Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
Similar to how the UK needs to totally remove itself from EU law and let UK judges have final say. The same UK judges that have been repeatedly labelled as enemies of the people.ArthurDayne wrote: »It’s the cognitive dissonance on the whole thing which really gets me. Leavers tell you on one hand that the Brexit vote was a kick in the teeth to the establishment and the London fatcats by the “little people”. They then cheerlead the concept of deregulation which gives the fatcats more power and less accountability, encourages riskier financial behaviour which poses a threat to the interests of the ordinary man, and makes London even more central to the fate of the British economy by hedging on it the hope of a Singapore-Upon-Thames. Where once they criticised London as the lair of the metropolitan liberal elite banker fatcat establishment — they now seek to ensure that these banker fatcats are under even less regulatory obligations against which they can be held accountable.
Yet when the actual businesses themselves say that such a direction is problematic, the Leavers say that this is just the fatcats being annoyed that their gravy train is being disrupted. Yet this is despite the fact that the Leavers also simultaneously want them to build an even bigger gravy train with less necessity to consider the wellbeing of the wider economy thanks to the tearing down of regulation — much of which was brought in following a devastating global economic meltdown.
So in summary .....the Little People voted to kick the Fatcats and the Establishment in the teeth and from this victory they immediately cheer on the concept of making Fatcattery without Responsibility even easier. It’s just an endless remorseless drone of contradiction.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »It’s the cognitive dissonance on the whole thing which really gets me. Leavers tell you on one hand that the Brexit vote was a kick in the teeth to the establishment and the London fatcats by the “little people”. They then cheerlead the concept of deregulation which gives the fatcats more power and less accountability, encourages riskier financial behaviour which poses a threat to the interests of the ordinary man, and makes London even more central to the fate of the British economy by hedging on it the hope of a Singapore-Upon-Thames. Where once they criticised London as the lair of the metropolitan liberal elite banker fatcat establishment — they now seek to ensure that these banker fatcats are under even less regulatory obligations against which they can be held accountable.
Yet when the actual businesses themselves say that such a direction is problematic, the Leavers say that this is just the fatcats being annoyed that their gravy train is being disrupted. Yet this is despite the fact that the Leavers also simultaneously want them to build an even bigger gravy train with less necessity to consider the wellbeing of the wider economy thanks to the tearing down of regulation — much of which was brought in following a devastating global economic meltdown in an attempt to protect the very people (I.e. the ‘Little People’) whom poor regulation hurts the most.
So in summary .....the Little People voted to kick the Fatcats and the Establishment in the teeth and from this victory they immediately cheer on the concept of making Fatcattery without Responsibility even easier. It’s just an endless remorseless drone of contradiction.
I think you have identified the problem clearly - there is the Brexit elite (toffs, millionaires and the right wing press) and then the 17 million Brexit supporting proles who are manipulated to hell and back by the same elite.0 -
This is the saddest thing I have seen in a while. Seems there might have still been some potential for Erasmus to remain possible for UK youth. This has now been denied them by UK parliament. Shame, shame, shame. Tragic.
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1214996118322532353
I went on Erasmus myself, to the Netherlands, and I found it hugely enriching experience. Best year of my life truth be told. Befriended a lovely girl from Manchester.
As an aside, she had no idea about Irish history whatsoever. Erasmus gave her the opportinity to learn!0 -
I agree that it's sad and depressing (and deplorable).
But the official line here is not that the UK won't, or shouldn't, participate in Erasmus; it's that the UK government shouldn't have to enter the post-Brexit relationship talks already bound by Parliament to ensure that the UK participates in Erasmus. The idea is that, if they are not bound to participate in Erasmus, then they can use the possiblity of participating in Erasmus as a bargaining chip in the negotiations, and so get something else in return for agreed to participation.
And it's not that participat in Erasmus is being specially treated as some hugely valuable bargaining chip; the government's position is that, in general, they should enter the talks with as few constraints as possible on the final outcome, so as to maximise their freedom of manouevre. They have whipped against all amendments which would require them to target particular outcomes in the negotiation.
All of which means that, when the dust settles, the UK may well end up participating in Erasmus.0 -
This nonsense again?Bit cynical wrote: »Well possibly more self-defeating were the successive votes against Theresa May's WA last year led by remainers.
Do you mean remainers like JRM, IDS, the ERG and Johnson?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
So in the end not really depressing.Peregrinus wrote: »I agree that it's sad and depressing (and deplorable).
But the official line here is not that the UK won't, or shouldn't, participate in Erasmus; it's that the UK government shouldn't have to enter the post-Brexit relationship talks already bound by Parliament to ensure that the UK participates in Erasmus. The idea is that, if they are not bound to participate in Erasmus, then they can use the possiblity of participating in Erasmus as a bargaining chip in the negotiations, and so get something else in return for agreed to participation.
And it's not that participat in Erasmus is being specially treated as some hugely valuable bargaining chip; the government's position is that, in general, they should enter the talks with as few constraints as possible on the final outcome, so as to maximise their freedom of manouevre. They have whipped against all amendments which would require them to target particular outcomes in the negotiation.
All of which means that, when the dust settles, the UK may well end up participating in Erasmus.0 -
Bit Cynical is right here tbf. Remainers voting down May’s deal did so because they thought Remain was still live as an option. May’s deal was unquestionably a ‘lessor of two evils’ outcome for remainers in comparison to Johnson’s WA. Just as the parliamentary arithmetic of 2019 was a much superior context for Remainers / soft Brexiteers than the new parliament.
Remainers played their hand terribly, there can be no argument to the contrary. Just like the DUP (who thought them being treated the exact same as mainland Britain was a live option), they squandered any leverage they had through a complete inability to see the reality of the situation and realise that their core objectives were not deliverable. Now both parties are powerless and at risk of exactly what they don’t want with no ability to influence the outcome.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Bit Cynical is right here tbf. Remainers voting down May’s deal did because they thought Remain was still live as an option. May’s deal was unquestionably a ‘lessor of two evils’ outcome for remainers in comparison to Johnson’s WA. Just as the parliamentary arithmetic of 2019 was a much superior context for Remainers / soft Brexiteers than the new parliament.
Remainers played their hand terribly, there can be no argument to the contrary. Just like the DUP, they squandered any leverage they had through a complete inability to see the reality of the situation and realise that their core objectives were not deliverable. Now both parties are powerless and at risk of exactly what they don’t want with no ability to influence the outcome.
Their core objectives almost definitely were deliverable right up until they offered the stupid election.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Bit Cynical is right here tbf. Remainers voting down May’s deal did so because they thought Remain was still live as an option. May’s deal was unquestionably a ‘lessor of two evils’ outcome for remainers in comparison to Johnson’s WA. Just as the parliamentary arithmetic of 2019 was a much superior context for Remainers / soft Brexiteers than the new parliament.
Remainers played their hand terribly, there can be no argument to the contrary. Just like the DUP (who thought them being treated the exact same as mainland Britain was a live option), they squandered any leverage they had through a complete inability to see the reality of the situation and realise that their core objectives were not deliverable. Now both parties are powerless and at risk of exactly what they don’t want with no ability to influence the outcome.
In what way is Johnson's deal that much different to T.May's WA. I would have thought they were pretty much identical, bar the removal of the back stop in favour for a front stop. But the effect from either the back or front stop is the same, post transition there will be no hard border in Ireland.
Johnson doesn't possess the grey matter required to formulate a WA proposal, he's a limp shadow of T.May.
It's why he's put a 1yr time limit on proceedings, all that's possible is a very simple tariff deal, it's all he's capable of, but even that I would think he'll ball's up.0 -
Advertisement
-
LuckyLloyd wrote: »May’s deal was unquestionably a ‘lessor of two evils’ outcome for remainers in comparison to Johnson’s WA.
There is very little between May's deal and Johnson's deal for Remainers.
The real difference is that NI gets a better deal for NI remainers under Johnsons, and the Union is damaged. So the only Remainers worse off under Johnson are GB Remainers who are very attached to NI.0 -
Saw in a tweet that the vote against doesn't necessarily mean no Erasmus: instead it was more about the government not being bound by a symbolic motion tweet:J Mysterio wrote: »This is the saddest thing I have seen in a while. Seems there might have still been some potential for Erasmus to remain possible for UK youth. This has now been denied them by UK parliament. Shame, shame, shame. Tragic.
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1214996118322532353
I went on Erasmus myself, to the Netherlands, and I found it hugely enriching experience. Best year of my life truth be told. Befriended a lovely girl from Manchester.
As an aside, she had no idea about Irish history whatsoever. Erasmus gave her the opportinity to learn!
Edit: apologies, I see already answered. Should have read further...0 -
Their core objectives almost definitely were deliverable right up until they offered the stupid election.
Not really. Remainers were never in a position to deliver a second referendum or a BINO Brexit option (not that that they were ever even willing to support a BINO Brexit outcome).
The remainers in alliance with the hard Brexiters could block May's deal or any deal forever, but they were never in a position to deliver an alternative of their own. Their hard Brexiter allies were never going to support a soft Brexit alternative to May's deal or a second referendum. The remainers were unable to push either through by themselves. Perhaps May's government should have shown more flexibility and supported a softer Brexit paired with a referendum but given that they choose not to, the remainers were never in a position to force through their prefered outcome. It was left for the remainers to compromise and get something closer to their preference. They failed to compromise and found they got something much worse.0 -
In what way is Johnson's deal that much different to T.May's WA. I would have thought they were pretty much identical, bar the removal of the back stop in favour for a front stop. But the effect from either the back or front stop is the same, post transition there will be no hard border in Ireland.
Johnson doesn't possess the grey matter required to formulate a WA proposal, he's a limp shadow of T.May.
It's why he's put a 1yr time limit on proceedings, all that's possible is a very simple tariff deal, it's all he's capable of, but even that I would think he'll ball's up.
Johnsons deal is significantly different to May's deal in terms of what it means for GB post transition. Under May's backstop the entire UK would have remained aligned to the EU to prevent a hard border in Ireland untill some other arangement was agreed.
In terms of the WA itself and the issues the WA is supposed to address they are very much the same, but in terms of what they indicate for the direction of travel, they are night and day. May's deal indicated a close relationship with the EU for the whole UK, Johnsons deal indicates a much harder Brexit and much greater divergance for GB.0 -
In what way is Johnson's deal that much different to T.May's WA. I would have thought they were pretty much identical, bar the removal of the back stop in favour for a front stop. But the effect from either the back or front stop is the same, post transition there will be no hard border in Ireland.
Johnson doesn't possess the grey matter required to formulate a WA proposal, he's a limp shadow of T.May.
It's why he's put a 1yr time limit on proceedings, all that's possible is a very simple tariff deal, it's all he's capable of, but even that I would think he'll ball's up.
Britain would have remained in an effective custom union with the EU under May’s deal. That’s a huge difference as it changes the entire tenor of the coming trade negotiations.
Johnson’s deal implies regulatory divergence and opens up the question of workers rights; Singapore - on - thames etc in a very real way. It also potentially creates a scenario where a very very hard or no deal Brexit is activated at the end of 2020.0 -
Not really. Remainers were never in a position to deliver a second referendum or a BINO Brexit option
Sure they were. All they had to do was hold out and deny any deal until the minority Government allowed a referendum.
Instead they volunteered for an election, lowering the threshold for Brexit from 50%+1 of the population to anything which gave Johnson a majority, in this case 43.6%
Labour and the LibDems combined got more than that before you add in the SNP, Greens. Plaid etc.
But none of that matters because they volunteered for a FPTP election to decide the issue, turkeys voting for Christmas.0 -
So Brexit is Britain now, just Wales and England. Does this suggest that under Johnson, it's more important that Britain get's what it desires than keeping the union together.LuckyLloyd wrote: »Britain would have remained in an effective custom union with the EU under May’s deal. That’s a huge difference as it changes the entire tenor of the coming trade negotiations.
Under Johnson's deal NI will remain in the SM/CU, it's the only way there can be no border in Ireland. What Johnson has done is effectively put a border down the middle of the UK. How many other countries in the world have a border down the middle.
I agree, the stance he is taking from an EU view point would point toward a hard brexit. But he's a consummate liar and it's conceivable that this stance is is purely for the domestic market, playing into the crowd so that he can get his primary goal, completing Brexit and having the UK leave the EU under his tenure. I wouldn't be surprised if post February we see a softening of the Johnson approach and we see a more integrated future relationship deal being agreed.LuckyLloyd wrote: »Johnson’s deal implies regulatory divergence and opens up the question of workers rights; Singapore - on - thames etc in a very real way. It also potentially creates a scenario where a very very hard or no deal Brexit is activated at the end of 2020.0 -
So Brexit is Britain now, just Wales and England. Does this suggest that under Johnson, it's more important that Britain get's what it desires than keeping the union together.
Under Johnson's deal NI will remain in the SM/CU, it's the only way there can be no border in Ireland. What Johnson has done is effectively put a border down the middle of the UK. How many other countries in the world have a border down the middle.
Brexit has always been an English / Welsh movement at core. Johnson’s deal formalises that reality. This thread has opined for years that the core Brexit movement would spin off NI and Scotland if necessary as it is the manifestation of English nationalism at root.
There has also been plenty of submissions on here down through the years that suggested a ‘hard’ or ‘true’ Brexit could only be achieved by foregoing NI and the Scots, particularly NI. Johnson looked at the intractable Irish problem and picked a solution. By contrast May was trying to keep NI tied to the mainland as her government depended on DUP support, and that made her deal better for Remainers as it would necessarily tie England and Wales closer to the EU.I agree, the stance he is taking from an EU view point would point toward a hard brexit. But he's a consummate liar and it's conceivable that this stance is is purely for the domestic market, playing into the crowd so that he can get his primary goal, completing Brexit and having the UK leave the EU under his tenure. I wouldn't be surprised if post February we see a softening of the Johnson approach and we see a more integrated future relationship deal being agreed.
Everything Johnson has done on Brexit to date, everything he has said on it indicates he is a hard Brexiteer or, at least, he is handing the decision making over to hard Brexiteers. His cabinet are extremists. Cummings is an extremist. The idea that he is lying and will tack a new course lacks evidence. He may have spent his entire career as a flip flopper and charlatan but he is in this position because he has eschewed the moderate side of the Conservative party and embraced a harder England / Wales alone path. Including filling his cabinet with right wing types who would love a Singapore on Thames outcome.
We may yet see him change course, but I certainly wouldn’t bank on it.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Bit Cynical is right here tbf. Remainers voting down May’s deal did so because they thought Remain was still live as an option. May’s deal was unquestionably a ‘lessor of two evils’ outcome for remainers in comparison to Johnson’s WA. Just as the parliamentary arithmetic of 2019 was a much superior context for Remainers / soft Brexiteers than the new parliament.
Remainers played their hand terribly, there can be no argument to the contrary. Just like the DUP (who thought them being treated the exact same as mainland Britain was a live option), they squandered any leverage they had through a complete inability to see the reality of the situation and realise that their core objectives were not deliverable. Now both parties are powerless and at risk of exactly what they don’t want with no ability to influence the outcome.
One problem is that the Remainer argument has always been rendered artistically impotent by the fact that it’s not one which lends itself well to sloganism. It’s about complexity, nuance, and compromise — whereas the Leave side portray these things as the smokescreens of the unambitious, the overanalysers and the unpatriotic.
The other problem is that Brexit has fast become a pseudo-religious ideology. I’m not setting out to offend the religious on this forum but I find that faith (rightly or wrongly) demands the suspension of scepticism that you apply to your everyday life. In life you look for detail, evidence, plans, figures and facts — but religion simply requires faith. It seems to be the same with Brexit, where people simply suspend scepticism and buy into the dogma of the High Priest Cummings and Holy Book of the Telegraph. The result is that Boris could probably sign the crappiest deal of all time, say involving the participation of British children in a Hunger Games tournament in Brussels, and the Brexit faithful will laud him for getting a deal within his timeline.
Remainers were always OK with being sceptical about the EU, but my fear is that the British (well, English) electorate are now plugged into a mindset whereby they genuinely will believe anything this government says so long as it all sounds victorious. Johnson’s ‘May Deal for Slow Learners’ and his simplistic yet effective Get Brexit Done message are indicative of a government that seems to be capable of defining its own parameters of success with the Brexit faithful lapping it up as divine truth without critical thought.
My hope is that now that ‘Leave’ is the official direction, and that they are now the Establishment, the pro-EU movement might discover the same sense of insurgency that Leavers enjoyed in 2016 and make a more passionate argument. The best we can hope for short-term is that sense prevails, that Brexit is as Soft as possible, and the UK tones down its recent attitude on acting on its very worst jingoistic instincts. The problem is that there is still no real cohesive movement banding together to promote this, even less so post-election. Labour needs to get its act together and, at the very least, start injecting some scepticism into what seems to be becoming a bit of a political cult.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23659
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Bit Cynical is right here tbf. Remainers voting down May’s deal did so because they thought Remain was still live as an option. May’s deal was unquestionably a ‘lessor of two evils’ outcome for remainers in comparison to Johnson’s WA. Just as the parliamentary arithmetic of 2019 was a much superior context for Remainers / soft Brexiteers than the new parliament.
Remainers played their hand terribly, there can be no argument to the contrary. Just like the DUP (who thought them being treated the exact same as mainland Britain was a live option), they squandered any leverage they had through a complete inability to see the reality of the situation and realise that their core objectives were not deliverable. Now both parties are powerless and at risk of exactly what they don’t want with no ability to influence the outcome.
Remain was still a valid option when Mays deal was voted down though, so despite it now appearing that remainers would have been better off with Mays deal that was certainly not the best option at the time. That remain dealt with how to achieve the aim of remaining so badly is beside the point, voting down any of the actual brexit options was always the best choice for remain. The screwing up of how to actually complete the remain process is separate to that.
But, whilst I'd rather there was still an option to remain, and I'd rather that any kind of being closer to the EU option is now picked than any harder brexit option... I'm still OK with the country going down the harder brexit route in the hope that I personally come out the other side relatively unscathed and my descendants are for now protected with dual nationality.
The only way to make the population as a whole realise that they are better off in the EU now is to let them be totally cut off by a hard brexit first. Any kind of mild brexit won't be enough to change their minds so I guess the best way to rejoin (rather than remain) is now to make sure it's as hard a brexit as possible.
The country needs a good hard kick to make it come to it's senses.0 -
Advertisement
-
ArthurDayne wrote: »One problem is that the Remainer argument has always been rendered artistically impotent by the fact that it’s not one which lends itself well to sloganism. It’s about complexity, nuance, and compromise — whereas the Leave side portray these things as the smokescreens of the unambitious, the overanalysers and the unpatriotic.
The other problem is that Brexit has fast become a pseudo-religious ideology. I’m not setting out to offend the religious on this forum but I find that faith (rightly or wrongly) demands the suspension of scepticism that you apply to your everyday life. In life you look for detail, evidence, plans, figures and facts — but religion simply requires faith. It seems to be the same with Brexit, where people simply suspend scepticism and buy into the dogma of the High Priest Cummings and Holy Book of the Telegraph. The result is that Boris could probably sign the crappiest deal of all time, say involving the participation of British children in a Hunger Games tournament in Brussels, and the Brexit faithful will laud him for getting a deal within his timeline.
Remainers were always OK with being sceptical about the EU, but my fear is that the British (well, English) electorate are now plugged into a mindset whereby they genuinely will believe anything this government says so long as it all sounds victorious. Johnson’s ‘May Deal for Slow Learners’ and his simplistic yet effective Get Brexit Done message are indicative of a government that seems to be capable of defining its own parameters of success with the Brexit faithful lapping it up as divine truth without critical thought.
My hope is that now that ‘Leave’ is the official direction, and that they are now the Establishment, the pro-EU movement might discover the same sense of insurgency that Leavers enjoyed in 2016 and make a more passionate argument. The best we can hope for short-term is that sense prevails, that Brexit is as Soft as possible, and the UK tones down its recent attitude on acting on its very worst jingoistic instincts. The problem is that there is still no real cohesive movement banding together to promote this, even less so post-election. Labour needs to get its act together and, at the very least, start injecting some scepticism into what seems to be becoming a bit of a political cult.
The most interesting thing is that the hard right, the Europhobes and the right wing press have taken over the UK (the preferred PM of the Telegraph and Express is in situ and it is their role to act as cheerleader for him).
It does leave them very badly exposed if things start to go wrong. No amount of slogans and jingoism will be able to deflect if Brexit is clearly failing.0 -
Not really. Remainers were never in a position to deliver a second referendum or a BINO Brexit option (not that that they were ever even willing to support a BINO Brexit outcome).
The remainers in alliance with the hard Brexiters could block May's deal or any deal forever, but they were never in a position to deliver an alternative of their own.
They were in position to mandate staying in the customs union. It was voted down in parliament by just three votes.
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/666
Nearly all of Labour bar a few rebels, and quite a few moderate Tories voted for it. Against it were the rest of the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Independent Group MPs. The SNP abstained.
If that had passed things could be looking very different right now.0 -
The DUP votes made all the difference on the customs union.
I imagine they realise now how badly they shot themselves in the foot by not voting for May's deal.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Sure they were. All they had to do was hold out and deny any deal until the minority Government allowed a referendum.
Instead they volunteered for an election, lowering the threshold for Brexit from 50%+1 of the population to anything which gave Johnson a majority, in this case 43.6%
Labour and the LibDems combined got more than that before you add in the SNP, Greens. Plaid etc.
But none of that matters because they volunteered for a FPTP election to decide the issue, turkeys voting for Christmas.
What makes you think the Government would have conceeded a referendum? When did they ever look like they were going to make such a concession? Remainers could have held on, preventing anything from happening for another few months and seeking extension after extension as they did nothing to move the process forward, but the result would most likely have been the same. The main difference would probably have been Johnson winning with a greater majority as the people got ever more fed up with an oposition that ruled without responsibility or result.0 -
As I said before, the deal will be spun as "A Great Deal for Great Britain" and to quote Paul Weller "the public wants what the public gets".ArthurDayne wrote: »my fear is that the British (well, English) electorate are now plugged into a mindset whereby they genuinely will believe anything this government says so long as it all sounds victorious.0 -
What makes you think the Government would have conceeded a referendum? When did they ever look like they were going to make such a concession? Remainers could have held on, preventing anything from happening for another few months and seeking extension after extension as they did nothing to move the process forward, but the result would most likely have been the same. The main difference would probably have been Johnson winning with a greater majority as the people got ever more fed up with an oposition that ruled without responsibility or result.
Many remainers(myself included)mistakenly thought when the facts were presented to the UK public they would reject the lies and propaganda of the brexiteers.
This coupled with the lack of a united strategy against brexit by all the other parties who were all blinkered acting in their own interests leaves us in the current situation of the UK being run by a bunch of numbskulls.0 -
According to El País, talks in relation to Gibraltar will be held this month:
https://elpais.com/elpais/2020/01/07/inenglish/1578393483_995380.html0 -
Many remainers(myself included)mistakenly thought when the facts were presented to the UK public they would reject the lies and propaganda of the brexiteers.
This coupled with the lack of a united strategy against brexit by all the other parties who were all blinkered acting in their own interests leaves us in the current situation of the UK being run by a bunch of numbskulls.
Brexit would have been cancelled in any other country within 6-9 months. Everyone would admit the thing is a shambles and would go back to the drawing board. Britain is a law unto itself though : no history of compromise or consensus in their political system, very adversarial and confrontational with winners inflicting crushing defeats on the losers......it's impossible to show pragmatism in such a toxic system.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Everything Johnson has done on Brexit to date, everything he has said on it indicates he is a hard Brexiteer or, at least, he is handing the decision making over to hard Brexiteers. His cabinet are extremists. Cummings is an extremist. The idea that he is lying and will tack a new course lacks evidence. He may have spent his entire career as a flip flopper and charlatan but he is in this position because he has eschewed the moderate side of the Conservative party and embraced a harder England / Wales alone path. Including filling his cabinet with right wing types who would love a Singapore on Thames outcome.
We may yet see him change course, but I certainly wouldn’t bank on it.
You are entirely correct. Mr Johnson to date has taken a hardline course. Opinions that he might change tack are not based on evidence, as you say his track record suggests that he will go for a hard Brexit. These opinions are based on the evidence but rather on an analysis of the options open to Mr Johnson. The fact is that Mr Johnson now has the option to change tack and there is little his more hardline supporters could so to stop him if he does make that choice. The question is will he change tack, and what might make us think he will?
Nothing that I have seen makes me think Mr Johnson is an ideologue or that he would follow a hard line on Brexit if it was not in own interest to do so. He is an opportunist and he recognised that taking a hard line on Brexit was his best path to power. He was proven right and has gained a position of which most leaders can only dream; not only becoming PM, but with a comfortable majority, the opposition in shambles and his own party firmly under his control.
The question now is if a hard line on Brexit is still his best option? Having made it to power, is a hard line the path to him holding onto power? I don't think it is. I don't think the population care all that much about the details of a trade deal and the realities of a bad deal with the EU would do nothing to bolster Johnsons position in power. If he is the opportunist I think he is then he will not take too long to tack to a softer position if it suits him to do so, and I think he now has every reason to do so. We saw just how far and fast he was willing to move over the frontstop. Time will tell.0 -
Advertisement
-
They are not that self aware to realiseKermit.de.frog wrote: »The DUP votes made all the difference on the customs union.
I imagine they realise now how badly they shot themselves in the foot by not voting for May's deal.
Anyway, they're too busy at the moment fighting the irish language0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement