It's probably not too much of a stretch to develop something that antibodies bind to, which would give an anti-body test that could work in minutes from a blood sample - but that doesn't answer the "have I got the virus?" question.
You're right that PCR is neither instant, or really field-deployable. The solution for an "instant" test is an antigen test that binds to (probably) spike proteins on SARS-CoV-2. Rapid antigen tests exist for SARS-CoV-2. They aren't as sensitive as PCR tests, but it's possible that that's actually what you want (because PCR is so sensitive, you get positive results even when a person isn't really infectious any more.) For mass screenings, something that mostly identifies the dangerous people is probably a good match to what you need.
Thanks for that. An interesting read. Which suggests that the suggestion from Mr Johnson about a rapid screening test isn't a "moonshot" but closer to buying off-the-shelf kits (at least somewhere between technology readiness levels 4 and 6 ... whereas early 1960s moon landing would have been at best TRL3) ... unless he's talking about developing a home grown "made in Britain" test rather than just adopting best practice and equipment from whoever has made the breakthrough.
Thing is, any twit can just not request another extension and so leave on the date the previous one expires. Once you've triggered article wotsit you're out when it says you're out.
We *could* have done that the day after the referendum; how much notice had to be given I don't know.
But we were being governed then by people who despite their faults - and by heck did they have them; they were Tory ministers after all - did appear to actually be grown adults who realise that 'getting Brexit done' in a way that wouldn't shaft us meant more than just saying "we're off". So they didn't.
And in that sense - agreeing a deal between the UK and EU to govern relations after the transition period - he has achieved bugger all.
It's interesting that Boris signed the deal with the EU with his fingers crossed, I.e., intending to change it, but this also involved lying to the electorate. The oven ready deal might need cooking again.
Our poor, dear Lord Protector doesn't look well, and I was reminded of a line from The Scottish Play:
The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon! Where got'st thou that goose look?
BTW, what the hell is a 'moonshot', anyway?
I believe it's a reference to JFK's "we will go to the moon" speech and the decade of effort and the awesome success of Apollo 11 that followed.
Johnson's in love with bold declarations. He is not remotely interested in delivering anything. As others has mentioned his track record on this is perfect. No exceptions: the estuary airport, the garden bridge... he never succeeds.
Two key points about JFK's announcement: while there was a lot of science to do, and a helluva lot to learn, NASA had two key things necessary for success; an organisation that did rockets and space fight with the ability to bring in whatever expertise they needed and more importantly an effectively unlimited budget...
Johnson makes grand declarations. That is his only capability.
"Get Brexit Done" sounds like a grand declaration to me.
The only difference between that and his other declarations is that rather than just try and do something stupid and achieving nothing, he's done the stupid and achieved a total dogs breakfast of it.
I appreciate that it didn't suit everyone, including myself who would have been happy with BRINO
That's the thing about "deals", isn't it. They require both parties to the deal to agree on it. If there's no realistic prospect of the other party agreeing to your proposals, calling them "oven-ready" seems like a bit of a misnomer.
This piece can, as others have noted, be accomplished without doing anything. If BJ inserts his head into his fundament and does nothing, then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. I'm not sure that you can really call something that can be achieved merely by the passage of time an "achievement".
That's the thing about "deals", isn't it. They require both parties to the deal to agree on it. If there's no realistic prospect of the other party agreeing to your proposals, calling them "oven-ready" seems like a bit of a misnomer.
This piece can, as others have noted, be accomplished without doing anything. If BJ inserts his head into his fundament and does nothing, then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. I'm not sure that you can really call something that can be achieved merely by the passage of time an "achievement".
No surprise there, then. Hideous Fibs are what he's best at, along with blustering...
The standard joke is that Boris signs treaties with one hand behind his back, with fingers crossed. I suppose it works for a while. Everything is world-beating.
To play Johnson's advocate, none the less he has followed through on his promise to do nothing (compare with Heathrow) and leave on bad terms.
In the course of that he's now provably lied to the poplace and EU about his oven ready deal. (Assuming we can believe the tale of those who said he told them he had no intention of sticking to it in the first place)
But that only matters to people who care about integrity, and those who valued easy trading with the EU (etc)
The oven ready deal was dependant on the EU understanding that they can’t do without us and would come running after us to give us what we want. That was also said time and time again.
As I remember it Boris did not get Brexit done. We left the EU under May. Or am I miss remembering. Brexit was done a while ago now. Boris wanted no deal, as did his supporters for PM.
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
This is nonsense. It is deeply disingenuous to suggest that a referendum in which the Leave campaign specifically promised (among other things) a trade deal with the EU is honoured by a No Deal Brexit. This bait-and-switch is so fundamentally undemocratic it's obscene.
Suggesting there is a mandate for No Deal is either ignorant stupidity or bare faced lying.
The only way the 2016 vote could give a mandate for a no deal was if the Leave campaign had exclusively described the benefits of a no deal and that this would be what people were voting for; ideally with that laid out in a summary document that we could have studied (a few hundred pages should have been sufficient for a brief summary of what they wanted from a no deal Brexit, but more if they really wanted us to know what they wanted us to vote for). The same would be true of any other version of Brexit. Without that the 2016 vote has no democratic meaning.
You also have the 2019 election though, which gets messy.
Most of us posting on this thread, knew Boris was headlining on promising "get Brexit done (badly)", knew he was lying, voted against it, and lost (subject to questions as to what election results show). We've already been counted and it wasn't enough to save Britain.
You then have those who knew the same and voted for it. They are obviously happy right now (in as much as they ever can be).
The issue who didn't want no deal but thought there would be a 'good' or at least an 'ok' Brexit that Boris could achieve. But for that we have to show there's a significant number, and that's something we can't do, anyone who posted on the first pages of the thread is on record of not being in this category. We need someone to say "I only voted for (repeatedly sacked for lying) Boris because he promised an oven ready deal, and I believed him. I've now realised he was lying and got my vote through deceit", and even then Cummings has some milage in saying they weren't exactly subtle about being damned treacherous shits so the voters must have known if they weren't idiots, and even then they have "we may have lied, but we still got your vote sucker, see you in hell".
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
This is nonsense. It is deeply disingenuous to suggest that a referendum in which the Leave campaign specifically promised (among other things) a trade deal with the EU is honoured by a No Deal Brexit. This bait-and-switch is so fundamentally undemocratic it's obscene.
Suggesting there is a mandate for No Deal is either ignorant stupidity or bare faced lying.
AFZ
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has bene the problem ever since
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
I don’t think it does respect the referendum. It was very close so to respect both sides we should be leaving but with a softer deal. That respect both the vote to leave and the vote to stay.
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has bene the problem ever since
Which was the whole problem. A properly called referendum that followed the conventions and precedents of the way referenda have been used to determine the views of the people would have included a detailed summary of what the "change the status quo" position that the people would be voting on. Before a referendum on EU membership was called the Leave campaign should have produced a manifesto for leaving the EU - summarising the problems with EU membership, how leaving would help solve those problems, and what future relationship with the EU would be sought. Because they didn't do that the 2016 vote has no democratic legitimacy.
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has been the problem ever since
Your memory is not very good then (or you are being disingenuous, but I want to play nicely).
The Leave campaign was predicated on a host of wildly extravagant promises, all of which have turned out to be false. 350,000,000 a week for the NHS? Had this been a Real Referendum, the Leave campaign would have had to spell out exactly what their plans were and how they would be achieved. Only then would anyone have had any clue about what they were voting for.
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal.
The promise from Vote Leave was:
"“There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it… Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave"
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
I don’t think it does respect the referendum. It was very close so to respect both sides we should be leaving but with a softer deal. That respect both the vote to leave and the vote to stay.
When you have in policy in which 'Remain' could be a choice, it is not respecting the first result. In 2016 and 2017 people wanting a 2nd referendum were saying that it should be about how we left. Then it changed.
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has bene the problem ever since
Which was the whole problem. A properly called referendum that followed the conventions and precedents of the way referenda have been used to determine the views of the people would have included a detailed summary of what the "change the status quo" position that the people would be voting on. Before a referendum on EU membership was called the Leave campaign should have produced a manifesto for leaving the EU - summarising the problems with EU membership, how leaving would help solve those problems, and what future relationship with the EU would be sought. Because they didn't do that the 2016 vote has no democratic legitimacy.
I agree with everything you say apart from the last sentence.
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has been the problem ever since
Your memory is not very good then (or you are being disingenuous, but I want to play nicely).
The Leave campaign was predicated on a host of wildly extravagant promises, all of which have turned out to be false. 350,000,000 a week for the NHS? Had this been a Real Referendum, the Leave campaign would have had to spell out exactly what their plans were and how they would be achieved. Only then would anyone have had any clue about what they were voting for.
Both major parties voted to have the referendum. They both said that they would act on the result. They then voted to leave the EU in a Parliamentary vote.
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has been the problem ever since
Your memory is not very good then (or you are being disingenuous, but I want to play nicely).
The Leave campaign was predicated on a host of wildly extravagant promises, all of which have turned out to be false. 350,000,000 a week for the NHS? Had this been a Real Referendum, the Leave campaign would have had to spell out exactly what their plans were and how they would be achieved. Only then would anyone have had any clue about what they were voting for.
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has bene the problem ever since
Which was the whole problem. A properly called referendum that followed the conventions and precedents of the way referenda have been used to determine the views of the people would have included a detailed summary of what the "change the status quo" position that the people would be voting on. Before a referendum on EU membership was called the Leave campaign should have produced a manifesto for leaving the EU - summarising the problems with EU membership, how leaving would help solve those problems, and what future relationship with the EU would be sought. Because they didn't do that the 2016 vote has no democratic legitimacy.
I wonder just how many of those who voted - well over 30 million from memory - would have read beyond the first page, if that? In any event, the impression that the campaign left here was that it was not based upon rational argument but rather on emotion. No matter how many fine arguments were put in favour of remain, the result would have been much the same.
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
I don’t think it does respect the referendum. It was very close so to respect both sides we should be leaving but with a softer deal. That respect both the vote to leave and the vote to stay.
When you have in policy in which 'Remain' could be a choice, it is not respecting the first result. In 2016 and 2017 people wanting a 2nd referendum were saying that it should be about how we left. Then it changed.
Johnson won last year because he stated that we would be leaving with or without a deal. This repected the inital referendum. The mistake Corbyn made was not offering something similar . He said that he would renegotiate a new agreement ( probably including a custom union etc). His new referendum should have been his deal against No deal. This would have honoured the initial referendum. He would have probably won the election. The People would have voted for his deal, as would I
I don’t think it does respect the referendum. It was very close so to respect both sides we should be leaving but with a softer deal. That respect both the vote to leave and the vote to stay.
When you have in policy in which 'Remain' could be a choice, it is not respecting the first result. In 2016 and 2017 people wanting a 2nd referendum were saying that it should be about how we left. Then it changed.
My scenario did not have remain as a choice. It was picking up on what you said about the result of the referendum. The result was close. To say anything other than leaving and staying somewhat close to the EU represents the result is just not true.As it was that close both sides need to be represented not just the one who got less than 10% more votes. You did not mention the general election until now.
My guess is that most people in Scotland read no more than the summary of the 670p question in 2014, I doubt a similar question in 2016 would have been any more widely read by the general public. In 2014 the document was dissected by the media, and the Better Together campaign was focused because of it - large parts of the campaign were of the form "In Scotland's Future it's claimed that .... but this isn't going to work/be possible/will leave Scotland in an economic mess". Although a lot of the campaign was on a more emotional basis without much reference to the document. Without such a document in 2016 the Remain campaign was hamstrung by having to argue against moving goal posts, with Leave campaign constantly presenting different plans (often contradicting what was being said by someone else). There was very little campaigning against a no-deal Brexit because Leave were not proposing that, in general "no deal" was held up as the totally unwanted consequence of trying to negotiate for the impossible - the disaster that Leave campaigners agreed would be very bad, while adding it wouldn't happen because it would be the "easiest deal in history".
I agree that if there had been an equivalent to Scotland's Future in 2016 the campaigns may have looked pretty much the same, the arguments would have included a lot of emotional appeals to something other than the contents of the document, and the result may well have been very similar (I doubt there was anything which would have resulted in either side getting more than 55% of the vote). The differences would have been that there would be no doubt about what people voted on, the will of the people would be clear, and the exercise would have followed the precedents and conventions of democracy (ie: would be constitutionally valid). And, the other big difference is what happened after the vote - with an equivalent to Scotland's Future, Parliament would have already approved the details and the government would have been supportive of the plan; David Cameron could have walked out the door of No 10 with a letter in his hand ready to put in the post and announce to the press that the UK was leaving the EU, his letter would be announcing that and the UK negotiating team would be going to Brussels in the following week to start pressing the EU for the deal that the UK had voted for.
This is from the Vote Leave website: the official campaign to leave the European Union. Please show me what in there gives any mandate for leaving without a deal; especially as they expressly promise the opposite.
Or to return to the subject of our Lord and Master, in both cases the promises are self-contradictory but Boris delivers them with wonderful bluster....
This is from the Vote Leave website: the official campaign to leave the European Union. Please show me what in there gives any mandate for leaving without a deal; especially as they expressly promise the opposite.
Or to return to the subject of our Lord and Master, in both cases the promises are self-contradictory but Boris delivers them with wonderful bluster....
AFZ
Something which I have not read before as it was just one of many such things put out.
However, I cannot see any reference in your first document to us leaving with a deal with the EU
Well, Telford is right in saying that, strictly applied, the Referendum vote has been honoured, as promised. All it said on the polling form was 'leave' or 'remain'. And as Alan and others suggested, that has also been the problem. Each 'leave' voter listened to his/her own campaigning team's promises and chose - presumably - to believe that those were the conditions under which they were voting to leave, which of course was nonsense. With no established leadership for 'leave' and no properly constituted manifesto, any 'promises' or conditions put out there, could hardly be considered implicitly binding in the Referendum itself.
If anyone voted 'leave' under the impression that their particular concerns were going to be addressed and implemented politically, then that was the product of their own belief. Which is exactly what the leave campaigners were, cynically, depending on. A leaver might now say: but we voted leave to get better trade deals, not to be blocked even further by the EU's intransigence. And those who promised these better trade deals only have to reply that: actually, you didn't vote for any deal at all. You voted to leave and we've done that. The fact that the EU is intransigent and unlikely to offer free benefits to a rogue non-EU nation like the UK is not our fault, and also not under our control (especially now we have sacrificed our influence within the EU itself).
Johnson, technically, need do nothing more than he already has done to fulfil what the Leavers voted for.
It's all a cynical, damaging shambles - effectively leaving the ordinary electorate out to dry, throwing others more vulnerable and politically sensitive under the bus, while not in the least harming the wealthy, the politically-connected, and tax-savvy corporate business owners.
Well, Telford is right in saying that, strictly applied, the Referendum vote has been honoured, as promised. All it said on the polling form was 'leave' or 'remain'. And as Alan and others suggested, that has also been the problem. Each 'leave' voter listened to his/her own campaigning team's promises and chose - presumably - to believe that those were the conditions under which they were voting to leave, which of course was nonsense. With no established leadership for 'leave' and no properly constituted manifesto, any 'promises' or conditions put out there, could hardly be considered implicitly binding in the Referendum itself.
If anyone voted 'leave' under the impression that their particular concerns were going to be addressed and implemented politically, then that was the product of their own belief. Which is exactly what the leave campaigners were, cynically, depending on. A leaver might now say: but we voted leave to get better trade deals, not to be blocked even further by the EU's intransigence. And those who promised these better trade deals only have to reply that: actually, you didn't vote for any deal at all. You voted to leave and we've done that. The fact that the EU is intransigent and unlikely to offer free benefits to a rogue non-EU nation like the UK is not our fault, and also not under our control (especially now we have sacrificed our influence within the EU itself).
Johnson, technically, need do nothing more than he already has done to fulfil what the Leavers voted for.
It's all a cynical, damaging shambles - effectively leaving the ordinary electorate out to dry, throwing others more vulnerable and politically sensitive under the bus, while not in the least harming the wealthy, the politically-connected, and tax-savvy corporate business owners.
Well, Telford is right in saying that, strictly applied, the Referendum vote has been honoured, as promised. All it said on the polling form was 'leave' or 'remain'. And as Alan and others suggested, that has also been the problem. Each 'leave' voter listened to his/her own campaigning team's promises and chose - presumably - to believe that those were the conditions under which they were voting to leave, which of course was nonsense. With no established leadership for 'leave' and no properly constituted manifesto, any 'promises' or conditions put out there, could hardly be considered implicitly binding in the Referendum itself.
If anyone voted 'leave' under the impression that their particular concerns were going to be addressed and implemented politically, then that was the product of their own belief. Which is exactly what the leave campaigners were, cynically, depending on. A leaver might now say: but we voted leave to get better trade deals, not to be blocked even further by the EU's intransigence. And those who promised these better trade deals only have to reply that: actually, you didn't vote for any deal at all. You voted to leave and we've done that. The fact that the EU is intransigent and unlikely to offer free benefits to a rogue non-EU nation like the UK is not our fault, and also not under our control (especially now we have sacrificed our influence within the EU itself).
Johnson, technically, need do nothing more than he already has done to fulfil what the Leavers voted for.
It's all a cynical, damaging shambles - effectively leaving the ordinary electorate out to dry, throwing others more vulnerable and politically sensitive under the bus, while not in the least harming the wealthy, the politically-connected, and tax-savvy corporate business owners.
An excellent post.
Indeed. But have you found a mandate for No Deal yet?
Johnson has, IMHO, lost whatever contact with reality he formerly possessed. This happens to many Prime Ministers eventually (Churchill, Eden, Thatcher and, sadly, Blair to some extent come to mind), but in Johnson's case sooner rather than later. He's just not up to the job, or fit enough, and I shall be surprised if he lasts much beyond the end of the year.
Johnson has, IMHO, lost whatever contact with reality he formerly possessed. This happens to many Prime Ministers eventually (Churchill, Eden, Thatcher and, sadly, Blair to some extent come to mind), but in Johnson's case sooner rather than later. He's just not up to the job, or fit enough, and I shall be surprised if he lasts much beyond the end of the year.
Yes, they do seem to become messianic or unhinged, and defiant of reality. I remember Eden had a kind of faraway Edwardian look about him, distrait, I suppose. Boris hasn't really changed, as London mayor he was bombastic, but then he cultivated a metropolitan liberal persona to suit the electorate. It is like living in a lunatic asylum.
I think the idea of British grandeur is a poison, that, well, poisons them. Blair seemed fairly sane, and then became the saviour of the world, not in a good way.
Well, Telford is right in saying that, strictly applied, the Referendum vote has been honoured, as promised. All it said on the polling form was 'leave' or 'remain'. And as Alan and others suggested, that has also been the problem. Each 'leave' voter listened to his/her own campaigning team's promises and chose - presumably - to believe that those were the conditions under which they were voting to leave, which of course was nonsense. With no established leadership for 'leave' and no properly constituted manifesto, any 'promises' or conditions put out there, could hardly be considered implicitly binding in the Referendum itself.
If anyone voted 'leave' under the impression that their particular concerns were going to be addressed and implemented politically, then that was the product of their own belief. Which is exactly what the leave campaigners were, cynically, depending on. A leaver might now say: but we voted leave to get better trade deals, not to be blocked even further by the EU's intransigence. And those who promised these better trade deals only have to reply that: actually, you didn't vote for any deal at all. You voted to leave and we've done that. The fact that the EU is intransigent and unlikely to offer free benefits to a rogue non-EU nation like the UK is not our fault, and also not under our control (especially now we have sacrificed our influence within the EU itself).
Johnson, technically, need do nothing more than he already has done to fulfil what the Leavers voted for.
It's all a cynical, damaging shambles - effectively leaving the ordinary electorate out to dry, throwing others more vulnerable and politically sensitive under the bus, while not in the least harming the wealthy, the politically-connected, and tax-savvy corporate business owners.
An excellent post.
Indeed. But have you found a mandate for No Deal yet?
There is no specific mandate but when you vote for a party which states that they will get Brexit done, No Deal is the logical fall back position if you don't get a deal.
Well, Telford is right in saying that, strictly applied, the Referendum vote has been honoured, as promised. All it said on the polling form was 'leave' or 'remain'. And as Alan and others suggested, that has also been the problem. Each 'leave' voter listened to his/her own campaigning team's promises and chose - presumably - to believe that those were the conditions under which they were voting to leave, which of course was nonsense. With no established leadership for 'leave' and no properly constituted manifesto, any 'promises' or conditions put out there, could hardly be considered implicitly binding in the Referendum itself.
If anyone voted 'leave' under the impression that their particular concerns were going to be addressed and implemented politically, then that was the product of their own belief. Which is exactly what the leave campaigners were, cynically, depending on. A leaver might now say: but we voted leave to get better trade deals, not to be blocked even further by the EU's intransigence. And those who promised these better trade deals only have to reply that: actually, you didn't vote for any deal at all. You voted to leave and we've done that. The fact that the EU is intransigent and unlikely to offer free benefits to a rogue non-EU nation like the UK is not our fault, and also not under our control (especially now we have sacrificed our influence within the EU itself).
Johnson, technically, need do nothing more than he already has done to fulfil what the Leavers voted for.
It's all a cynical, damaging shambles - effectively leaving the ordinary electorate out to dry, throwing others more vulnerable and politically sensitive under the bus, while not in the least harming the wealthy, the politically-connected, and tax-savvy corporate business owners.
An excellent post.
Indeed. But have you found a mandate for No Deal yet?
There is no specific mandate but when you vote for a party which states that they will get Brexit done, No Deal is the logical fall back position if you don't get a deal.
I suspect that they will be a compromise deal
Granted that is a point. However it does not sit well with the rest of what has been said. No deal is not a good thing to have on the table. If no deal happens we are in deep trouble. The EU is not going to come running after us. The potential breaking of the law is being seen very negatively around the world with those we want to deal with. Take no deal off the table. It is not a weapon it is a trap for the UK
"Moonshot" is not moonshot but moonshine. Not just Mr dePfeffel Johnson but his minions seem to think that telling the public that you have wonderful aspirations for the future will make up for not delivering and being crud in the present. I, for one, do not want to be told about their dreams, or even what might be in my dreams. I would like to see a government that was intelligent, sensible and governed competently. I see no evidence of this.
And, we now have people who claim to be ruling in our name setting things up to break their word given only a few months ago. That lacks integrity and honour. Furthermore, applied to what I've just said about dreams,, it's another reason not to respect them or take what the scum say seriously.
Comments
Ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee ho ho ho ho ha ha hee hee hehe hehe snigger snigger.
It's not true what they say about you, you're actually funny.
We *could* have done that the day after the referendum; how much notice had to be given I don't know.
But we were being governed then by people who despite their faults - and by heck did they have them; they were Tory ministers after all - did appear to actually be grown adults who realise that 'getting Brexit done' in a way that wouldn't shaft us meant more than just saying "we're off". So they didn't.
And in that sense - agreeing a deal between the UK and EU to govern relations after the transition period - he has achieved bugger all.
What a bloody silly description, anyway. Meaningless Tosh.
*sigh*
He regarded it as oven ready. The EU disagreed.
I appreciate that it didn't suit everyone, including myself who would have been happy with BRINO
Leaving the EU with or without a deal
This piece can, as others have noted, be accomplished without doing anything. If BJ inserts his head into his fundament and does nothing, then the UK will leave the EU without a deal. I'm not sure that you can really call something that can be achieved merely by the passage of time an "achievement".
Leaving the EU without a deal is not IMHO anything that can be comprehended, understood, or accepted as a Good Thing, by a sane mind.
Does that make it a bit clearer for you? I don't think you quite comprehended or understood my question.
You appear to be saying that anyone who disagrees with your personal political views and priorities is insane.
The standard joke is that Boris signs treaties with one hand behind his back, with fingers crossed. I suppose it works for a while. Everything is world-beating.
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
In the course of that he's now provably lied to the poplace and EU about his oven ready deal. (Assuming we can believe the tale of those who said he told them he had no intention of sticking to it in the first place)
But that only matters to people who care about integrity, and those who valued easy trading with the EU (etc)
As I remember it Boris did not get Brexit done. We left the EU under May. Or am I miss remembering. Brexit was done a while ago now. Boris wanted no deal, as did his supporters for PM.
This is nonsense. It is deeply disingenuous to suggest that a referendum in which the Leave campaign specifically promised (among other things) a trade deal with the EU is honoured by a No Deal Brexit. This bait-and-switch is so fundamentally undemocratic it's obscene.
Suggesting there is a mandate for No Deal is either ignorant stupidity or bare faced lying.
AFZ
Most of us posting on this thread, knew Boris was headlining on promising "get Brexit done (badly)", knew he was lying, voted against it, and lost (subject to questions as to what election results show). We've already been counted and it wasn't enough to save Britain.
You then have those who knew the same and voted for it. They are obviously happy right now (in as much as they ever can be).
The issue who didn't want no deal but thought there would be a 'good' or at least an 'ok' Brexit that Boris could achieve. But for that we have to show there's a significant number, and that's something we can't do, anyone who posted on the first pages of the thread is on record of not being in this category. We need someone to say "I only voted for (repeatedly sacked for lying) Boris because he promised an oven ready deal, and I believed him. I've now realised he was lying and got my vote through deceit", and even then Cummings has some milage in saying they weren't exactly subtle about being damned treacherous shits so the voters must have known if they weren't idiots, and even then they have "we may have lied, but we still got your vote sucker, see you in hell".
As far as I can remember all the Leave campaign promised was Leave. They never explained how we would leave and this has bene the problem ever since
I don’t think it does respect the referendum. It was very close so to respect both sides we should be leaving but with a softer deal. That respect both the vote to leave and the vote to stay.
Your memory is not very good then (or you are being disingenuous, but I want to play nicely).
The Leave campaign was predicated on a host of wildly extravagant promises, all of which have turned out to be false. 350,000,000 a week for the NHS? Had this been a Real Referendum, the Leave campaign would have had to spell out exactly what their plans were and how they would be achieved. Only then would anyone have had any clue about what they were voting for.
The promise from Vote Leave was:
"“There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it… Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave"
Nothing about leaving without a deal.
When you have in policy in which 'Remain' could be a choice, it is not respecting the first result. In 2016 and 2017 people wanting a 2nd referendum were saying that it should be about how we left. Then it changed.
I agree with everything you say apart from the last sentence.
Both major parties voted to have the referendum. They both said that they would act on the result. They then voted to leave the EU in a Parliamentary vote.
My memory is fine on this issue.
I wonder just how many of those who voted - well over 30 million from memory - would have read beyond the first page, if that? In any event, the impression that the campaign left here was that it was not based upon rational argument but rather on emotion. No matter how many fine arguments were put in favour of remain, the result would have been much the same.
My scenario did not have remain as a choice. It was picking up on what you said about the result of the referendum. The result was close. To say anything other than leaving and staying somewhat close to the EU represents the result is just not true.As it was that close both sides need to be represented not just the one who got less than 10% more votes. You did not mention the general election until now.
I agree that if there had been an equivalent to Scotland's Future in 2016 the campaigns may have looked pretty much the same, the arguments would have included a lot of emotional appeals to something other than the contents of the document, and the result may well have been very similar (I doubt there was anything which would have resulted in either side getting more than 55% of the vote). The differences would have been that there would be no doubt about what people voted on, the will of the people would be clear, and the exercise would have followed the precedents and conventions of democracy (ie: would be constitutionally valid). And, the other big difference is what happened after the vote - with an equivalent to Scotland's Future, Parliament would have already approved the details and the government would have been supportive of the plan; David Cameron could have walked out the door of No 10 with a letter in his hand ready to put in the post and announce to the press that the UK was leaving the EU, his letter would be announcing that and the UK negotiating team would be going to Brussels in the following week to start pressing the EU for the deal that the UK had voted for.
No. It really isn't.
This is from the Vote Leave website: the official campaign to leave the European Union. Please show me what in there gives any mandate for leaving without a deal; especially as they expressly promise the opposite.
Or, let's try the Conservative party manifesto from 2019, again expressly promising a deal.
So, where is the mandate for No Deal?
Or to return to the subject of our Lord and Master, in both cases the promises are self-contradictory but Boris delivers them with wonderful bluster....
AFZ
Something which I have not read before as it was just one of many such things put out.
However, I cannot see any reference in your first document to us leaving with a deal with the EU
If anyone voted 'leave' under the impression that their particular concerns were going to be addressed and implemented politically, then that was the product of their own belief. Which is exactly what the leave campaigners were, cynically, depending on. A leaver might now say: but we voted leave to get better trade deals, not to be blocked even further by the EU's intransigence. And those who promised these better trade deals only have to reply that: actually, you didn't vote for any deal at all. You voted to leave and we've done that. The fact that the EU is intransigent and unlikely to offer free benefits to a rogue non-EU nation like the UK is not our fault, and also not under our control (especially now we have sacrificed our influence within the EU itself).
Johnson, technically, need do nothing more than he already has done to fulfil what the Leavers voted for.
It's all a cynical, damaging shambles - effectively leaving the ordinary electorate out to dry, throwing others more vulnerable and politically sensitive under the bus, while not in the least harming the wealthy, the politically-connected, and tax-savvy corporate business owners.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
An excellent post.
Indeed. But have you found a mandate for No Deal yet?
In La-La-Land, anything can happen. Even Unicorns!
dePfeffel’s ‘moonshot’ didn’t even involve the government’s own health screening advisers.
I don’t listen to the man. If he comes on TV I just think waffle waffle waffle.
Hopefully, ConDom the Farsighted will be thrown overboard along with his puppet, but even so, the outlook is Not Good.
Yes, they do seem to become messianic or unhinged, and defiant of reality. I remember Eden had a kind of faraway Edwardian look about him, distrait, I suppose. Boris hasn't really changed, as London mayor he was bombastic, but then he cultivated a metropolitan liberal persona to suit the electorate. It is like living in a lunatic asylum.
There is no specific mandate but when you vote for a party which states that they will get Brexit done, No Deal is the logical fall back position if you don't get a deal.
I suspect that they will be a compromise deal
Granted that is a point. However it does not sit well with the rest of what has been said. No deal is not a good thing to have on the table. If no deal happens we are in deep trouble. The EU is not going to come running after us. The potential breaking of the law is being seen very negatively around the world with those we want to deal with. Take no deal off the table. It is not a weapon it is a trap for the UK
And, we now have people who claim to be ruling in our name setting things up to break their word given only a few months ago. That lacks integrity and honour. Furthermore, applied to what I've just said about dreams,, it's another reason not to respect them or take what the scum say seriously.