Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

189111314135

Comments

  • As it stands, the arrangements under the withdrawal agreement will be binding until superseded by a new treaty - it has no equivalent of article 50.

    Constitutionally, it’s a clusterfuck.

    Do you think a permanent customs union, negotiated by Labour, would have a unilateral right of exit?

    If so, how would the Good Friday Agreement be protected from such an exit?
  • That doesn't make it worse than no deal, which is also a constitutional clusterfuck (especially if it's carried through by an unprecedented long proroguing of Parliament at a time when there wa a small chance of Parliament acting to avert it)

    If we leave with or with a deal, Scotland has been screwed over, and the referendum was still dodgy as fuck, and the suspension of parliament to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny etc is an abuse of power.

    That is a different issue to the functional legal position of the country after we have left.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    @Doublethink Alright, but the WA was designed as a provisional agreement to facilitate leaving.

    Arguing it (or the backstop) is "anti-democratic" is assuming bad faith on the part of the other party in negotiating a new treaty. The WA at least gives the chance of securing a new one one. And as a last resort, Article 50 or no, I don't see why reneging on it would be any worse, or more difficult, than No Deal with all the diplomatic, let alone practical, fallout that is likely to entail.

    In other words, I agree with @Marvin the Martian here.

    No deal is not reneging on a treaty, it is not ratifying a treaty. Activating article 50 is not reneging in a treaty - it is activating a particular clause of that treaty.

    The issue is not bad or good faith in the part of the EU, it is allowing the for the potential for future events to be as much of a cock up as past events.

    We might want a trade treaty, the EU might want a trade treaty, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we couldn’t still be stuck in negotiation in 7, 10 or 15 years time - especially if our domestic politics continue to be monumentally dysfunctional.
  • That doesn't make it worse than no deal, which is also a constitutional clusterfuck (especially if it's carried through by an unprecedented long proroguing of Parliament at a time when there wa a small chance of Parliament acting to avert it)

    If we leave with or with a deal, Scotland has been screwed over, and the referendum was still dodgy as fuck, and the suspension of parliament to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny etc is an abuse of power.

    That is a different issue to the functional legal position of the country after we have left.
    The WA is a pragmatic document, though far from perfect, to provide some form of structure to allow for negotiation of a more functional legal position at the end of the transition period. The EU negotiators are to be commended for producing such a relatively rational document in a very short period of time - even more so when they were faced with an ever changing negotiating position from the other side of the table. If they'd had a full two years with the UK government coming in with a prepared position we'll probably have got a much better agreement. The biggest problem with the WA is that it only allows for a short transition period to get through negotiations that would normally take many years longer, even with both sides being competent and knowing what they want, and hence could very easily result in just delaying no deal.

  • The biggest problem with the WA is that it only allows for a short transition period to get through negotiations that would normally take many years longer, even with both sides being competent and knowing what they want, and hence could very easily result in just delaying no deal.

    Even that is better than no deal happening in 62 days.
  • In any case there is every chance that it is only Corbyn pledging to respect the result that cost the tories their majority in 2017. Without that decision we'd likely already be out and the tories would be busily flogging our remaining assets to the Americans.

    This applies equally to the first 4 of Martin's points above.
  • Saying people should have voted for the withdrawal agreement is like saying you should shoot yourself in the foot to avoid the risk of shooting yourself in the head in the future. How about we try and find a way of avoiding shooting ourselves at all?

    In any case there is every chance that it is only Corbyn pledging to respect the result that cost the tories their majority in 2017. Without that decision we'd likely already be out and the tories would be busily flogging our remaining assets to the Americans.

    Well, even I can't blame Corbyn for doing too well in an election, but if May had increased her majority, then the DUP would be an irrelevance and she would probably have more authority over the ERG, so the chance of the WA passing - and thus avoiding no-deal - would be significantly higher.
  • I fucking hate when people get my name wrong. Just saying.
  • Whilst I don't think Corbyn has always made the right decisions, there thus far has been to proper explanation of what steps he should have taken and exactly how that would have made a difference. Not by anyone who actually understands how our Parliament actually works...

    I’d say steps he and Labour could have taken to date that would have greatly reduced the risk of no deal are:
    1. Not vote for the referendum in the first place.
    2. Not agree to abide by the referendum result in his 2017 manifesto.
    3. Not vote to trigger A50.
    4. Speak out clearly against Brexit, and/or call for Ref2 rather than trying to get a General Election.
    5. Vote for the WA (avoids no deal).
    6. Agree to support someone else after a successful VONC rather than insisting that only he can lead any putative alternative government.

    I’m sure he has good political reasons for not doing any of those things. But that means he thinks those reasons are more important than avoiding a no-deal brexit.

    I completely agree that these are things Corbyn could have done and in most cases should have done. However, where I think your argument fails is in asserting that such actions would have made a difference to where we are.

    You concede in your last paragraph that there may well be 'good' political reasons for the choices Corbyn made in each case. That's vital because unless the specified action has a direct consequence then it is only by arguing that it would have a political benefit that subsequently made a material action possible that it could change our position. Let me take this one by one:
    1. Not vote for the referendum in the first place.
      I assume by this you also mean that he whip the Labour MPs not to vote for a referendum as well. It's so easy to forget the heady days of 2015-17 when Cameron had a massive majority (ok, it was a working majority of 18 with 9 DUP MPs likely to vote with the government making it, in effect 36, but you see my point...). The second reading of the Bill passed 544 to 53 and thus even if all Labour MPs had voted against it then it still would have passed.
    2. Not agree to abide by the referendum result in his 2017 manifesto.
      Unless you can show how this would have led to a Labour win, I don't see how this would make a difference?
    3. Not vote to trigger A50.
      This vote passed by 498 votes to 114. That 114 includes 47 Labour MPs, so, once again, how would Corbyn's choice have made a material difference?
    4. Speak out clearly against Brexit, and/or call for Ref2 rather than trying to get a General Election.
      Would that have delivered a referendum?
    5. Vote for the WA (avoids no deal).
      This one is more complicated and there is an argument to be had here. Except for one key point: the WA does not avoid No Deal - it remained very possible - even likely with May's government that No Deal would occur at the end of the Transition period.
    6. Agree to support someone else after a successful VONC rather than insisting that only he can lead any putative alternative government.
      He has not insisted that only he can lead an alternative government. It is constitutional that in the event of a VoNC, he has the responsibility to seek to from a government. It is hardly vanity to work on that basis. If we do get to that position where an alternative government that would avoid No Deal was scuppered because someone other than Corbyn could have led it and he wouldn't back that position then you'll have a case; but we really are not there yet.

    Could Corbyn have done these things? Clearly yes.
    Should he? In my view, yes to some/most of them,
    Would it have made a material difference to where we are? You really haven't shown that any of them would have done. Even if he had supported one of the attempts to pass the WA, that doesn't mean the party would have followed and thus it would have passed.

    There is a lot of blame to go round. I am not arguing that Corbyn is blameless but he is so far down the list, it's ridiculous. For example; the blame attributable to Corbyn is way below that which should be laid at the feet of every Liberal Democrat MP. The LibDems have been implaccable on Brexit and I both applaud and support that. However, in the narrow referendum result, there is clear evidence that Austerity is a vital cause of Brexit, which they supported and enabled. And in this case, I think you can show that had the LibDems not joined Cameron in coalition in 2010 then things really would be very different right now.

    AFZ
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    A Guardian columnist (John Harris) put it well -
    To believe in the sanctity of parliament and understand the dangers of the current moment involves a certain mixture of humility, deference and aversion to danger – precisely the qualities that Eton, Oxford and an apparently deep belief in his own brilliance and the idea of politics as a mere game were always going to rule out.

    The people who suffered in the banking crisis are the same people who will suffer after this mess. And many of them support him. Why? Because he has played them, lied to them and appealed to their prejudices.
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    Folks, this has precisely nothing to do with the Will of the People or any other such high-flown rubbish. It's entirely about Boris letting his short-selling pals - and financial backers - sell the entire UK economy short so that they can make even more billions. Why else did they back him? Why else did they fund the Leave Campaign so generously?

    It's the greed of a few dozen billionaires that we're talking about here; put simply, it's class warfare against almost the entire population of the country.
  • Andras wrote: »
    Folks, this has precisely nothing to do with the Will of the People or any other such high-flown rubbish. It's entirely about Boris letting his short-selling pals - and financial backers - sell the entire UK economy short so that they can make even more billions. Why else did they back him? Why else did they fund the Leave Campaign so generously?

    It's the greed of a few dozen billionaires that we're talking about here; put simply, it's class warfare against almost the entire population of the country.

    Now, now, you know it's only class warfare when the workers start fighting back.
  • ABdPJ is playing a near perfect game. Sorry Dominic Cummings. Can't fault it myself. Ten more years at least come November. No wet fantasy need apply.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    ABdPJ is playing a near perfect game. Sorry Dominic Cummings. Can't fault it myself. Ten more years at least come November. No wet fantasy need apply.

    You could be right. :cry: :cold_sweat: :confounded:

  • I've. Had. Enough. Of. The. Lot. Of. Them.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    ABdPJ is playing a near perfect game. Sorry Dominic Cummings. Can't fault it myself. Ten more years at least come November. No wet fantasy need apply.

    You could be right. :cry: :cold_sweat: :confounded:

    Yes, it could be right but Boris may implode at some point, or just get bored. He's certainly got the other parties on the hop, the power of lying is awesome! I don't know whether having lying as an MO produces a moral decline, but then this is not original to Boris and Cummings.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    ABdPJ is playing a near perfect game. Sorry Dominic Cummings. Can't fault it myself. Ten more years at least come November. No wet fantasy need apply.

    You could be right. :cry: :cold_sweat: :confounded:

    Yes, it could be right but Boris may implode at some point, or just get bored. He's certainly got the other parties on the hop, the power of lying is awesome! I don't know whether having lying as an MO produces a moral decline, but then this is not original to Boris and Cummings.

    How long have there been politicians?
  • How long before Dominic Cummings makes it clear to Boris who's boss?
  • To amplify my last post, I'm thinking of Mephistophilis and Faust.
  • Good analogy.

    Bad prognosis.

    :scream:
  • Andras wrote: »
    Folks, this has precisely nothing to do with the Will of the People or any other such high-flown rubbish. It's entirely about Boris letting his short-selling pals - and financial backers - sell the entire UK economy short so that they can make even more billions. Why else did they back him? Why else did they fund the Leave Campaign so generously?

    It's the greed of a few dozen billionaires that we're talking about here; put simply, it's class warfare against almost the entire population of the country.

    Our countries are united in this - run by a relatively tiny coterie of greedy billionaires.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    I'm reminded of something Father VisitingPriest said one day in his homily, to wit, 'There's nae pockets in a shroud!'.

    These people will die, and will not be able to take their billions with them. This may be a comforting thought to the rest of us...even though some of us may (probably will) die before them.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Eirenist wrote: »
    How long before Dominic Cummings makes it clear to Boris who's boss?
    I think he already has. Didn't he just sack Sajid Javid's media adviser* without bothering to tell Mr. Javid?

    * allegedly for "helping opponents of ABdePJ's Brexit strategy".
  • Dominic Cummings is an even worse leader than ABdPJ, he's positively evil compared to Boris' mere incompetence. While advising Gove in Dept Education he wrote extensively that spending money on schools was a waste of time since intelligence is governed by genes and the majority of kids won't do well because of inferior genes regardless of how good their schools and teachers are. And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    I wonder if there's a genetic component to being a nasty vicious bully, and if we could winnow out people with those genes from being able to interfere in anyone else's lives.

    And I have a suspicion that there are news media with headlines lined up about Cummings going.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Dominic Cummings ... wrote extensively that spending money on schools was a waste of time since intelligence is governed by genes and the majority of kids won't do well because of inferior genes regardless of how good their schools and teachers are. And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.
    Seriously???

    Crikey - he really is evil. :rage:
  • Richard Evans' take on this is long and depressing, and a bit Godwin's lawbreaking. But here it is. Because why should I be the only one upset?
  • <snip> ... And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.

    The rational conclusion would be that the poor must have superior genes since they have to survive more hardships than the rich do.

  • Dominic Cummings is an even worse leader than ABdPJ, he's positively evil compared to Boris' mere incompetence. While advising Gove in Dept Education he wrote extensively that spending money on schools was a waste of time since intelligence is governed by genes and the majority of kids won't do well because of inferior genes regardless of how good their schools and teachers are. And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.

    Do you have a link for this?
  • Richard Evans' take on this is long and depressing, and a bit Godwin's lawbreaking. But here it is. Because why should I be the only one upset?

    Yes, and this paragraph is especially telling -
    It was to Hitler’s advantage that nobody apart from his own followers took him seriously. An upstart from Austria with a comical moustache and a funny accent, he didn’t fit the image of a normal politician. Trump and Boris Johnson may not be upstarts in the same way—far from it—but it is striking that neither possesses the gravitas the electorate used to expect of its leaders. Many voters are amused by these showmen. And in Britain, many lend Johnson (and perhaps the equally convention-defying Nigel Farage) support because they imagine, as many German voters did in the early 1930s, that they will do whatever is necessary—including breaking the rules of politics—to resolve the crisis into which the nation has got itself, in Johnson’s case bypassing the elected representatives of the people.


  • Dominic Cummings is an even worse leader than ABdPJ, he's positively evil compared to Boris' mere incompetence. While advising Gove in Dept Education he wrote extensively that spending money on schools was a waste of time since intelligence is governed by genes and the majority of kids won't do well because of inferior genes regardless of how good their schools and teachers are. And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.
    I agree with you that Cummings gives every impression of being morally and humanly bad, but I think you are being too kind to Mr de Piffle Johnson. It is not just that he is incompetent. It's that sometime in his life, he appears to have traded his inner integrity,
    " ... for the sake of a ribboned coat,
    Or the selfish hope of a season's fame".*
    He has become an illustration of the phrase I've just quoted on the 'Traditional advice" thread,
    "If you can't be straight, you can't be crooked".

    Cummings and Johnson are both warped of heart but in different ways.

    The bit about specks and planks gives one a squeamishness about calling out moral wickedness in others. There's a dilemma about this. When does the obligation to be honest outweigh that to avoid hypocrisy or to give others the benefit of the doubt? Jesus referred to Herod as a fox, but Jesus didn't have any planks in his own eyes. I rather think the plight of the public world at the moment means squeamishness is outweighed, but am I right?

    *Sir Henry Newbolt (1862-1938) and so out of copyright.
  • Dominic Cummings is an even worse leader than ABdPJ, he's positively evil compared to Boris' mere incompetence. While advising Gove in Dept Education he wrote extensively that spending money on schools was a waste of time since intelligence is governed by genes and the majority of kids won't do well because of inferior genes regardless of how good their schools and teachers are. And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.

    Do you have a link for this?

    You can download the 237 page report Cummings wrote here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/dominic-cummings-michael-gove-thoughts-education-pdf
  • The other astonishing story about Cummings is that after he sacked Javid's advisor, Sonia Khan, apparently for phoning various people, e.g., Hammond's advisor, he summoned an armed policeman to escort her out of no 10.

    Apparently, they were spooked that leaks about the prorogation were happening, after no 10 had categorically denied rumours.

    Ironic that Brexiters complain about unelected EU bureaucrats, you will have to remind me, who elected Cummings?

  • Apparently, Cummings wrote a 250 page paper on education, which includes the stuff on genetics, and says that Sure Start was pointless. Cited above by chrisstiles, I think it has been criticized by geneticists. The right wing often have recourse to such ideas, for one thing it justifies the dominance of rich people, and also it means that the welfare state can be pared down. O brave new world, but also a familiar one, from Galton onwards..
  • I wonder if these people ever ask if their actions erode the demos, in the sense of a political community that is coherent, intelligent, and compassionate. I suppose they don't care, as they are out for personal power, or some of the liars would say that they are upholding it.
  • SarasaSarasa Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    I'm reminded of something Father VisitingPriest said one day in his homily, to wit, 'There's nae pockets in a shroud!'.

    If it wasn't for the fact I know we belong to different denominations I'd have said we were at the same service. Our priest started off by talking about Dorothy Parker and I was wondering where he was going with it. Apparently she said 'If you want to know what God thinks about money, look at those he gave it too.' For a very wealthy, conservative Catholic Parish it was a bit of a radical homily.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Dominic Cummings is an even worse leader than ABdPJ, he's positively evil compared to Boris' mere incompetence. While advising Gove in Dept Education he wrote extensively that spending money on schools was a waste of time since intelligence is governed by genes and the majority of kids won't do well because of inferior genes regardless of how good their schools and teachers are. And, that poverty is likewise driven by genes, with those who are rich having superior genes.
    I agree with you that Cummings gives every impression of being morally and humanly bad, but I think you are being too kind to Mr de Piffle Johnson. It is not just that he is incompetent. It's that sometime in his life, he appears to have traded his inner integrity,
    " ... for the sake of a ribboned coat,
    Or the selfish hope of a season's fame".*
    He has become an illustration of the phrase I've just quoted on the 'Traditional advice" thread,
    "If you can't be straight, you can't be crooked".

    Cummings and Johnson are both warped of heart but in different ways.

    The bit about specks and planks gives one a squeamishness about calling out moral wickedness in others. There's a dilemma about this. When does the obligation to be honest outweigh that to avoid hypocrisy or to give others the benefit of the doubt? Jesus referred to Herod as a fox, but Jesus didn't have any planks in his own eyes. I rather think the plight of the public world at the moment means squeamishness is outweighed, but am I right?

    *Sir Henry Newbolt (1862-1938) and so out of copyright.

    It's an important question and worthy of it's own thread of course. I have little doubt that there have been such threads in the past. It is worth noting how Jesus finishes that teaching... "then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." [NIV] Jesus' instruction is not only to avoid hypocrisy but we have to go further so we can exalt righteousness... one of the reasons for removing my own plank is so I can see my brother's speck properly...
    In so many places in Scripture we are called to humbly speak up against injustice.

    So yeah, I am a very long from perfect and I need to face my own sin but I also have to challenge injustice - especially when it's on a national scale.

    Mr Johnson is a proven liar. That's not opinion; it's a simple fact. And is his role as chief executive of our nation, it has grave implications.

    AFZ
  • He also grins when he's lying. This qualifies as bare-faced.
  • Well, as with all Polly Titians, it's easy to tell when he's lying (apart from the rictus grin).

    His lips move.

    Although even when he's quiet, you don't know what the gobshite's thinking...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Well, as with all Polly Titians, it's easy to tell when he's lying (apart from the rictus grin).

    His lips move.
    You realise that this, 'they're all the same,' attitude is exactly what he's counting on when he tries to shut down Parliament. If the people think there's no moral difference between Johnson and the rest of the MPs then the people see no need to take sides between them, or even side with Johnson as more likely to get things done.

    If we don't think our parliamentary democracy elects in general human beings, trying to serve the country, flawed no doubt, and in difficult circumstances where the right thing to do isn't obvious, then we might as well bring on the dictatorship.
  • Well, I was being ironic, but you're quite right, although the dictatorship appears to be on the doorstep, as it were, without anyone seemingly doing anything to prevent it.

    I know things aren't that simple, but that's how it looks.
  • The other astonishing story about Cummings is that after he sacked Javid's advisor, Sonia Khan, apparently for phoning various people, e.g., Hammond's advisor, he summoned an armed policeman to escort her out of no 10.

    Apparently, they were spooked that leaks about the prorogation were happening, after no 10 had categorically denied rumours.

    Ironic that Brexiters complain about unelected EU bureaucrats, you will have to remind me, who elected Cummings?

    I have no time for any of the nonsense going on at the moment but for the sake of accuracy feel bound to point out that when a pass for being in certain sensitive parts of the Parliamentary/ government estate is withdrawn it is standard practice for one of the police on duty at that location to escort the person from the building - and yes, the police tend to be armed.

    The suspected leak was of the Operation Yellowhammer draft which appeared in The Sunday Times two weeks ago, nothing to do with prorogation, which was handled by an entirely different department, and Ms Khan's continued contact with Philip Hammond, former Chancellor, when it is accepted civil service convention (as well as sound practice) that civil servants do not stay in touch with "their" minister once the minister has moved on, and especially not if they are no longer in the cabinet/ hold ministerial rank.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Cummings sounds like a right arrogant bastard. I have taught in some of NZ's poorest schools, and for someone with his privilege to write off the potential of those kids is not only inaccurate, but I think earns him a millstone and some very deep water.
  • Boris has said that if any Tory rebels vote to block a no deal Brexit he will effectively sack them by not allowing them to be reselected for their constituency. More dictator type actions
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Boris has said that if any Tory rebels vote to block a no deal Brexit he will effectively sack them by not allowing them to be reselected for their constituency. More dictator type actions

    Yeah, that's a 'nuclear' option if ever there was one. It smacks of desperation and ultimately won't end well for Mr Johnson. Of course if he forces a No Deal Brexit the consequences for him and his government will be of no comfort to the country at large.

    The key question is whether it will work or not? I want to see 20, 30, 100 Tory rebels - then I'd be a lot less worried than I am now. It will definitely scare off many, if not most potentials.

    However:
    Grieve
    Letwin
    Clark

    No chance it will scare these three. And probably a few others. The arithmetic is gonna be really tight.

    AFZ
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Much better for as many as possible to leave the party, call themselves the ‘real conservatives’ and leave the few hard righters to their own fate.
  • Huia wrote: »
    Cummings sounds like a right arrogant bastard. I have taught in some of NZ's poorest schools, and for someone with his privilege to write off the potential of those kids is not only inaccurate, but I think earns him a millstone and some very deep water.

    It's bizarre fucking logic as well. If someone were doomed to academic failure because of their genetics then it'd hardly be their fault and justification for treating them like shit would it?
  • Though, he's a Tory. He doesn't see the need to justify treating the poor like shit. He just unquestioningly believes that the poor exist just so "people" like him can treat them like shit.
  • Though, he's a Tory. He doesn't see the need to justify treating the poor like shit. He just unquestioningly believes that the poor exist just so "people" like him can treat them like shit.

    Hmm, most of them have a vestige of a conscience which they have to placate in some way.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Though, he's a Tory. He doesn't see the need to justify treating the poor like shit. He just unquestioningly believes that the poor exist just so "people" like him can treat them like shit.

    Hmm, most of them have a vestige of a conscience which they have to placate in some way.

    [citation needed]
Sign In or Register to comment.