data on what leaving will mean to the economy. We also know they can control immigration to a degree that people were not aware of before the vote.

Hence my belief that a properly run remain campaign should easily be able to overcome any argument to leave. Yes there will be quite a lot of support to leave the EU, then again people also thought Donald Trump would be a good president and not the disaster he is.

Edited to add: Remain would also be able to articulate the benefits of staying in the EU to the people. Show them the tangible benefits of being in the EU, not just roaming charges and the rich being able to travel or study in the EU, but the benefits to the NHS by being in the EU. The benefit of having staff from the EU working for the people. There was too little focus on the good the EU does for people and just scare tactics.

Panrich

Sterling has fallen to it's lowest level since March and trending downwards all week.


https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=1Y

trellheim

Remain campaign talked down to voters and did not connect with a lot of poor people who only see the Mail and the Express who are happy to blame the EU.

There is no party support for 2nd Ref given those common numbers ain't happening . the only thing to talk about is how far the shrapnel flies.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Then no single market or customs union it will be. As long as voters make an informed decision. But there was no defined meaning to Brexit. If leave campaigns on leaving the single market and customs union and doesn't conflate it by one person promising to stay in the single market but not the customs union and another to stay in the customs union but not the single market then the people have spoken.





The reason they won us because they promised people they would not be worse off but would have control of immigration. They also promised that more money would be available to be spent on the NHS. None of these things were true and the remain campaign was not able to articulate their warnings. David Cameron and George Osborne were warning about recessions but there was no data. Now we have data on what leaving will mean to the economy. We also know they can control immigration to a degree that people were not aware of before the vote.

Hence my belief that a properly run remain campaign should easily be able to overcome any argument to leave. Yes there will be quite a lot of support to leave the EU, then again people also thought Donald Trump would be a good president and not the disaster he is.

Edited to add: Remain would also be able to articulate the benefits of staying in the EU to the people. Show them the tangible benefits of being in the EU, not just roaming charges and the rich being able to travel or study in the EU, but the benefits to the NHS by being in the EU. The benefit of having staff from the EU working for the people. There was too little focus on the good the EU does for people and just scare tactics.

There was an in depth study done last year on why people voted Leave (I linked to it previously but on phone now). It concluded that Farage's and Johnson's personalities were deciding factors in the Leave win.

Leonard Hofstadter

Panrich wrote: »

Sterling has fallen to it's lowest level since March and trending downwards all week.


https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=1Y

Almost went below 1.12 earlier today, still just hovering above it.

J Mysterio

The pressure is getting very serious on May now.

Boris has certainly raised the temperature and has essentially joined with the ERG to form a Brexiteer supergroup. He even made some good points in his speech and seemed to command some authority. But really his solutions are sill airy fairy for the most part and will result in a no deal Brexit. He might succeed May sooner rather than later though.

Tough day for May (no sympathy): aside from the hammering by Corbyn, Parliament at large and finally Boris, Yvette Cooper finally had her chance to grill May and boy did she. Accompanying video in UK Independent article here.

May either couldnt or wouldnt understand/ answer Cooper's questions on her far fetched customs plan.

Seperately, May also said 'there isnt a sort of simple answer to that' when asked if no deal would result in a hard border in NI.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There was an in depth study done last year on why people voted Leave (I linked to it previously but on phone now). It concluded that Farage's and Johnson's personalities were deciding factors in the Leave win.

Their lies are also some of the most prominent that can be easily dismissed when pressed. Nigel Farage wondered if it would be so terrible if the UK were like Norway, but failed to expand if he just meant a rich country or one outside of the EU but with a close relationship. If pushed on what he means he would have to clarify if he means he wants EEA or not.

As for Boris Johnson, he would need to explain how the UK will have £350m per week extra if there is a hit to UK GDP as a result of leaving the EU. I am not surprised they were a focal reason for the result, snake oil salesman are usually good at selling a fantasy to people who want to believe. It would be up to the opposition to provide people with the facts if there are none from the other side, not just their own rhetoric.