Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And after much request, I've offered my grounds for that belief above.

Your post above spells out his achievements. It pinnacles at him navigating this world and becoming PM. That does not equate to him being a good PM.

That's called a cult of personality.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Your post above spells out his achievements and his achievements. It pinnacles at him navigating this world and becoming PM. That does not equate to him being a good PM.

That's called a cult of personality.

And if you see the posts I quoted, I was answering their points directly - not a specific question on whether he would make a good PM.

After 100 days, I think Johnson has defied expectation among the Conservative Party, its members, and, to a large extent, much of the general public too.

For this reason, I infer that - if he were to win an outright majority - he would on balance prove to be an exceptional Prime Minister, far better than many who recently came before.

Of course, this is an act of faith. Something catastrophic could indeed happen.

But that would be true of every individual who achieves the post of Prime Minister.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

And if you see the posts I quoted, I was answering their points directly - not a specific question on whether he would make a good PM.

After 100 days, I think Johnson has defied expectation among the Conservative Party, its members, and, to a large extent, much of the general public too.

For this reason, I infer that - if he were to win an outright majority - he would on balance prove to be an exceptional Prime Minister, far better than many who recently came before.

Of course, this is an act of faith. Something catastrophic could indeed happen.

But that would be true of every individual who achieves the post of Prime Minister.

Proroguing Parliament against his word, forced to reverse this after being found by the courts to have acted unlawfully and lied to the Queen, losing almost every vote in parliament, kicking a couple of dozen MPs out of the party and losing his majority, losing the support of his confidence and supply partner, and reneging on his promise to leave by October 31st or die in a ditch?

That exceeded expectations?

quokula

quokula wrote: »

Proroguing Parliament against his word, forced to reverse this after being found by the courts to have acted unlawfully and lied to the Queen

Unlawful is not the same as illegal.

The attorney general stated that it was a lawful act. Johnson acted in accordance with that advice.

For that reason, the Queen was not lied to, as lying implies intent and foreknowledge.

, losing almost every vote in parliament,

Thanks to the Remainer parliament, what do you expect?

kicking a couple of dozen MPs out of the party and losing his majority,

Deservedly, any MP who chooses to hand power to the Opposition does not deserve to be in the governing party.

losing the support of his confidence and supply partner, and

A calculated risk that will pay off.

reneging on his promise to leave by October 31st or die in a ditch?

Remainers imposed the anti-democratic Benn Act, which forced Boris Johnson to renege on his pledge. He didn't wilfully defy his own pledge, it was cynically rendered redunant by the Opposition.

That exceeded expectations?

Yes - and the electorate can see through the dither and delay that Remainers have imposed upon the country.

They blame obstructionist Remainers, not Boris.

That's why he's riding high in the polls.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I don't particularly like Boris Johnson but the idea that he is thick is complete nonsense. The fact that he achieved academic scholarships to both Eton and Oxford is sufficient evidence for me to consider him of above average intelligence.

And whilst I understand the point of view that he was a poor Foreign Secretary in terms of results, in terms of political career advancement it is inarguable that his next role of Prime Minister was a promotion.

I think it is laughable to say that the current UK Prime Minister is a failed politician.

Dont disagree with you. Those who know him attest to his obvious intelligence, but to me it seems there is some lack about him on an emotional level, whether due to upbringing, education or privilege or something else. Best description I've heard of him was he's an "authentic phoney". Those 2 simple words capture quite a lot i think.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlawful is not the same as illegal.

The attorney general stated that it was a lawful act. Johnson acted in accordance with that advice.

For that reason, the Queen was not lied to, as lying implies intent and foreknowledge.

The Scottish court ruling specifically stated that he misled the Queen, and this ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

And there's no way you can seriously argue there was no intent or foreknowledge to his actions, it was a blatant intentional tactic to shut down parliament.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

The Scottish court ruling specifically stated that he misled the Queen, and this ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

And there's no way you can seriously argue there was no intent or foreknowledge to his actions, it was a blatant intentional tactic to shut down parliament.

It was intentional to shut down parliament, but based on legal advice given by Sir Geoffrey Cox. That fact is important in the overall context of things.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlawful is not the same as illegal.

The attorney general stated that it was a lawful act. Johnson acted in accordance with that advice.

For that reason, the Queen was not lied to, as lying implies intent and foreknowledge.

The lie was in the reason given. The courts disagreed with the length of prorogation matching that reason. And then he prorogued for the same reason again, yet with the length curtailed. And then called for an election that totally gainsaid the reason for a QS. If that wasn't a lie originally, then it was extremely stupid.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks to the Remainer parliament, what do you expect?

I'd expect that he makes his legislative decisions on the basis of anticipated support levels. A leader should be expected to bring his party with him and not alienate many of them with threats. He still had a numerical majority. He blew it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Deservedly, any MP who chooses to hand power to the Opposition does not deserve to be in the governing party.

A pragmatic leader won't dump his majority (albeit slim) at the first opportunity if he wants to get his legislative programme through.

hometruths

prawnsambo wrote: »

A pragmatic leader won't dump his majority (albeit slim) at the first opportunity if he wants to get his legislative programme through.

He might if he has decided that his best option is a general election.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

It was intentional to shut down parliament, but based on legal advice given by Sir Geoffrey Cox. That fact is important in the overall context of things.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.

If you're saying it was intentional to shut down parliament, then you're saying he knew he was lying to the queen, but thought that wasn't unlawful. It turns out it was both.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

A pragmatic leader won't dump his majority (albeit slim) at the first opportunity if he wants to get his legislative programme through.

A pragmatic leader looks ahead.

Boris and Mr Cummings have done precisely that, which is why he'll harvest a thumping majority come 12 December.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

A pragmatic leader looks ahead.

Boris and Mr Cummings have done precisely that, which is why he'll harvest a thumping majority come 12 December.

Johnson and Cummings are liars, aided and abetted by a Tory press and dodgy donations.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Boris Johnson demonstrates those skills. For instance, it's not coincidental that he excelled at Oxford, both academically and as leader of the Union; that he is gifted in the art of language, oratory, and the classics; that he understands and applies charisma; that he is a talented author; that he has applied himself in different roles and, whilst he may not have made the most optimum choices at all times, that is true of everyone; and that he became Prime Minister.

Well ... I know loads of people like that. Perhaps its the circles I move in, but from where I am in life, Johnson is nothing exceptional. In fact, he's pretty average for someone with all his supposed gifts.

I would dispute your assertion that he is a talented orator - his perfomance beside Varadkar in Dublin a few months ago was mediocre; his performance in interviews is all bluster and no substance; his reaction when confronted by disgruntled members of the public is to lie about what's bleedin' obvious ("there are no cameras here").

And a "talented author" ? He's written about a dozen books (maybe more) and hundreds of newspaper articles, many of which peddled untruths about the EU/EEC. You could argue that it takes talent to never have to issue a retraction, but then he was writing within the confines of the UK press, so hardly a challenging environment. His last novel is, I believe, ranked 1,163,740th in the Amazon best-sellers list. Again, that makes him pretty average.

As for his making (or not) optimum choices, prawnsambo set out a list of bad decisions while he was mayor of London; can you offer examples of any good decisions? Because I don't know of any, and his premiership so far seems to be a repeat performance - one act of political stupidity after another.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

I don't particularly like Boris Johnson but the idea that he is thick is complete nonsense. The fact that he achieved academic scholarships to both Eton and Oxford is sufficient evidence for me to consider him of above average intelligence.

And whilst I understand the point of view that he was a poor Foreign Secretary in terms of results, in terms of political career advancement it is inarguable that his next role of Prime Minister was a promotion.

I think it is laughable to say that the current UK Prime Minister is a failed politician.

He's not thick but that doesn't mean he's a genius - I'd go along with your description of "above average" - above average intelligence combined with an extremely privileged upbringing, access to top education, and a willingness to step on anyone and everyone to get what you want will take you far in life.

But intelligence alone doesn't make a good Prime Minister. In fact the sort of characteristics he's proven deficient in, such as empathy and honesty, are arguably far more important. The Government should be setting the tone for the priorities of the country. There is an army of intelligent civil servants to work out the details.

listermint

schmittel wrote: »

I don't particularly like Boris Johnson but the idea that he is thick is complete nonsense. The fact that he achieved academic scholarships to both Eton and Oxford is sufficient evidence for me to consider him of above average intelligence.

And whilst I understand the point of view that he was a poor Foreign Secretary in terms of results, in terms of political career advancement it is inarguable that his next role of Prime Minister was a promotion.

I think it is laughable to say that the current UK Prime Minister is a failed politician.

id disagree entirely with this statement. It is well known what money can lubricate, especially in education.

Ribs1234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.

The decision was unanimous- that was the most remarkable fact. The judges would have a range of political views, but there was no dissenting opinion in this case.
Perhaps Boris is learning that he has surrounded himself with fools. The Cox legal opinions, the Brexiteers he brought with him to Luxembourg, Tufton street economists etc. He is famous for not doing detail - this is not unusual at high levels of business too. But it relies on good people surrounding him which has not been the case so far. Perhaps he is wondering about Cummings now...

hometruths

listermint wrote: »

id disagree entirely with this statement. It is well known what money can lubricate, especially in education.

Are you saying that his privileged upbringing and wealth gave him an unfair advantage in securing these scholarships?

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.

Back this opinion up with verifiable facts or retract it.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlawful is not the same as illegal.

The attorney general stated that it was a lawful act. Johnson acted in accordance with that advice.

You can split hairs over the meaning of individual words, but the end result is that Johnson made an error of judgement in this respect. That has been one of many made during his first 100 days in the job (actually less than 100 seeing as he was on holiday for most of the start of his premiership), and repeated errors of judgement are not usually considered a sign of greatness.

Attributing these retrospectively to a Cunning Plan that has yet to come to fruition and defies the understanding of mere mortals is an interesting but unconvincing approach.

Deleted User wrote: »

Remainers imposed the anti-democratic Benn Act, which forced Boris Johnson to renege on his pledge. He didn't wilfully defy his own pledge, it was cynically rendered redunant by the Opposition.

The main selling point of the Leave campaign was "Take back control" - specifically that the UK parliament would take back control and be free to make its own decisions. A competent Prime Minister -and any Brexiteer worth his red-white-and-blue T-shirt - would have rejoiced at the sight of British MPs voted for by British people deciding how Britain shaped it's relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. For some strange reason, Johnson did not go dancing in the streets ...

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying that his privileged upbringing and wealth gave him an unfair advantage in securing these scholarships?

It's certainly possible. While he seemingly got into the most exclusive possible schools and colleges without a problem, he ultimately only graduated with a 2.1 degree.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Deservedly, any MP who chooses to hand power to the Opposition does not deserve to be in the governing party.

Does this apply to Johnson himself? He voted against PM May and with the opposition not once but twice on her deal.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people trash Johnson for being a liar?

We know he's a liar, so are virtually all politicians - including all leaders of opposing political parties.

What I want is a leader, and if that means using constructive deception, then I'm all for it.

I will challenge you to find the lies from the 3 leaders of the opposition parties, seeing as they all lie this should be easily done. So find the outright lies from Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Swinson and Nicola Sturgeon.

I will just leave this here as an example with what we are comparing these 3 leader with,

Telegraph issues correction over Boris Johnson's false UK economy claim

The Daily Telegraph has been forced to correct a column written by Boris Johnson, after he falsely claimed the UK is set to “become the largest and most prosperous economy in this hemisphere”.

The newspaper said that Johnson misrepresented long-term economic projections to give the impression that the British economy would overtake Germany “in our lifetimes” – despite no such data existing.

Instead, the Telegraph admitted the claim was based on Johnson looking at a real economic forecast from the inter-governmental OECD organisation and predicting himself how the trends would continue.

As a result, the claim “was the columnist’s own extrapolation of this data beyond the timeframe of the forecast”, the newspaper said.

In addition, the newspaper admitted that the real economic data was only based on European countries, so in any case it could not justify Johnson’s claim about the UK economy outperforming all nations in the northern hemisphere.

I will also mention him telling a father that his visit to a hospital was not a PR visit and there was no media there, when the media was recording him and taking photographs and his office confirmed the visit beforehand to the media. Or that he promised his voters he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop the 3rd runway at Heathrow and then disappeared when they voted for it on a visit that was not on the schedule until the vote came up.

Find me examples from all of those leaders where it compares to Johnson and what he has done, because all politicians and political leaders lie. Easy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hannan is a very impressive intellectual. Why trash his reputation?

"..absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market"

He lied.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

It's certainly possible. While he seemingly got into the most exclusive possible schools and colleges without a problem, he ultimately only graduated with a 2.1 degree.

And there are other examples of how power works on education. Toby Young (son of Lord Young) got into Oxford on the basis of a phone call from daddy. He doesn't deny this btw.

prawnsambo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Does this apply to Johnson himself? He voted against PM May and with the opposition not once but twice on her deal.

Of course not. It's like Jeremy Corbyn voting against the whip more times than with it. To be fair to Corbyn, he doesn't throw a strop when his own MPs emulate his approach. Johnson, not so much.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

A pragmatic leader looks ahead.

Boris and Mr Cummings have done precisely that, which is why he'll harvest a thumping majority come 12 December.

He could well harvest a thumping alright. BXP are nibbling at his polling numbers. Directly. Of course the opposition parties could form a circular firing squad and not take advantage, but it's not a given.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.

On what basis?

prawnsambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

On what basis?

I think he means it was politicised by the people who didn't like it. Which is fair enough. They tried to insinuate that it was a political rather than a legal decision. But the unanimity gave the lie to that. Silly to even try really.

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

Of course not. It's like Jeremy Corbyn voting against the whip more times than with it. To be fair to Corbyn, he doesn't throw a strop when his own MPs emulate his approach. Johnson, not so much.

You can't even say Boris is even handed.

JRM going against the whip over 100 times vs. the voting record of the expelled MP's record.

You can't even say how many times he has cheated on his wives or even how many kids he has.

He renounced his US passport.


He was born a Catholic but his confirmation was CoE.

This bit is a beaut for a supposed scholar of ancient texts
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/26/whowouldjesusvotefor

Boris Johnson, on the other hand, rather foolishly started a biblical quotation that he wasn't able to finish. He has already been challenged on his attitude to Islam. He was at least honest about his lack of adherence, when he said: "I suppose my own faith is a bit like trying to get Virgin Radio when you're driving through the Chilterns; it sort of comes and goes."

Enzokk

Well this isn't suspicious at all,

No 10 blocks Russia EU referendum report until after election

Downing Street has effectively blocked the publication of a potentially explosive parliamentary report on the security threat that Russia poses to the UK until after the general election.

The 50-page document from the intelligence and security committee examines allegations that Kremlin-sponsored activity distorted the result of the 2016 EU referendum, but has to be cleared by No 10 before it can be released.

Downing Street indicated on Monday that it would not approve publication before parliament was dissolved on Tuesday evening, meaning it cannot appear before the election on 12 December.

A No 10 spokesman declined to outline when the report would eventually be published. “There are processes reports such as this have to go through before publication, and the committee is well-informed of these,” he said.

So according to the procedures if a report is blocked by the PM he has to give reasons why. If no reasons are given then within 10 days the report has to be published. No reason has been given but the report has been blocked.

But all politicians lie I guess.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

Well this isn't suspicious at all

Possibly this Maxwellisation

Maxwellisation is the legal practice in English and Scots law that allows persons who are to be criticised in an official report to respond prior to publication, based on details of the criticism received in advance.

Looks like this will be happening to the RHI report too based on a comment here ?
https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/11/01/election-battlegrounds-ge19-south-antrim/