Also, I believe the Luxembourg PM is both honest and representative of the position of the EU as a whole, which has been its position all along, that it is up to the UK to get its act together. There is nothing disingenous or scheming or inappropriate about this; it's a mark of respect for sovreignty (oh the irony). The UK took the decision to leave, it's up to them to sort it out. It's not up to the EU to meddle.
For someone who claims not to support leave you sure do buy a heck of a lot of their delusional, xenophobic bullshit.
I buy none of the bullshit, from either side. As I've said before, I'm sick of the whole business, and enraged at the sheer amateurishness of our politicians so-called ruling class - and you can put the civil servants charged with preparing plans for leaving from the time before the referendum up to now into that category too.
But please don't give Brussels, its functionaries and politicians, a free pass on this one because they too have contributed to the dungheap under which we are being buried.
I may not agree with them, but I will fight for their right to be allowed to post that it isn't.
I wasn't trying to take away anyone's posting rights.
I will say that TheOrganist's posts on this topic are dumb bullshit though, including the last one.
Well of course you think that, as your earlier post made clear:
LeRoc wrote
Tubbs wrote: »
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber.
Nah. Saying that Brexit is bullshit has nothing to do with echo chambers, it's just common sense.
You just don't accept that anyone has a right to any opinion other than your own and will use the most derogatory terms about them while denying their right. True democracy.
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber. Well done to @TheOrganist for being willing to argue for Leave against the majority.
I'm not pro-Leave or pro-Remain. If it had been possible for sensible reform of the EU to take place and for the UK and its governments to adopt a more pragmatic approach to all things emanating from Brussels then of course it would have made sense for the UK to vote to stay in, but for a variety of reasons that didn't happen, and I can see little chance of sufficient change having occurred since then to make it a possibility in the future.
What I can see staring at the UK, and its legal systems, is a total collapse in belief in its electoral processes, and the possibility that each and every election will be followed by endless litigation on the part of those who feel they were "lied to" (since when were manifestos and slogans ever viewed as being Gospel?), a belief that the margin of victory for the "wrong" side was not enough, total disrespect for any part of the electorate that votes the "wrong" way, etc. Worst of all, a belief that any individual with the money can use the legal system to try to enforce their own, personal, belief and political viewpoint to overturn a vote or change a government policy.
That is why I think we have to leave the EU, and sooner rather than later: forget any deal, forget any so-called backstop, it has to happen.
Actually, under the various electoral treaties that the UK has signed up for, the referendum would have had to been re-run if it hadn't been advisory. The various court cases connected with the Ref involved expats who were entitled to vote not receiving papers because they weren't sent out in time or breaches of electoral law relating to spending and voter targeting (mainly by Leave).
Kenya re-ran their government election after it was discovered that Cambridge Analytica had been involved in similar voter targeting on social to what they'd done in the EU Ref as it was felt the results were untrustworthy. The UK meanwhile, continues to worship the result of the EU Ref like it was a golden calf ...
In terms of individuals with money using the system to get their own way, that ship sailed in the UK a long time ago. Do you honestly think the Barclay Brothers and Murdoch etc are pumping out pro-Brexit propaganda in their newspapers out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes, let's just leave ... Because that really will solve everything ... Not.
You have a right to your opinion. We have a right to our opinion of your opinion. Which, in case you haven't gathered, is that it is unmitigated bollocks or, if you prefer something more sophisticated, a hideous amalgam of excessive cynicism and the fallacy of the excluded middle set up as a mask to disguise the endorsement of xenophobia, conspiracy theories and your unwillingness to admit the culpability of the right for the mess we're in.
You just don't accept that anyone has a right to any opinion other than your own and will use the most derogatory terms about them while denying their right. True democracy.
Opinions are one thing; facts are another. Consider the Fisheries Convention, which the UK has denounced, effective on Brexit. "Just leave" means tearing that up with no agreement for UK waters, or reciprocal rights for the UK elsewhere, in force on November 1. That's a fact.
Do you remember any of the Cod Wars (all three of which Iceland won)? Because they are a taste of what awaits on November 1, and that's just in one sector, and ignoring all the knock-on and retaliatory actions one might imagine. Do you still want to "just leave" (not sure you have much choice at this point, but still...)?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
On my WWII reference @TheOrganist, you're missing the point - which may be my fault. I know that there was a lot ready to go in '45. There is the same today. But the war had to finish first. Johnson's fiction is that he can do any of the things in his supposed program for government whilst Brexit is unresolved. He cannot.
Exactly. So either the war finishes quickly (the nuclear option if you like) or we continue with a slugfest for God knows how long. Fact is the UK is damaged either way.
You have a right to your opinion. We have a right to our opinion of your opinion. Which, in case you haven't gathered, is that it is unmitigated bollocks or, if you prefer something more sophisticated, a hideous amalgam of excessive cynicism and the fallacy of the excluded middle set up as a mask to disguise the endorsement of xenophobia, conspiracy theories and your unwillingness to admit the culpability of the right for the mess we're in.
The blame for the conflict can be laid fairly and squarely at the Tories' door.
And the sad truth that you don't seem to have acknowledged is that No Deal does not mean a sudden end to the "war". Since it's in vogue to quote Churchill, it would be no more than the end of the beginning. And what follows is likely to be worse. Whatever else it is, No Deal is a diplomatic disaster. If No Deal happens, the UK can expect absolutely no favours whatsoever from the EU. The fisheries example is just one tiny one.
Exactly. So either the war finishes quickly (the nuclear option if you like) or we continue with a slugfest for God knows how long. Fact is the UK is damaged either way.
You are arguing against yourself here.
As I said, if the Government is telling the truth about the need for a QS to move on to things other than Brexit then they never would have scheduled it to happen prior to 31st October.
But the other point here is you seem to have fallen for the myth that No Deal brings the whole sorry story to an end. It does not. It means years of further negotiations and wrangling.
Anyway, the point is this:
The only way it can be true that Mr Johnson prorogued Parliament when he did, in order to introduce his program for government is if he is incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid.
This clip from the BBC, of Johnson’s visit to Whipps Cross hospital earlier today, is quite something.
Man accuses Johnson of making a press opportunity of a hospital visit when the nhs is understaffed.
Johnson: There’s no press here.
Man: (gestures to cameras).
It’s remarkable. And not in a good way.
(Point of order, the man is apparently a Labour activist. He’s still right though.)
Anyway, the point is this:
The only way it can be true that Mr Johnson prorogued Parliament when he did, in order to introduce his program for government is if he is incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid.
Or perhaps mind-bogglingly arrogant and consequently dismissive of the need to trouble himself with the detail needed to do his job?
Anyway, the point is this:
The only way it can be true that Mr Johnson prorogued Parliament when he did, in order to introduce his program for government is if he is incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid.
Or perhaps mind-bogglingly arrogant and consequently dismissive of the need to trouble himself with the detail needed to do his job?
I am certain that is true generally but not in this specific case whereby he decided to Prorogue for as long as he could get away with, whilst constructing a plausible deniability as to the real reasons. If only he would dedicate such attention and intellect to actually doing his job...
Exactly. So either the war finishes quickly (the nuclear option if you like) or we continue with a slugfest for God knows how long. Fact is the UK is damaged either way.
Finishing quickly is revoke. No deal is "let's have another ten years of this shit, but starting from an even weaker position and crashing our economy in the process". It's a bugfuck insane plan and I can only hope you're supporting it because you don't understand the implications.
You just don't accept that anyone has a right to any opinion other than your own and will use the most derogatory terms about them while denying their right. True democracy.
Look I appreciate that you want Remain supporters not to think of Leave supporters as mendacious bigoted and ignorant hypocrites, and that's an admirable goal, but could you meet us halfway? By not saying seemingly mendacious bigoted and ignorant hypocritical things? Please?
You complain about a collapse of respect for our electoral processes and yet don't support our elected representatives in Parliament, whose mandate post-dates the referendum, in doing their job, and don't complain about the unelected PM thinking he can suspend democratic process. If you want Remainers to conduct themselves politely towards Leavers don't characterise Gina Miller - I assume you mean Gina Miller as holding 'a belief that any individual with the money can use the legal system to try to enforce their own, personal, belief and political viewpoint to overturn a vote or change a government policy'.
Gina Miller is not the urgent problem here.
You've been saying that since the illegally bought referendum nobody has any right to any opinion other than your interpretation of the referendum result. Because you just don't like conflict anyone who disagrees with your approved opinion is fair game for your bilious abuse.
Since when in a democracy were people who didn't win the vote supposed to stop campaigning to change the result next time? Since when did an election impose a duty on the losing party to disband and not to campaign to throw the winners out next time?
Democracy means that people with different opinions conflict, and you don't like conflict, and every sentence you type says that you hate democracy.
“'Mother of parliament being shut down by father of lies', supreme court told”
True dat.
I don't know, calling Boris 'Satan' is a bit harsh. He's not Satan; he's the guy a goes to the shop to buy Satan a packet of cigarettes [hat tip to Toby Zeigler].
I think you'll get an election on about November 8 or so, with Boris campaigning on the basis that unlike all other lying vassals of the EU, he's kept his promise - to get the UK out of the EU on October 31 - and that the sky hasn't fallen (yet).
Vote for me, I lied about everything else but this and it hasn't gone all Mad Max yet ... I won't crumble in a crisis. But I will run away from a few protesters because I can't stand loud noises.
I wouldn't vote for that ... that ... If it was the only thing on the ballot paper.
No, but there is a curious resistance on this vessel to the idea that anybody in the UK would, whereas in fact quite a few are apparently willing to do so. My wider in-law family is pretty large, I can't find a Remainer among them, and I don't think I'm an isolated case.
When it comes to Brexit, the Ship is a bit of an echo-chamber. Well done to @TheOrganist for being willing to argue for Leave against the majority.
Our friends are a mixture of rabid leavers and remainers, plus the disinterested.The bulk of the older generation in our families voted Leave. (Although one lied about it afterwards as they didn't want to upset their grand-children). The rest - who are our age or younger - voted Remain. No one's shifted since the Ref. We keep it together by not talking about it much or focusing on Brexit related things we agree about.
I refuse to fall out with people about this which is why I find some of the language used by both sides so difficult. Remainers aren't vermin and Leavers aren't thick. Neither side is unpatriotic. They just disagree about what's best for the country and how to achieve it.
I agree. The biggest problem has been (IMHO) that in the absence of a pre-referendum plan for leaving, the Leave campaigners couldn't agree on a deal to enable Britain to leave the EU. That unseated one Prime Minister and her successor doesn't seem likely to remain in the hot seat for long.
The blame for the conflict can be laid fairly and squarely at the Tories' door.
And the sad truth that you don't seem to have acknowledged is that No Deal does not mean a sudden end to the "war". Since it's in vogue to quote Churchill, it would be no more than the end of the beginning. And what follows is likely to be worse. Whatever else it is, No Deal is a diplomatic disaster. If No Deal happens, the UK can expect absolutely no favours whatsoever from the EU. The fisheries example is just one tiny one.
The blame for the conflict can be laid fairly and squarely at the Tories' door.
And the sad truth that you don't seem to have acknowledged is that No Deal does not mean a sudden end to the "war". Since it's in vogue to quote Churchill, it would be no more than the end of the beginning. And what follows is likely to be worse. Whatever else it is, No Deal is a diplomatic disaster. If No Deal happens, the UK can expect absolutely no favours whatsoever from the EU. The fisheries example is just one tiny one.
I believe the Churchill you mention was the one who said that “Jaw jaw is better than war war”.
In other news, and I’m sure Boris & co know this, we will have to do business with the members states of the EU, but as we will no longer be members we will have exactly no say in the matter.
I believe the Churchill you mention was the one who said that “Jaw jaw is better than war war”.
In other news, and I’m sure Boris & co know this, we will have to do business with the members states of the EU, but as we will no longer be members we will have exactly no say in the matter.
I thought of that quote too. But as you suggest, the value of UK "jaw jaw" has declined considerably of late. A hawkish former French Defence Minister is on public record within the past week talking in terms of looking beyond romantic notions of friendship to the balance of power, and making it clear he expects future relations to progress along the latter lines. Just what leverage the UK has here is not clear. Note Iceland won all three Cod Wars and last time I looked, was a lot smaller than the EU-27.
I don't think it is helpful to keep harping on about it being a small majority: the turnout was, for the UK, very high, and the majority was also a good one. For example, in 1964 Harold Wilson ended years of Conservative rule by getting a mere 0.7% majority over Alex Douglas-Home. In the first election in 1974 Labour polled the same percentage less than Heath's Conservatives yet still formed a government, and even at the second 1974 poll they still have a smaller percentage majority than the 2016 referendum.
I don't think the outcome of the next GE is clear-cut either way: the LibDems' decision to revoke Article 50 is going to lose them a lot of votes, especially in their heartland seats in the West country, and many of the MPs who have crossed the floor also come from constituencies which voted Leave by a substantial majority.
Frankly, I just wish our politicians would shut up, try to make some sense out of the mess that childish intransigence on both sides has wrought, and stop making this country an international laughing stock.
I don't really disagree with any of this. But the only reservation I have is that it's one thing to end the dominance of a political party with a fractional majority at an election, that might be overturned/challenged/moderated in another four years time; while it's another thing to end membership with the EU permanently (so far as we know) on the strength of a pre-legislative Referendum Bill that hadn't even, initially, a constitutional Parliamentary authority for implementation. The myth that it 'had' to be enacted legislatively on the result of any majority at all, never mind such a slender one, was just one of the many lies from the Leave campaign.
However, attachments to 'Leave' are so tight, that these lies pass for 'reasons', and a mischievously and opportunistically maladministered Referendum passes for compulsory 'democratic' legislative process, and we appear to be stuck with the resultant shit.
So I agree we have to suck it up and get on with 'it' because there aren't enough people in power of a) sufficient ability and b) sufficient courage to front the falseness of the whole situation and correct the balance. It would help, however, to know what the 'it' is we are supposed to be accepting so cheerfully with the Good Old British Dunkirk Spirit. I shall certainly have to make the best of 'it'; but I won't be particularly happy or reassured, however much Johnson mugs and grins at the cameras mumbling inanities, until I know what 'it' is going to be like from 1st November onwards and how much of life has to be adjusted to accommodate the stupidity of Cameron's Referendum. Picky of me, I know!
I think it speaks volumes that Mr Johnson lied to a worried father, directly, on camera and this thread is not full of discussion.
I am not criticising anyone here. My point is this how the bastards win. With Trump and Brexit and, in this specific case, Bor#s; we are all weary and this behaviour by BJ is so typical of him that none of us are remotely surprised. But it remains utterly shocking. The Prime Minister of the United lied to the face of this man, live on camera; without hesitation.
I imagine I am not the only one who's been active on social media about this but I think we are all numbed by the frequency of the outrages.
Also disturbing is that his fans either don't notice the lies, find them amusing, or revel in them. I suppose the old idea was that lies catch up with you in the end, I don't know if that's true. You would think that it would be corrosive all round. But the political world is a post-moral universe.
A couple of years ago I was at a cafe in Narberth, in Pembrokeshire, and overheard a few old dears at a nearby table talking about politics in general and politicians in particular.
Imagine the following in a rich Pembrokeshire accent, and you'll have the scene just as it happened:
'They're all liars. Everyone of them.
(General agreement, then one dissenting voice)
Except that Boris. He tells the truth.
Yes, you're right there.
(General mutters of agreement)
Yes, he's the only one. The rest of them are rotten.
I think it speaks volumes that Mr Johnson lied to a worried father, directly, on camera and this thread is not full of discussion.
I am not criticising anyone here. My point is this how the bastards win. With Trump and Brexit and, in this specific case, Bor#s; we are all weary and this behaviour by BJ is so typical of him that none of us are remotely surprised. But it remains utterly shocking. The Prime Minister of the United lied to the face of this man, live on camera; without hesitation.
It's hard to be surprised at the commonplace. I think it's shocking, too, that he lies. But there's no room for surprise. He was sacked as a journalist for lying; sacked as a cabinet minister for lying; lied about fathering his own child and lied consistently as a matter of course. Of course he lied to this man, of course he lied on camera. And of course he didn't hesitate; it's his nature to lie. It's what he does.
However, so long as the populist vote believes him to represent their concerns about immigration or Europe, or the isolationists think he is good for Britain's independence, or his own peer group support his efforts to protect their tax privileges he'll swipe large numbers of votes. A man whose business is lying smoothly is not going to have any problems telling enough people what they want to hear in order to gain their confidence. This has been pointed out on every kind of media by every kind of commentator, for years. But he is still irresistible to those who like what they hear him say.
Yes, Anselmina. I think Boris is invulnerable right now. It's partly the honeymoon factor, and of course Brexit and English nationalism. Lying seems irrelevant. But Blair had this for years, even after Iraq he won an election.
What I'm interested in is: how does this work? How does a posh Eton guy get blokes in a Pembrokeshire pub to talk about him like that?
Given the current British distrust of politicians, it follows that anyone who makes a career of 'telling the secret truth' about the EU, for example, will be seen as a beacon of honesty in a naughty world. The notion that he is the liar doesn't even get its shoes on, especially when the press keeps quoting him as the source of their stories.
Yes, it's too meta for many people. If you like what he says, the idea that he's a liar is too high in the hierarchy of propositions, like saying the Queen is nasty. She can't be.
Yes, it's too meta for many people. If you like what he says, the idea that he's a liar is too high in the hierarchy of propositions, like saying the Queen is nasty. She can't be.
I don't think I'm going too far to say that plenty of women like what he says. He's been married twice, and his second wife booted him out last year, he has a child by a third woman and I understand his GF (Carrie Symonds?) is in No 10 now.
The more one examines them, the more Trump and Johnson resemble one another. They have money, they can charm, but their attachment to the truth is pretty loose.
Yes, it's too meta for many people. If you like what he says, the idea that he's a liar is too high in the hierarchy of propositions, like saying the Queen is nasty. She can't be.
I don't think I'm going too far to say that plenty of women like what he says. He's been married twice, and his second wife booted him out last year, he has a child by a third woman
He has at least at least one child by a third woman, it’s possible that he has at least one other child by another (fourth) woman.
It was said (of Lloyd George I think) that the British Prime Minister is wedded to the truth, but like many couples they sometimes live apart. It is rumoured that Boris Johnson may have once made a pass at the truth while drunk at a party, but he disclaims any responsibility for any children.
Comments
I buy none of the bullshit, from either side. As I've said before, I'm sick of the whole business, and enraged at the sheer amateurishness of our politicians so-called ruling class - and you can put the civil servants charged with preparing plans for leaving from the time before the referendum up to now into that category too.
But please don't give Brussels, its functionaries and politicians, a free pass on this one because they too have contributed to the dungheap under which we are being buried.
I will say that TheOrganist's posts on this topic are dumb bullshit though, including the last one.
Well of course you think that, as your earlier post made clear:
You just don't accept that anyone has a right to any opinion other than your own and will use the most derogatory terms about them while denying their right. True democracy.
Actually, under the various electoral treaties that the UK has signed up for, the referendum would have had to been re-run if it hadn't been advisory. The various court cases connected with the Ref involved expats who were entitled to vote not receiving papers because they weren't sent out in time or breaches of electoral law relating to spending and voter targeting (mainly by Leave).
Kenya re-ran their government election after it was discovered that Cambridge Analytica had been involved in similar voter targeting on social to what they'd done in the EU Ref as it was felt the results were untrustworthy. The UK meanwhile, continues to worship the result of the EU Ref like it was a golden calf ...
In terms of individuals with money using the system to get their own way, that ship sailed in the UK a long time ago. Do you honestly think the Barclay Brothers and Murdoch etc are pumping out pro-Brexit propaganda in their newspapers out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes, let's just leave ... Because that really will solve everything ... Not.
Do you remember any of the Cod Wars (all three of which Iceland won)? Because they are a taste of what awaits on November 1, and that's just in one sector, and ignoring all the knock-on and retaliatory actions one might imagine. Do you still want to "just leave" (not sure you have much choice at this point, but still...)?
On my WWII reference @TheOrganist, you're missing the point - which may be my fault. I know that there was a lot ready to go in '45. There is the same today. But the war had to finish first. Johnson's fiction is that he can do any of the things in his supposed program for government whilst Brexit is unresolved. He cannot.
AFZ
Some of us just don't like conflict.
And the sad truth that you don't seem to have acknowledged is that No Deal does not mean a sudden end to the "war". Since it's in vogue to quote Churchill, it would be no more than the end of the beginning. And what follows is likely to be worse. Whatever else it is, No Deal is a diplomatic disaster. If No Deal happens, the UK can expect absolutely no favours whatsoever from the EU. The fisheries example is just one tiny one.
I will say that your opinion is bullshit though.
You are arguing against yourself here.
As I said, if the Government is telling the truth about the need for a QS to move on to things other than Brexit then they never would have scheduled it to happen prior to 31st October.
But the other point here is you seem to have fallen for the myth that No Deal brings the whole sorry story to an end. It does not. It means years of further negotiations and wrangling.
Anyway, the point is this:
The only way it can be true that Mr Johnson prorogued Parliament when he did, in order to introduce his program for government is if he is incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid.
AFZ
Man accuses Johnson of making a press opportunity of a hospital visit when the nhs is understaffed.
Johnson: There’s no press here.
Man: (gestures to cameras).
It’s remarkable. And not in a good way.
(Point of order, the man is apparently a Labour activist. He’s still right though.)
Or perhaps mind-bogglingly arrogant and consequently dismissive of the need to trouble himself with the detail needed to do his job?
I am certain that is true generally but not in this specific case whereby he decided to Prorogue for as long as he could get away with, whilst constructing a plausible deniability as to the real reasons. If only he would dedicate such attention and intellect to actually doing his job...
AFZ
Finishing quickly is revoke. No deal is "let's have another ten years of this shit, but starting from an even weaker position and crashing our economy in the process". It's a bugfuck insane plan and I can only hope you're supporting it because you don't understand the implications.
You complain about a collapse of respect for our electoral processes and yet don't support our elected representatives in Parliament, whose mandate post-dates the referendum, in doing their job, and don't complain about the unelected PM thinking he can suspend democratic process. If you want Remainers to conduct themselves politely towards Leavers don't characterise Gina Miller - I assume you mean Gina Miller as holding 'a belief that any individual with the money can use the legal system to try to enforce their own, personal, belief and political viewpoint to overturn a vote or change a government policy'.
Gina Miller is not the urgent problem here.
You've been saying that since the illegally bought referendum nobody has any right to any opinion other than your interpretation of the referendum result. Because you just don't like conflict anyone who disagrees with your approved opinion is fair game for your bilious abuse.
Since when in a democracy were people who didn't win the vote supposed to stop campaigning to change the result next time? Since when did an election impose a duty on the losing party to disband and not to campaign to throw the winners out next time?
Democracy means that people with different opinions conflict, and you don't like conflict, and every sentence you type says that you hate democracy.
Everything the right say is projection. Everything.
True dat.
I don't know, calling Boris 'Satan' is a bit harsh. He's not Satan; he's the guy a goes to the shop to buy Satan a packet of cigarettes [hat tip to Toby Zeigler].
AFZ
Or worse, gave BJ a BJ
I agree. The biggest problem has been (IMHO) that in the absence of a pre-referendum plan for leaving, the Leave campaigners couldn't agree on a deal to enable Britain to leave the EU. That unseated one Prime Minister and her successor doesn't seem likely to remain in the hot seat for long.
I believe the Churchill you mention was the one who said that “Jaw jaw is better than war war”.
In other news, and I’m sure Boris & co know this, we will have to do business with the members states of the EU, but as we will no longer be members we will have exactly no say in the matter.
I thought of that quote too. But as you suggest, the value of UK "jaw jaw" has declined considerably of late. A hawkish former French Defence Minister is on public record within the past week talking in terms of looking beyond romantic notions of friendship to the balance of power, and making it clear he expects future relations to progress along the latter lines. Just what leverage the UK has here is not clear. Note Iceland won all three Cod Wars and last time I looked, was a lot smaller than the EU-27.
I don't really disagree with any of this. But the only reservation I have is that it's one thing to end the dominance of a political party with a fractional majority at an election, that might be overturned/challenged/moderated in another four years time; while it's another thing to end membership with the EU permanently (so far as we know) on the strength of a pre-legislative Referendum Bill that hadn't even, initially, a constitutional Parliamentary authority for implementation. The myth that it 'had' to be enacted legislatively on the result of any majority at all, never mind such a slender one, was just one of the many lies from the Leave campaign.
However, attachments to 'Leave' are so tight, that these lies pass for 'reasons', and a mischievously and opportunistically maladministered Referendum passes for compulsory 'democratic' legislative process, and we appear to be stuck with the resultant shit.
So I agree we have to suck it up and get on with 'it' because there aren't enough people in power of a) sufficient ability and b) sufficient courage to front the falseness of the whole situation and correct the balance. It would help, however, to know what the 'it' is we are supposed to be accepting so cheerfully with the Good Old British Dunkirk Spirit. I shall certainly have to make the best of 'it'; but I won't be particularly happy or reassured, however much Johnson mugs and grins at the cameras mumbling inanities, until I know what 'it' is going to be like from 1st November onwards and how much of life has to be adjusted to accommodate the stupidity of Cameron's Referendum. Picky of me, I know!
I am not criticising anyone here. My point is this how the bastards win. With Trump and Brexit and, in this specific case, Bor#s; we are all weary and this behaviour by BJ is so typical of him that none of us are remotely surprised. But it remains utterly shocking. The Prime Minister of the United lied to the face of this man, live on camera; without hesitation.
I imagine I am not the only one who's been active on social media about this but I think we are all numbed by the frequency of the outrages.
AFZ
Imagine the following in a rich Pembrokeshire accent, and you'll have the scene just as it happened:
'They're all liars. Everyone of them.
(General agreement, then one dissenting voice)
Except that Boris. He tells the truth.
Yes, you're right there.
(General mutters of agreement)
Yes, he's the only one. The rest of them are rotten.
Now that is how Piffle gets away with it.
It's hard to be surprised at the commonplace. I think it's shocking, too, that he lies. But there's no room for surprise. He was sacked as a journalist for lying; sacked as a cabinet minister for lying; lied about fathering his own child and lied consistently as a matter of course. Of course he lied to this man, of course he lied on camera. And of course he didn't hesitate; it's his nature to lie. It's what he does.
However, so long as the populist vote believes him to represent their concerns about immigration or Europe, or the isolationists think he is good for Britain's independence, or his own peer group support his efforts to protect their tax privileges he'll swipe large numbers of votes. A man whose business is lying smoothly is not going to have any problems telling enough people what they want to hear in order to gain their confidence. This has been pointed out on every kind of media by every kind of commentator, for years. But he is still irresistible to those who like what they hear him say.
Given the current British distrust of politicians, it follows that anyone who makes a career of 'telling the secret truth' about the EU, for example, will be seen as a beacon of honesty in a naughty world. The notion that he is the liar doesn't even get its shoes on, especially when the press keeps quoting him as the source of their stories.
I don't think I'm going too far to say that plenty of women like what he says. He's been married twice, and his second wife booted him out last year, he has a child by a third woman and I understand his GF (Carrie Symonds?) is in No 10 now.
The more one examines them, the more Trump and Johnson resemble one another. They have money, they can charm, but their attachment to the truth is pretty loose.
No pockets in a shroud...
But, alas, lots of collateral damage to everyone else before they get to that stage.
He has at least at least one child by a third woman, it’s possible that he has at least one other child by another (fourth) woman.