Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Meanwhile back in the real world and saner politics our own Taoiseach is out there making friends a drumming up business. I suppose it's no co-incidence it coincided with Boris's visit to the US..

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-jimmy-fallon-4825376-Sep2019/

Not a coincidence at all, though not for the reason you suspect. They were both in the US to attend the same UN climate summit.

dinorebel

Forty Seven wrote: »

What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it?

Well that's utterly wrong his only ever position has been to be Prime Minister he was pro Europe for years until he saw Brexit as his means to get the job.

Forty Seven

Deleted User wrote: »

Fourtyseven, i find it crazy that anyway can defend Johnson's performance last night, especially at the disrespect shown to Jo Cox's memory.

She was an ardent remainder slayed by an English right wing thug. To say the best way to honour her is to get Brexit done is utterly appalling.

Do you support Johnson's comments from last night?

Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points.

We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.

He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent.

ArmaniJeanss

From perusing various UK political message boards, poster Forty Sevens lack of knowledge of how the procedures work in his own political system is pretty much par for the course. Frighteningly, he's still probably in the top 10% of 'most-clued-in' despite some of this mornings nonsense.

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it?

He literally wrote 2 different articles for the Telegraph because he couldn't decide if he wanted the referendum to pass or fail.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/secret-boris-johnson-column-favoured-uk-remaining-in-eu

Peregrinus

Forty Seven wrote: »

I can't recall a prime minister who's career did not ultimately end in failure. That's the job. It's not for life, you push your policies and hope they stick.

Yes. But what Johson will (hopefully) be remembered for is how rapidly his tenure as PM ended in failure; in fact, how his tenure in office started in failure and basically consisted of one, painful, drawn-out, ignominious, humiliating, degrading failure. So that no future PM will ever be tempted to behave as he has behaved.

lawred2

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Meanwhile back in the real world and saner politics our own Taoiseach is out there making friends a drumming up business. I suppose it's no co-incidence it coincided with Boris's visit to the US..

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-jimmy-fallon-4825376-Sep2019/

we have our own homegrown collection of miserable never happy trolls if those comments are anything to go by

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.

Wait....... what? You have completely jumped the shark

Peregrinus

VinLieger wrote: »

He literally wrote 2 different articles for the Telegraph because he couldn't decide if he wanted the referendum to pass or fail.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/secret-boris-johnson-column-favoured-uk-remaining-in-eu

Plus, he voted both for and against May's deal; he approved the Joint Report and then repudiated it; he commited to the Chequers plan and then resigned from cabinet over it. Johnson is perhaps the last man in Parliament of whom it could ever be said that he has always held the same position on any matter.

Zubeneschamali

Forty Seven wrote: »

I can't recall a prime minister who's career did not ultimately end in failure. That's the job. It's not for life, you push your policies and hope they stick.

Yes, that is why Johnson's career as PM must not just end in ordinary failure, but in utter, abject, humiliating failure of epic proportion. He should forever have an asterisk beside his name in the list of UK PMs as the absolute and unbeatably sh!ttiest PM ever.

lawred2

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points.

We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.

He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent.

This is going to circle the drain for a while

Bannasidhe

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Meanwhile back in the real world and saner politics our own Taoiseach is out there making friends a drumming up business. I suppose it's no co-incidence it coincided with Boris's visit to the US..

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-jimmy-fallon-4825376-Sep2019/

A few years ago I gave a presentation for Culture Night on LGBT history and ended it with the comment that back in the 80s I never thought I would see the day I would look around the globe and say thank *uck I live in Ireland. There were cheers and nods of agreement from those in the audience who had 'been there'.
Now, I find myself in the unexpected position where I am saying thank *uck for Irish politicians...

In foreign affairs they have certainly risen to the occasion and are doing us proud.

... still will never vote for FG mind you... or FF for that matter...or the LP....

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

... still will never vote for FG mind you... or FF for that matter...or the LP....

There's always Renua.

Russman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Johnson's goal was to defend by trying to rile everybody yesterday, in the hope of sparking a VoNC or an election, it is all he has left. He has shown before he doesn't care how he does that, he respects nothing.

You could be right, but I wonder about this tbh. I could easily believe its not part of a plan and in actual fact he's just that obnoxious and arrogant to those who don't agree with him, as opposed to the bumbling caricature that has been created of him over the years.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's always Renua.

I would literally cut my hand off for offending me.

Forty Seven

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.

You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done.

And none of that requires an election.

But there is not one person who could get enough votes to be elected pm outside of boris. Nor could any opposition form a government. A coalition? Good luck bringing that shower together. Especially now Labour have gone full open borders socialist.

You have to be taking the proverbial?!

The goalposts have shifted from, 'it would require army intervention to install a new PM without an election' to 'well they'd require a Queen's Speech' over to, 'well the opposition wouldn't be able to agree on a PM'.

Could you not just acknowledge you were mistaken about the parliamentary procedure which follows a VONC, and move on?

You're entitled to be anti-EU, but at least get a basic grasp of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which you think is being diluted by the EU.

Having a VONC and installing a new PM isn't a coup, it isn't unusual, it's one of the basic principles behind British parliamentary politics.

Nobody knows what will happen under the new fixed term act. It is a terrible piece of legislation and open to various interpretations. It is also untested. Our best political lawyers have no idea where it will lead or how it will work.

I'm a remainer. We lost. I'm now a spectator. I can see both sides and right now the remainers are as bad as the ERG. Win at all cost.

If it is so easy to overthrow the pm and government then why are they still there?

robinph

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points.

We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.

He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent.

Was actually a different MP that Johnson was responding to. That MP had asked for Johnson to mind his language as it was being used by extremists and as justification for violence and threats towards MP's and their families, and then she reminded him that similar language was used by the murderer of Jo Cox.

Johnsons response to that was essentially to say bolix and that Jo Cox would be honoured to have a no deal Brexit in her name.

But yeah, it was clearly the MP who was pointing out that language matters who was at fault.

Forty Seven

dinorebel wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it?

Well that's utterly wrong his only ever position has been to be Prime Minister he was pro Europe for years until he saw Brexit as his means to get the job.

He was answering as prime minister. As prime minister he has always had the same position. Personal views are not relevant to his platform. Clearly he is acting in the countries best interest. He stood on a platform and was elected. His views before that are irrelevant.

robinph

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nobody knows what will happen under the new fixed term act.

Yes we do, it's written in the act.

Which of the options is eventually used to trigger the next election is still up in the air, but May has already made use of the get 2/3rds of MP to support an early election option so it has certainly already been tested.

FrancieBrady

Forty Seven wrote: »

Clearly he is acting in the countries best interest.

Yeh?
How is he doing that then? 6 votes lost, at the brink of No Deal and lying through his teeth about 'progress' nobody else is seeing.

Enzokk

Forty Seven wrote: »

If it is so easy to overthrow the pm and government then why are they still there?

Because they are powerless and the longer they are left and shown to be powerless the worse it is for him. The only way Johnson gets an election from his own actions is by resigning as PM, which means he cannot be PM again so he is left to try and goad the opposition into an election.

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

He was answering as prime minister. As prime minister he has always had the same position. Personal views are not relevant to his platform. Clearly he is acting in the countries best interest. He stood on a platform and was elected. His views before that are irrelevant.

You have moved the goalposts so many times in the last 2 days its impossible to count any more

Peregrinus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Forty Seven wrote: »

He was answering as prime minister. As prime minister he has always had the same position. Personal views are not relevant to his platform. Clearly he is acting in the countries best interest. He stood on a platform and was elected. His views before that are irrelevant.

Practically every statement here is wrong.

- A PM's personal views are always highly relevant.

- It is not at all clear that Johnson is acting in the country's best interests - many people view his policy direction as ruinous - and highly unlikely that he even intends to.

- He was not elected as PM. He was elected as a member of parliament, but in that election he stood on a platform quite different from the policy he is now pursuing.

- "His views before that" (whever "that" is) are clearly relevant since your claim is that "he has always had the same position". "Always" is fairly unambiguous.

woejus

dinorebel wrote: »

Well that's utterly wrong his only ever position has been to be Prime Minister he was pro Europe for years until he saw Brexit as his means to get the job.

In an interview with ITV News, the former UK prime minister disclosed that Johnson had told him the campaign to leave the EU would be “crushed like a toad under the harrow”. Minutes later, Johnson appeared outside his then family home in Islington, north London, to say he would join the Vote Leave team during the 2016 referendum.

The man wrote two articles to cover both eventualities. He's a craven charlatan and he's playing well meaning Brexit voters such as Forty Seven here like a lute


When he had a majority of one, he didn't want an election; now he has a negative majority of 40 or so, he wants an election. This all during his brief, dazzling tenure as PM

MrMusician18

Enzokk wrote: »

Because they are powerless and the longer they are left and shown to be powerless the worse it is for him. The only way Johnson gets an election from his own actions is by resigning as PM, which means he cannot be PM again so he is left to try and goad the opposition into an election.

There is no rule prohibiting him from being PM again if he resigns.

Forty Seven

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

From perusing various UK political message boards, poster Forty Sevens lack of knowledge of how the procedures work in his own political system is pretty much par for the course. Frighteningly, he's still probably in the top 10% of 'most-clued-in' despite some of this mornings nonsense.

This is hardly new territory in politics.
Hot potato, poisoned chalice etc are not new concepts.

robinph

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There is no rule prohibiting him from being PM again if he resigns.

...other than the Tory party leadership contest.

Forty Seven

robinph wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points.

We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.

He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent.

Was actually a different MP that Johnson was responding to. That MP had asked for Johnson to mind his language as it was being used by extremists and as justification for violence and threats towards MP's and their families, and then she reminded him that similar language was used by the murderer of Jo Cox.

Johnsons response to that was essentially to say bolix and that Jo Cox would be honoured to have a no deal Brexit in her name.

But yeah, it was clearly the MP who was pointing out that language matters who was at fault.

This does not reflect what BBC are reporting and they even wheeled out Brendan Cox. I don't have time to go and check parliamentary records but I suggest you are misrepresenting what happened to suit your agenda.

Forty Seven

robinph wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nobody knows what will happen under the new fixed term act.

Yes we do, it's written in the act.

Which of the options is eventually used to trigger the next election is still up in the air, but May has already made use of the get 2/3rds of MP to support an early election option so it has certainly already been tested.

2/3 majority is not the ambiguity that requires testing. It is what happens if there is not a 'clear' majority and the queen is asked to dismiss. There is no definition of clear. It is open to interpretation and is untested.

SeaBreezes

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points.

We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.

He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent.

His reply was abhorrent. The man is a d***. I'm quite stunned anyone could defend that cowardly bully.

Running from uk protestors in Luxembourg, rambling incoherently at the UN and insulting and endangering fellow MPs. Disgusting.

Glad I'm irish and our politicians are intelligent, reasoned, eloquent and well regarded world wide.

Mortified for the UK that this is what they are presenting to the world.

How will they negotiate deals after this when the world sees them as incitors to violence against women? As idiots who cannot speak coherently? How will that help trade deals?

I can't see any way out of this for the Uk now. If they leave no deal they are fcuked. Negotiating from a position of weakness never bodes well for the weaker party..

If they don't leave the thugs will, encouraged by Boris, tear society apart.

A deal is the only way out now. And I'm beginning to think the EU is now regretting the WA cause they know now, they could have got a better one if they waited for UK to crash out.