Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8,Anonymous,6Tricia, for Donating to support the site

Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237501

Postby Wizard » July 18th, 2019, 12:24 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:I also agree it is not the EU's fault that the person leading the negotiations for the UK was a fool unwilling to take on the views of others and unable to understand the positions others would take on her deal. As I have said in other posts my contempt for Theresa May is beyond description using language acceptable here. I also wonder if some on the remain side of the debate may see the back stop as a somewhat sneaky way of almost staying in the EU*.

I'm no fan of May and I think deficiencies in her personality haven't help the process at all, but she had a major problem. Parliament is essentially made up of three groups;

- Purist leavers (we need to be complete free to do our own thing whatever the cost)
- Pragmatic leavers (we need to avoid economic damage even if it means ending up a rule taker)
- Remainers (no deal is better than being a member)

May was the 2nd of the three and the other two groups ganged up on her. Remainers attempts to get a 'confirmatory referendum' have foundered because the other two groups have ganged up on them. Johnson may well fail because the other two gang up on him. As it stands, it's hard to see how anyone can get a majority to get anything through the HoC.


I think you either need to re-label "Pragmatic leavers" as:

Pragmatic leavers and remainers (we need to accept the decision to leave and find a way to do so that avoids economic damage even if that means ending up a rule taker).

Or create a separate group of Pragmatic remainers.

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:I also agree the rational approach is that the next PM establishes what can get through Parliament and for that to form the basis for any further negotiation with the EU. The problem is that such a sensible process can't realistically happen if the EU just sits there with its arms folded saying it won't talk any more.

It didn't actually. It said, go away and talk to the Labour party and come back when you have an agreement between you that you can get through parliament. That hasn't happened. They are (not unreasonably) not going to play salami slicing.

I am afraid that is simply not correct. I could provide many quotes on this, but one will do to demonstrate the EU has been very clear, they will not reopen the WA.

France’s state secretary for European affairs has confirmed that the EU27 are not prepared to reopen the Brexit withdrawal agreement, and that without a “new political line” in the UK or a second referendum, Britain must expect to leave the bloc on 31 October.

“We are now waiting for clarification from the UK side,” De Montchalin said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-minister

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1750
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237507

Postby SteMiS » July 18th, 2019, 12:52 pm

Wizard wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:I also agree it is not the EU's fault that the person leading the negotiations for the UK was a fool unwilling to take on the views of others and unable to understand the positions others would take on her deal. As I have said in other posts my contempt for Theresa May is beyond description using language acceptable here. I also wonder if some on the remain side of the debate may see the back stop as a somewhat sneaky way of almost staying in the EU*.

I'm no fan of May and I think deficiencies in her personality haven't help the process at all, but she had a major problem. Parliament is essentially made up of three groups;

- Purist leavers (we need to be complete free to do our own thing whatever the cost)
- Pragmatic leavers (we need to avoid economic damage even if it means ending up a rule taker)
- Remainers (no deal is better than being a member)

May was the 2nd of the three and the other two groups ganged up on her. Remainers attempts to get a 'confirmatory referendum' have foundered because the other two groups have ganged up on them. Johnson may well fail because the other two gang up on him. As it stands, it's hard to see how anyone can get a majority to get anything through the HoC.


I think you either need to re-label "Pragmatic leavers" as:

Pragmatic leavers and remainers (we need to accept the decision to leave and find a way to do so that avoids economic damage even if that means ending up a rule taker).

Or create a separate group of Pragmatic remainers.

What is the different between Remainers and Pragmatic Remainers?

Wizard wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:I also agree the rational approach is that the next PM establishes what can get through Parliament and for that to form the basis for any further negotiation with the EU. The problem is that such a sensible process can't realistically happen if the EU just sits there with its arms folded saying it won't talk any more.

It didn't actually. It said, go away and talk to the Labour party and come back when you have an agreement between you that you can get through parliament. That hasn't happened. They are (not unreasonably) not going to play salami slicing.

I am afraid that is simply not correct. I could provide many quotes on this, but one will do to demonstrate the EU has been very clear, they will not reopen the WA.

France’s state secretary for European affairs has confirmed that the EU27 are not prepared to reopen the Brexit withdrawal agreement, and that without a “new political line” in the UK or a second referendum, Britain must expect to leave the bloc on 31 October.

“We are now waiting for clarification from the UK side,” De Montchalin said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-minister

Because Labour and the Conservatives have been unable to reach an agreement

dionaeamuscipula
Lemon Slice
Posts: 943
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:25 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237509

Postby dionaeamuscipula » July 18th, 2019, 1:00 pm

Wizard wrote: I also wonder if some on the remain side of the debate may see the back stop as a somewhat sneaky way of almost staying in the EU*.

My issue is that I am happy to concede the UK has caused massive issues in this process and has made a complete Horlicks of it. But many of those on the remain side never seem to be willing to concede that the EU has made even the tiniest of mistakes. It is almost as if they think that doing so may undermine their position that the UK should remain in the EU.

* As an aside, my understanding is that if the back stop comes in to effect the UK would continue to pay the costs associated with membership of the customs union and single market, only losing representation in the decision making. If that is true why would the EU have an issue with a perpetual back stop?


I see the backstop as being essentially a non-issue in the longer term as it will be replaced by some mutually acceptable arrangement, although squaring the circle of an open border between two areas with different regulations and tariffs is always going to be difficult. Hunt used Switzerland as an example this morning, but the interviewer didn't follow up on the fact that Switzerland is effectively in the EEA and Schengen - I don't think this is actually Hunt's policy, but who knows any more.

Not sure on the costs of CU/SM in relation to back stop, but certainly we continue to pay in the case of any transition period. And yes, we lose representation in decision making.

I have been amazed at how well the EU has handled the negotiations. I expected a massive falling out as individual countries tried to jockey for position, but it has not happened. They have been united and consistent, and have been clear that they want an agreement but have their own red lines.

I do think there is a weakness in their position on Ireland (and as pointed out previously, in Ireland's position on Ireland), and I think it comes down to a belief that at the end of the day the UK will not be so stupid as to actually take no deal, a belief which I fear is sorely mistaken.

DM

mike
Lemon Slice
Posts: 356
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 1:35 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237510

Postby mike » July 18th, 2019, 1:02 pm

zico wrote:It seems that Boris has been stitched up like a kipper - by Boris himself.

The Manx kipper that he so proudly waved about as an example of why the EU is an interfering busybody state making the Manxpeople use extra packaging - well, it turns out that the UK government is responsible for this particular regulation, and it's actually got nothing to do with the EU.

On the plus side though, Boris got to wave a kipper about and get on the front pages of the newspapers.
On the minus side, well there is no minus side as it can't be a surprise to any sentient being that Boris says stuff for a cheap laugh and a headline that later turns out to be factually incorrect.


It comes to something when it is the Telegraph's Brussels correspondent that exposed Johnson's latest lie.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/18/boris-johnsons-claim-eu-forces-kippers-packed-ice-pillows-exposed/ (Paywalled, but you can read the first 3 paragraphs.)

Don't think the journalist will have much of a future at the Telegraph ;)

Charlottesquare
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1021
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237513

Postby Charlottesquare » July 18th, 2019, 1:03 pm

But they will no doubt discuss the PD; so if we erase May's red lines and embrace a Norway style model the backstop surely disappears as irrelevant.

The decision making is to me pretty straightforward:

1. Accept May's deal on table with its Backstop
2. Leave with No Deal
3. Revoke Article 50 and do not leave
4. Move PD alignment endpoint into quasi Norway model EEA/EFTA and Backstop then has no relevance.

There are, as far as I can observe, no other possible avenues.

I would personally like 3, could live with 4, find 1 a bit awkward but could possibly stomach it instead of 2.

My current betting is on 2 as I see no political will with sufficient strength towards any of the others.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237517

Postby Wizard » July 18th, 2019, 1:11 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:
SteMiS wrote:I'm no fan of May and I think deficiencies in her personality haven't help the process at all, but she had a major problem. Parliament is essentially made up of three groups;

- Purist leavers (we need to be complete free to do our own thing whatever the cost)
- Pragmatic leavers (we need to avoid economic damage even if it means ending up a rule taker)
- Remainers (no deal is better than being a member)

May was the 2nd of the three and the other two groups ganged up on her. Remainers attempts to get a 'confirmatory referendum' have foundered because the other two groups have ganged up on them. Johnson may well fail because the other two gang up on him. As it stands, it's hard to see how anyone can get a majority to get anything through the HoC.


I think you either need to re-label "Pragmatic leavers" as:

Pragmatic leavers and remainers (we need to accept the decision to leave and find a way to do so that avoids economic damage even if that means ending up a rule taker).

Or create a separate group of Pragmatic remainers.

What is the different between Remainers and Pragmatic Remainers?

Wizard wrote:
SteMiS wrote:It didn't actually. It said, go away and talk to the Labour party and come back when you have an agreement between you that you can get through parliament. That hasn't happened. They are (not unreasonably) not going to play salami slicing.

I am afraid that is simply not correct. I could provide many quotes on this, but one will do to demonstrate the EU has been very clear, they will not reopen the WA.

France’s state secretary for European affairs has confirmed that the EU27 are not prepared to reopen the Brexit withdrawal agreement, and that without a “new political line” in the UK or a second referendum, Britain must expect to leave the bloc on 31 October.

“We are now waiting for clarification from the UK side,” De Montchalin said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-minister

Because Labour and the Conservatives have been unable to reach an agreement

Remainer or Purist Remainer (no deal is better than being in the EU and we must stop the UK leaving)

Barnier on the clip from tonight's Panarama programme just shown on BBC 1 o'clock news is clear the WA is not being reopened, whatever happens in the UK. Can you provide a recent quote from the EU that contradicts the one I provided?

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237518

Postby Wizard » July 18th, 2019, 1:17 pm

dionaeamuscipula wrote:
Wizard wrote: I also wonder if some on the remain side of the debate may see the back stop as a somewhat sneaky way of almost staying in the EU*.

My issue is that I am happy to concede the UK has caused massive issues in this process and has made a complete Horlicks of it. But many of those on the remain side never seem to be willing to concede that the EU has made even the tiniest of mistakes. It is almost as if they think that doing so may undermine their position that the UK should remain in the EU.

* As an aside, my understanding is that if the back stop comes in to effect the UK would continue to pay the costs associated with membership of the customs union and single market, only losing representation in the decision making. If that is true why would the EU have an issue with a perpetual back stop?


I see the backstop as being essentially a non-issue in the longer term as it will be replaced by some mutually acceptable arrangement, although squaring the circle of an open border between two areas with different regulations and tariffs is always going to be difficult. Hunt used Switzerland as an example this morning, but the interviewer didn't follow up on the fact that Switzerland is effectively in the EEA and Schengen - I don't think this is actually Hunt's policy, but who knows any more.

Not sure on the costs of CU/SM in relation to back stop, but certainly we continue to pay in the case of any transition period. And yes, we lose representation in decision making.

I have been amazed at how well the EU has handled the negotiations. I expected a massive falling out as individual countries tried to jockey for position, but it has not happened. They have been united and consistent, and have been clear that they want an agreement but have their own red lines.

I do think there is a weakness in their position on Ireland (and as pointed out previously, in Ireland's position on Ireland), and I think it comes down to a belief that at the end of the day the UK will not be so stupid as to actually take no deal, a belief which I fear is sorely mistaken.

DM

I agree, the extent to which the EU27 have maintained a united front is both impressive and surprising.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237520

Postby Wizard » July 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm

Charlottesquare wrote:But they will no doubt discuss the PD; so if we erase May's red lines and embrace a Norway style model the backstop surely disappears as irrelevant.

The decision making is to me pretty straightforward:

1. Accept May's deal on table with its Backstop
2. Leave with No Deal
3. Revoke Article 50 and do not leave
4. Move PD alignment endpoint into quasi Norway model EEA/EFTA and Backstop then has no relevance.

There are, as far as I can observe, no other possible avenues.

I would personally like 3, could live with 4, find 1 a bit awkward but could possibly stomach it instead of 2.

My current betting is on 2 as I see no political will with sufficient strength towards any of the others.

I think it is a pretty reasonable list, but one question. Does 4. negate the need for a back stop. Norway is in the single market but not the customs union, would such a situation satisfy the requirements for not putting the back stop in to place?

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4017
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237521

Postby XFool » July 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm

Wizard wrote:
BobbyD wrote:That isn't the EU's problem. Britain wants to leave, it is up to Britain to choose from the forms of leaving which the EU are prepared to accept, or to flounce. The entire UK approach indicates it wasn't taking the negotiations seriously. The negotiations were led by politicians who demonstrated in public that they had no idea how the EU worked. The PM announced without consulting Parliament, her party or even her cabinet a series of red lines which completely removed any slim chance there was of an agreement being found, and then to top it off everytime there was some bad news to sweep under the carpet Boris was sent out to demonstrate his complete ignorance of international trade or make a few casual remarks comparing European leaders to Saturday matinee Nazis. The EU humoured this charade for far longer than was necessary to be polite, but the joke which was the UK's bad faith approach has worn very thin.

You say this is not the EUs problem, but no deal will cause a problem for Ireland and therefore by extension the EU. It has been clear for some time that May has been acting without a mandate from Parliament, yet they went along with agreeing a deal with her as it suited them. Now you may say that it is the EU's job to look after their own interests...

Yes you can. Just as you can equally say it is NOT the EU's job to look after the (prospective exiting) UK's interest.

Wizard wrote:The issue I have with some Remainers is their complete inability to see anything wrong with any action the EU has taken as part of these negotiation.

Surely the issue with some Leavers is they continue to think the EU ought to be acting in the UK's interest? Isn't that somebody else's job?

Wizard wrote:As I have often said, given the choice I would accept no Brexit. But if there is no Brexit I would be very happy to see Johnson as PM for many years, blundering around Brussels using the UKs veto on everything he can and generally being an utter pain the rear for the EU.

Yep. The trouble is that does seem to be the attitude of some Leavers to the EU, and we are supposed to be shocked if the EU is losing patience with us?

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3634
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 2659 times
Been thanked: 858 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237532

Postby dspp » July 18th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Wizard wrote:
Charlottesquare wrote:But they will no doubt discuss the PD; so if we erase May's red lines and embrace a Norway style model the backstop surely disappears as irrelevant.

The decision making is to me pretty straightforward:

1. Accept May's deal on table with its Backstop
2. Leave with No Deal
3. Revoke Article 50 and do not leave
4. Move PD alignment endpoint into quasi Norway model EEA/EFTA and Backstop then has no relevance.

There are, as far as I can observe, no other possible avenues.

I would personally like 3, could live with 4, find 1 a bit awkward but could possibly stomach it instead of 2.

My current betting is on 2 as I see no political will with sufficient strength towards any of the others.

I think it is a pretty reasonable list, but one question. Does 4. negate the need for a back stop. Norway is in the single market but not the customs union, would such a situation satisfy the requirements for not putting the back stop in to place?


If you cross the Norway/Sweden land border you will find fixed border installations that are required because it is the EU-EEA/EFTA border. Everybody would rather the border installations were not there, but they are there, and that is in peace-loving law-abiding co-operating Norway/Sweden.

In contrast the GFA pretty explicitly rules out border installations, and there is a history of violence, smuggling, intimidation, and general non-compliance in many sectors of the communities in the vicinity.

This was known prior to the Brexit referendum, and specifically warned about here on TMF/TLF amongst other places pre-referendum.

To see people - three years later - still not understanding this issue, with quotes such as "would such a situation satisfy the requirements for not putting the back stop in to place?" is regrettable, and unfortunately all too predictable.

- dspp

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237557

Postby Wizard » July 18th, 2019, 3:32 pm

dspp wrote:
Wizard wrote:
Charlottesquare wrote:But they will no doubt discuss the PD; so if we erase May's red lines and embrace a Norway style model the backstop surely disappears as irrelevant.

The decision making is to me pretty straightforward:

1. Accept May's deal on table with its Backstop
2. Leave with No Deal
3. Revoke Article 50 and do not leave
4. Move PD alignment endpoint into quasi Norway model EEA/EFTA and Backstop then has no relevance.

There are, as far as I can observe, no other possible avenues.

I would personally like 3, could live with 4, find 1 a bit awkward but could possibly stomach it instead of 2.

My current betting is on 2 as I see no political will with sufficient strength towards any of the others.

I think it is a pretty reasonable list, but one question. Does 4. negate the need for a back stop. Norway is in the single market but not the customs union, would such a situation satisfy the requirements for not putting the back stop in to place?


If you cross the Norway/Sweden land border you will find fixed border installations that are required because it is the EU-EEA/EFTA border. Everybody would rather the border installations were not there, but they are there, and that is in peace-loving law-abiding co-operating Norway/Sweden.

In contrast the GFA pretty explicitly rules out border installations, and there is a history of violence, smuggling, intimidation, and general non-compliance in many sectors of the communities in the vicinity.

This was known prior to the Brexit referendum, and specifically warned about here on TMF/TLF amongst other places pre-referendum.

To see people - three years later - still not understanding this issue, with quotes such as "would such a situation satisfy the requirements for not putting the back stop in to place?" is regrettable, and unfortunately all too predictable.

- dspp

I know that, but Charlottessquare (one of your fellow remainers I believe) seems not to, but forgive me for trying to be polite and rather than saying, your optikn 4. is wrong you don't know what you are talking about posing it as a leading question. But interesting to see you chose to take a pop at a question and not to challenge the initial statement, playing the man not the ball I suspect!

zico
Lemon Slice
Posts: 862
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 198 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237569

Postby zico » July 18th, 2019, 4:05 pm

Another first for Boris as he's lost a Commons vote before even becoming PM. Technically, May is still PM, but the 41 vote defeat for the Government was in an amendment clearly aimed at stopping Boris plans to shut-out parliament.

Theresa May doesn't sound overly concerned about this defeat.

“The Prime Minister is obviously disappointed that a number of Ministers failed to vote in this afternoon’s division. No doubt her successor will take this into account when forming their government”

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3663
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237579

Postby ursaminortaur » July 18th, 2019, 4:31 pm

zico wrote:Another first for Boris as he's lost a Commons vote before even becoming PM. Technically, May is still PM, but the 41 vote defeat for the Government was in an amendment clearly aimed at stopping Boris plans to shut-out parliament.

Theresa May doesn't sound overly concerned about this defeat.

“The Prime Minister is obviously disappointed that a number of Ministers failed to vote in this afternoon’s division. No doubt her successor will take this into account when forming their government”



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/mps-pass-amendment-seeking-to-thwart-no-deal-prorogation

MPs have easily passed a backbench amendment seeking to block any attempt by a future government to prorogue parliament to ensure a no-deal Brexit, in what is likely to be seen as a pre-emptive strike against Boris Johnson’s authority.

The amendment, tabled by a cross-party group led by Labour’s Hilary Benn and the Conservatives’ Alistair Burt, passed by an unexpectedly large margin of 41 votes, with 315 MPs backing it and 274 opposed.

One of those to support the measure was the culture, media and sport minister Margot James, who resigned from her post to do so.

Among a series of other ministers who did not vote and who are understood not to have had permission to miss it were the chancellor, Philip Hammond; the justice secretary, David Gauke; the business secretary, Greg Clark; and Rory Stewart, the international development secretary.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3663
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237588

Postby ursaminortaur » July 18th, 2019, 5:00 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
zico wrote:Another first for Boris as he's lost a Commons vote before even becoming PM. Technically, May is still PM, but the 41 vote defeat for the Government was in an amendment clearly aimed at stopping Boris plans to shut-out parliament.

Theresa May doesn't sound overly concerned about this defeat.

“The Prime Minister is obviously disappointed that a number of Ministers failed to vote in this afternoon’s division. No doubt her successor will take this into account when forming their government”



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/mps-pass-amendment-seeking-to-thwart-no-deal-prorogation

MPs have easily passed a backbench amendment seeking to block any attempt by a future government to prorogue parliament to ensure a no-deal Brexit, in what is likely to be seen as a pre-emptive strike against Boris Johnson’s authority.

The amendment, tabled by a cross-party group led by Labour’s Hilary Benn and the Conservatives’ Alistair Burt, passed by an unexpectedly large margin of 41 votes, with 315 MPs backing it and 274 opposed.

One of those to support the measure was the culture, media and sport minister Margot James, who resigned from her post to do so.

Among a series of other ministers who did not vote and who are understood not to have had permission to miss it were the chancellor, Philip Hammond; the justice secretary, David Gauke; the business secretary, Greg Clark; and Rory Stewart, the international development secretary.


The amendment that was passed means that the Government has to table a motion for parliament to vote on which will be amendable. Hence it not only blocks proroguing of parliament but also provides a means for parliament to try to bring forward legislation to block a no deal brexit thereby preventing Boris from trying to run down the clock by not putting forward any legislation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-vote-result-no-deal-commons-boris-johnson-prorogue-amendment-a9010606.html

But the amendment to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill will require the government to publish fortnightly reports this autumn on the state of talks on the restoration of power-sharing institutions, and to table a motion for MPs to vote on.
Crucially, this motion will be amendable, allowing MPs to add clauses to rule out no-deal.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1450
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 241 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237590

Postby richfool » July 18th, 2019, 5:01 pm

(After the commons vote), maybe Boris will call a general election, if only to rid the party and parliament of all the "obstructers and thwarters (replaced with Brexit party MP's). Or maybe the conservatives might then be approached by Nigel to form a coalition. :?

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4617
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 217 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237602

Postby BobbyD » July 18th, 2019, 5:46 pm

Wizard wrote:You say this is not the EUs problem, but no deal will cause a problem for Ireland and therefore by extension the EU. It has been clear for some time that May has been acting without a mandate from Parliament, yet they went along with agreeing a deal with her as it suited them.


...and what else were they supposed to do but deal with the UK's head of government? Imagine the bleating that would have ensued if they had turned around and announced that they were going to bypass May... It isn't the EU's job or place to select who represents the UK, they can only deal with who we send them. May is the UK's choice, not theirs, and her abject weakness is the UK's problem not theirs.

As to Ireland, that only becomes a problem if we actually Leave...

Wizard wrote:Now you may say that it is the EU's job to look after their own interests, but the fact that May's deal has been proven to have been the result of an inept PM going rogue means I do not think a complete refusal to revisit the deal is a reasonable or grown up approach.


..because negotiating another deal with another PM who can't get it past Parliament is definitely the best use of their time. And then what? Well we all knew Boris couldn't carry Parliament, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let his successor have a go... It's a good way of making sure the UK never leaves granted, but it isn't actually going to achieve a deal because the entire reason that no deal has so far been reached is that there is no deal which is acceptable to the EU which a UK government would be prepared to put to Parliament and which a UK Parliament would accept. The problem is that having demanded a menu the UK doesn't like anything on it, and is now devastated that the chef refuses to produce endless cake.

Wizard wrote:As I have often said, given the choice I would accept no Brexit. But if there is no Brexit I would be very happy to see Johnson as PM for many years, blundering around Brussels using the UKs veto on everything he can and generally being an utter pain the rear for the EU.


...and you think anybody wants to do business with a country whose international policy is taken wholesale from Harry Enfield's Kevin and Perry sketch? I used to think that was a viable tactic when I was 13.

Wizard wrote:No less so than the EU refusing to talk and bringing the situation upon themselves.


The EU have talked, and for far longer than they were obliged to. The UK have wilfully frittered that time away. Until the UK grows up and accepts one of the available choices no progress can be made, and it is a waste of time and money even to humour the belief that it can.

csearle wrote:Yes well my question was really that if the Irish (and the EU) chose the "or leave it" option above and if we refused to put up infrastructure after leaving then this assertion that I believe an EU official said that the EU would not erect infrastructure would mean that no-one would be erecting anything on this border. So it would seem that it is less of an issue than is being made out?


We've covered this a million times before. Look at the consequences that would have for the EU under WTO rules. Ain't going to happen.

zico wrote:It seems that Boris has been stitched up like a kipper - by Boris himself.

The Manx kipper that he so proudly waved about as an example of why the EU is an interfering busybody state making the Manxpeople use extra packaging - well, it turns out that the UK government is responsible for this particular regulation, and it's actually got nothing to do with the EU.


...and people suggest he isn't a true Brexiteer!

ursaminortaur wrote:The amendment that was passed means that the Government has to table a motion for parliament to vote on which will be amendable. Hence it not only blocks proroguing of parliament but also provides a means for parliament to try to bring forward legislation to block a no deal brexit thereby preventing Boris from trying to run down the clock by not putting forward any legislation.


Sometimes you wake up to find that the world has become a better place in your absence...

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1938
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 1159 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237606

Postby csearle » July 18th, 2019, 6:01 pm

BobbyD wrote:
csearle wrote:Yes well my question was really that if the Irish (and the EU) chose the "or leave it" option above and if we refused to put up infrastructure after leaving then this assertion that I believe an EU official said that the EU would not erect infrastructure would mean that no-one would be erecting anything on this border. So it would seem that it is less of an issue than is being made out?

We've covered this a million times before. Look at the consequences that would have for the EU under WTO rules. Ain't going to happen.
Doesn't really answer the question that does it. If under this eventuality (i.e. actually leaving the EU), party A declare they are not going to do something and party B say that they are not going to do it either then it is pretty unedifying to say that under this eventuality not doing that something "Ain't going to happen".

In fact I think that your statement only makes sense if one/both of those parties are telling porkies and intend to erect border controls. I see that the only way out is for an alternative arrangement to be agreed, even if the EU doesn't like it.

This goes to show me that just because the EU say something, it doesn't actually mean it is how it will necessarily be. A point often lost by some.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4617
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 217 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237607

Postby BobbyD » July 18th, 2019, 6:04 pm

csearle wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
csearle wrote:Yes well my question was really that if the Irish (and the EU) chose the "or leave it" option above and if we refused to put up infrastructure after leaving then this assertion that I believe an EU official said that the EU would not erect infrastructure would mean that no-one would be erecting anything on this border. So it would seem that it is less of an issue than is being made out?

We've covered this a million times before. Look at the consequences that would have for the EU under WTO rules. Ain't going to happen.
Doesn't really answer the question that does it. If under this eventuality (i.e. actually leaving the EU), party A declare they are not going to do something and party B say that they are not going to do it either then it is pretty unedifying to say that under this eventuality not doing that something "Ain't going to happen".

In fact I think that your statement only makes sense if one/both of those parties are telling porkies and intend to erect border controls. I see that the only way out is for an alternative arrangement to be agreed, even if the EU doesn't like it.

This goes to show me that just because the EU say something, it doesn't actually mean it is how it will necessarily be. A point often lost by some.


It fully answers the question. The full legal consequences of an action in fact, against an unsourced, unattributed partial memory...

If you look at the consequences to the EU of not enforcing a UK/EU border it will tell you absolutely everything about the chances of that happening.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237653

Postby Wizard » July 18th, 2019, 10:05 pm

BobbyD wrote:
csearle wrote:
BobbyD wrote:We've covered this a million times before. Look at the consequences that would have for the EU under WTO rules. Ain't going to happen.
Doesn't really answer the question that does it. If under this eventuality (i.e. actually leaving the EU), party A declare they are not going to do something and party B say that they are not going to do it either then it is pretty unedifying to say that under this eventuality not doing that something "Ain't going to happen".

In fact I think that your statement only makes sense if one/both of those parties are telling porkies and intend to erect border controls. I see that the only way out is for an alternative arrangement to be agreed, even if the EU doesn't like it.

This goes to show me that just because the EU say something, it doesn't actually mean it is how it will necessarily be. A point often lost by some.


It fully answers the question. The full legal consequences of an action in fact, against an unsourced, unattributed partial memory...

If you look at the consequences to the EU of not enforcing a UK/EU border it will tell you absolutely everything about the chances of that happening.

Exactly, so in a no deal scenario the EU will force Ireland to install border infrastructure, the EU clearly puts the integrity of the single market / customs union above the desire of the Irish govt. to avoid a hard border. Given this, one has to wonder why the EU are so wedded to the back stop.
Last edited by Wizard on July 18th, 2019, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4017
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Boris Johnson PM - how it's going?

#237654

Postby XFool » July 18th, 2019, 10:05 pm

richfool wrote:(After the commons vote), maybe Boris will call a general election, if only to rid the party and parliament of all the "obstructers and thwarters (replaced with Brexit party MP's). Or maybe the conservatives might then be approached by Nigel to form a coalition. :?

Anything seems possible!

Given the current Conservative Party members reported apparent willingness to accept the destruction of the Conservative Party, why not?


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests