Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

11112141617135

Comments

  • Disagreements over the best trade/fisheries/citizenship policy happen all the time. That's what parliament is for. But do you seriously think there would be a faction within post-Brexit Westminster that would try to make sure no trade deals were struck or policies enacted at all?

    This is where I (and I suspect others) think you are profoundly mistaken.

    Parliament would have to agree on SOMETHING and there are more than enough factions who would oppose all sorts of deals on the basis that they are not 'pure enough.' Or whatever nonsense. I really don't see how any deals will happen for years; not because they are opposed to a deal per se but because only their deal is acceptable.

    I seriously doubt it. Firstly, most of the prime movers of Brexit are just trying to avoid having to abide by the new anti-tax avoidance laws currently being passed by the EU, so once they've avoided them the details of any trade deals won't be important any more. Secondly, they all know we have to trade with the EU if we're going to have any kind of economy left. And thirdly, once the pro-Brexit portion of the UK population have been told we've left the EU they'll see it as them having won and lose interest in any of the fine detail of the subsequent trade deals that get made.

    Boris and his cronies could pass a trade deal that commits us to customs union in all but name, and as long as they can keep dodging their taxes and spin it to the public as having left the EU they'll take it as a win. Meanwhile, with Brexit a done deal, the other parties would most likely agree to the deal on the basis of keeping the British economy afloat rather than risk being seen as the ones keeping us from becoming Great Again.

    We were never not great.

    TBH, you're assuming logic on behalf of Johnson and his pals. It appears we're beyond that now ... They believe in Brexit at all costs. Even if they manage to pass some sort of fudge, Brexit is going to poison the well of relationships between generations, regions etc for years as the various negotiations work their way though due process.
  • Brexit has become theology. No requirement for any empirical demonstration of benefit, or anything else. It exists sui generis, beyond comprehension, sustained by belief and fantasy.
  • No. Corbyn hasn't. Maybe you'd like to think he has but he's fence-sat because the majority of his MPs are Remainers. And the other is Johnson.

    In the absence of @Doublethink, I shall mention that Corbyn campaigned tirelessly for remain in the Ref but didn't always get the credit for it. Partly because he wouldn't share a platform with Cameron etc. And partly because he was honest about the EU not always being particularly great, but we were better remaining and reforming than leaving.

    Whatever Corbyn's faults, he is a conviction politician and has been pretty consistent over the years. The complete opposite of Johnson. He believes in what's best for Johnson and whatever Cummings tells him too.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    TBH, you're assuming logic on behalf of Johnson and his pals. It appears we're beyond that now ... They believe in Brexit at all costs.

    I don't believe for a moment that Boris believes in Brexit at all costs. Like Trump, he believes in whatever he considers it opportune to believe in at any given moment.
  • I know that having Mr Johnson in number 10 is enraging to many - most? - people but that shouldn't mean that one supports, never mind applauds, the current shennanigans in Parliament and the attempt to prolong the Br**it torture ad infinitum, because that is what will happen.

    These are dangerous times. If the LibDem-anyone else alliance manages, with the connivance of the Speaker, to wrest control of the order paper from the government, and then use that to override the Act that was passed in January 2017, then a large swathe of the electorate is going to draw the lesson that prolonged demonstration and agitation is the best way to get what one wants, while the other, larger swathe, will learn that MPs only see fit to obey Acts of Parliament when it suits them. That is dangerous.

    Those who seek to have the UK remain in the EU may well rejoice, but they are laying the foundations of the collapse of respect for Parliament and the Acts that it passes.
    I recognise that this is going back a few posts, but I think you have probably got this the wrong way round.

    The reason why there are the current shenanigans in Parliament isn't because MPs have lost respect for the system. It's a demonstration that the system isn't working. It isn't reasonable to expect either MPs or citizens to bow their wills and accept the process if it's clear that that doing so isn't delivering good government or the good of the country and has no prospect of doing so.

    These are issues that large swathes of the electorate have very strong opinions about, that stir their emotions. It is that which is the reason why politics have got into the state they have. Pretending that this is not so, or that it ought not to be so, or that they should shut up, obey, comply and leave it to some entitled Etonians to sort out - when they are clearly incapable of doing so - is make believe.

    I agree that the situation is dangerous. However, it is not enough to say that everyone else should pretend to respect the current administration because otherwise the riff-raff won't do so - which is what underlies your middle paragraph - will not do. The only remedy to that would be for the country to have an administration made up of people worthy of respect.
  • I've said this before, but Corbyn convinced me to vote Remain. When the Referendum was announced it took me quite a while to decide which way to vote. I've been Eurosceptic for years, and think the EU is in need of reform. Then I heard Corbyn talk about all the socialist benefits we had gained through membership, and my mind was made up. He wouldn't have convinced a Tory, but he convinced me.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    These are issues that large swathes of the electorate have very strong opinions about, that stir their emotions. It is that which is the reason why politics have got into the state they have. Pretending that this is not so, or that it ought not to be so, or that they should shut up, obey, comply and leave it to some entitled Etonians to sort out - when they are clearly incapable of doing so - is make believe.

    Of course, making the electorate "shut up, obey, comply and leave it to some entitled Etonians to sort out" is exactly what those who say there should never have been a referendum in the first place would prefer to have happened.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    These are issues that large swathes of the electorate have very strong opinions about, that stir their emotions. It is that which is the reason why politics have got into the state they have. Pretending that this is not so, or that it ought not to be so, or that they should shut up, obey, comply and leave it to some entitled Etonians to sort out - when they are clearly incapable of doing so - is make believe.

    Of course, making the electorate "shut up, obey, comply and leave it to some entitled Etonians to sort out" is exactly what those who say there should never have been a referendum in the first place would prefer to have happened.

    You have got to stop telling people what they think.

    I am on record on here saying the referendum was a mistake not because such things should always be decided by entitled Etonians, but because there was no majority in government believing it was a good enough idea to actually want to implement it, nor to find a non-damaging way of doing so.

    If people want to leave, then by all means vote in MPs who want to leave, then formulate a plan to leave and offer that plan up in a referendum. By comparison, offering via a referendum to do something you think is a very bad idea is doomed to end in the sort of mess we have now.

    The referendum was also a cynical ploy. It was not intended to decide whether we should leave the EU. It had everything to do with Cameron trying to pull the same trick on the Eurosceptic Tories as he had on the Lib Dems. Offered them a referendum then when they lost they had to put up and do what he wanted. No wonder he ran so fast out of No 10 when it went tits up. We've been picking up the pieces ever since.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    We've been picking up the pieces ever since.
    Even that is a rather optimistic overstatement right now.
  • There is also a hard right English nationalist movement involved. I'm not saying everyone who votes leave is that, but it is entwined into it. I think this is quite traumatic.
  • If Britain wants to be Great again, we will have to licence freebooters and privateers as we did in Good Queen Bess's reign and steal Spanish gold. One of the later (and greatest) of our pirates built his palace less than a mile away from me.

    Nowadays we would have to intercept the drugs trade from South America to Miami!

  • sionisais wrote: »
    If Britain wants to be Great again, we will have to licence freebooters and privateers as we did in Good Queen Bess's reign and steal Spanish gold.
    The Dutch were good at that too. (The pirate in my avatar was one of them.)
  • Brexit has become theology. No requirement for any empirical demonstration of benefit, or anything else. It exists sui generis, beyond comprehension, sustained by belief and fantasy.
    Though perhaps spoken in jest, that's very true.

    It's also why it doesn't seem to be possible to engage in any dialogue with Brexitists. Even if you ask them to try to persuade you to agree with them, they won't, or can't see that they need to do. It's all, you're defying democracy and the EU is the great Satan.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    TBH, you're assuming logic on behalf of Johnson and his pals. It appears we're beyond that now ... They believe in Brexit at all costs.

    I don't believe for a moment that Boris believes in Brexit at all costs. Like Trump, he believes in whatever he considers it opportune to believe in at any given moment.

    Boris believes in Boris at all costs. Some of the others probably do believe in "Brexit at all costs".
  • How long before the Queen is on the phone to Theresa May: "You remember that bloke you said commanded the support of the House?"
  • Boris believes in Boris. No one and nothing else. If his interest in the job he has at the time chimes with what is required then he can do a good job, othewise it seems he just gets bored. Being PM is a new departure because suddenly he has no one else to blame for not thinking things through but himself - tiresome!
  • He could blame Cummings. That would be just about right for Boorish
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    And who appointed Cummings?
  • May was prepared to sacrifice her country for the sake of her party.

    Piffle is prepared to sacrifice both country and party for the sake of himself.
  • Andras wrote: »
    May was prepared to sacrifice her country for the sake of her party.

    Piffle is prepared to sacrifice both country and party for the sake of himself.

    Well put.
  • Andras wrote: »
    May was prepared to sacrifice her country for the sake of her party.

    Piffle is prepared to sacrifice both country and party for the sake of himself.

    That won't go down well with the Conservative Party. They quite willingly screw the country for their own sake, but if they get the idea that the PM is likely to screw the Party in their own interest, that PM will out in short order. The Party, and especially the Parliamentary Party, must come first.
  • Hence their nickname - the Selfservative Party...
    :rage:
  • His own brother has just resigned on twitter as he can't reconcile the choice between family loyalty and the national interest. Bloody hell ...
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    His own brother has just resigned on twitter as he can't reconcile the choice between family loyalty and the national interest. Bloody hell ...

    Jo Johnson was a minister in the department I work in and by all accounts is a modest, intelligent and amusing man (with more sensible hair than Big Brother). His resignation shows that the Tory party is lurching to the Reich right.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    His own brother has just resigned on twitter as he can't reconcile the choice between family loyalty and the national interest. Bloody hell ...

    HIGNFY are running it as Jo Johnson resigns to spend less time with his family...
    Hence their nickname - the Selfservative Party...
    :rage:

    Indeed

    AFZ
  • How many more TorySelfservative MPs have to resign, or cross the House, before Piffleglum finally admits defeat?

    (BTW, I seem to have lost track of where the DUP is in all the chaos. Are they still supporting the 'government'?)

  • <snip>then a large swathe of the electorate is going to draw the lesson that prolonged demonstration and agitation is the best way to get what one wants, <snip>

    And this bothers you ... because ...?

  • (BTW, I seem to have lost track of where the DUP is in all the chaos. Are they still supporting the 'government'?)

    Their most recent statement was just over a week ago* and they have indicated that they will continue the confidence and supply arrangement until the end of this session of Parliament.

    AFZ

    *Not much has happened in the last week, has it? Seriously though I think we can rely on the DUP to act in their own (perceived) interests and will jump when it suits them. It's actually fairly irrelevant because I think only the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition can bring a VoNC and he's not gonna do so until No Deal is truly averted.


  • <snip>then a large swathe of the electorate is going to draw the lesson that prolonged demonstration and agitation is the best way to get what one wants, <snip>

    And this bothers you ... because ...?

    I'm sure it's better than taking your policy lead from a handful of media billionaires.

  • <snip>then a large swathe of the electorate is going to draw the lesson that prolonged demonstration and agitation is the best way to get what one wants, <snip>

    And this bothers you ... because ...?

    Well done, I'd forgotten to pick up on this. Surely that's the mark of a healthy democracy; that persistent peaceful protest in multiple forms changes things!

    AFZ
  • How many more TorySelfservative MPs have to resign, or cross the House, before Piffleglum finally admits defeat?

    (BTW, I seem to have lost track of where the DUP is in all the chaos. Are they still supporting the 'government'?)

    At the moment yes. As long as Boorish wants to keep NI safely in the Union they wii support him
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Thanks, peeps, for clarification re the DUPpies.
  • In breaking news, Sinn Fein might be looking at electoral pacts with Remain parties to oust the DUP.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    In breaking news, Sinn Fein might be looking at electoral pacts with Remain parties to oust the DUP.

    Damn! I was going to post that ...
  • What! Ae you sure? After 100 years of taking their pay and not doing anything to represent anyone who has elected them? If so, that would mean we live in even stranger times than I thought.

  • <snip>then a large swathe of the electorate is going to draw the lesson that prolonged demonstration and agitation is the best way to get what one wants, <snip>

    And this bothers you ... because ...?

    Because the large swathe of the electorate who is demonstrating and agitating doesn't want what I want ...

    Frankly, I've read numerous comments from the likes of Farage saying that if they don't get what they want they will take to the streets and I wonder where they've been all these months.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    What! Ae you sure? After 100 years of taking their pay and not doing anything to represent anyone who has elected them? If so, that would mean we live in even stranger times than I thought.

    SF MPs do represent their consituents. They don't take their seat in the House of Commons but they do everything but that.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    What! Ae you sure? After 100 years of taking their pay and not doing anything to represent anyone who has elected them? If so, that would mean we live in even stranger times than I thought.

    SF MPs do represent their consituents. They don't take their seat in the House of Commons but they do everything but that.

    And people vote for them knowing they won't take their seats.
  • (BTW, I seem to have lost track of where the DUP is in all the chaos. Are they still supporting the 'government'?)

    Their most recent statement was just over a week ago* and they have indicated that they will continue the confidence and supply arrangement until the end of this session of Parliament.

    AFZ

    *Not much has happened in the last week, has it? Seriously though I think we can rely on the DUP to act in their own (perceived) interests and will jump when it suits them. It's actually fairly irrelevant because I think only the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition can bring a VoNC and he's not gonna do so until No Deal is truly averted.

    Usually a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government is moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but that's only the convention. It's even been mooted that Piffle might bring such a motion against himself as a roundabout way of forcing an election, and daring Labour to vote against it.
  • Andras wrote: »
    (BTW, I seem to have lost track of where the DUP is in all the chaos. Are they still supporting the 'government'?)

    Their most recent statement was just over a week ago* and they have indicated that they will continue the confidence and supply arrangement until the end of this session of Parliament.

    AFZ

    *Not much has happened in the last week, has it? Seriously though I think we can rely on the DUP to act in their own (perceived) interests and will jump when it suits them. It's actually fairly irrelevant because I think only the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition can bring a VoNC and he's not gonna do so until No Deal is truly averted.

    Usually a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government is moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but that's only the convention. It's even been mooted that Piffle might bring such a motion against himself as a roundabout way of forcing an election, and daring Labour to vote against it.

    This used to be true but I think (and I'm just gonna check, now) that the Fixed-Term Parliament Act changed this...

    AFZ
  • Andras wrote: »
    (BTW, I seem to have lost track of where the DUP is in all the chaos. Are they still supporting the 'government'?)

    Their most recent statement was just over a week ago* and they have indicated that they will continue the confidence and supply arrangement until the end of this session of Parliament.

    AFZ

    *Not much has happened in the last week, has it? Seriously though I think we can rely on the DUP to act in their own (perceived) interests and will jump when it suits them. It's actually fairly irrelevant because I think only the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition can bring a VoNC and he's not gonna do so until No Deal is truly averted.

    Usually a Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government is moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but that's only the convention. It's even been mooted that Piffle might bring such a motion against himself as a roundabout way of forcing an election, and daring Labour to vote against it.

    This used to be true but I think (and I'm just gonna check, now) that the Fixed-Term Parliament Act changed this...

    AFZ

    Right... Not quite found what I was looking for but I think I was wrong (and almost right).

    The FTPA defines the form of words that have to be used in a VoNC.

    Any MP can table such a motion but under normal circumstances, this would not be granted Parliamentary Time. Convention dictates that if the Leader of the Opposition tables it, then a 90 minute debate and vote will be scheduled essentially immediately.

    (AFAICT that's correct. No links, coz I've had to look at multiple sources; even the Parliament website was unclear. If anyone knows a better place to look, please help...)

    Not sure what that means in the current constitutional chaos.

    AFZ
  • Sorry, triple posting here... :disappointed:

    According to this from the Institute for Government, it's even more complicated than I thought and given how the Supreme Court would never involve itself in Parliamentary matters, I'm not entirely sure how it would be resolved if it came to a position of being unclear as to what should happen next...

    :fearful:

    AFZ
  • I don't think Sinn Fein intend to take seats in the HoC, but there are two or three seats in NI where if they stand aside the republican vote could unify around an SDLP candidate to oust a DUP member - even two or three seats will be significant in the next Parliament I suspect

    Meanwhile , the SNP seem confident of taking nine or then of the 13 Scotish Tory seats - this means ABdPJ might need to capture 15 or so seats just to stand still.

    The Machiavellian may note the the PM has a majority of less than 6000 in his own constituency - if the LibDems/Green with choose not to put up candidates, or to not campaign particularly hard, he could be forced to spend lots of time nursing his own constituents - keeping him from campaigning in the Midlands and Nort West of England
  • Robertus L wrote: »
    The Machiavellian may note the the PM has a majority of less than 6000 in his own constituency - if the LibDems/Green with choose not to put up candidates, or to not campaign particularly hard, he could be forced to spend lots of time nursing his own constituents - keeping him from campaigning in the Midlands and Nort West of England
    Well, I don't if you're arguing that that'd be a good thing, or a bad thing...
  • Good, if his campaigning gets a bit hamstrung, better if he actually lost his seat.

    Traditionaly party leaders usually increase their majorities, but given that BJ hasn't been a brilliant constituency MP re Heathrow, it's a possibility that he could be unseated,
  • The CBC had a comment: only 52% voted for a vague thing. This is a tyranny of majority, with the majority voting for something completely non-concrete, and the leader wanted to accomplish this non-concrete thing by executive authority versus democratic means. With the suspension of parliament looking particularly anti-democratic. Also noting that the PM was basically appointed to the job by a minority of 90,000 special people affiliated with his political party.

    Have I got this correct as a summary? Because it is quite difficult to follow. My own thoughts always drift to tragedy becoming comedy if repeated or with enough time (which I think is Karl Marx's idea), and second, that will <whatever disaster> eventually make for a good musical? And then I try to think of song titles. The names of this Boris fellow might be a song it itself, almost supercalifragilistic.

  • <snip>then a large swathe of the electorate is going to draw the lesson that prolonged demonstration and agitation is the best way to get what one wants, <snip>

    And this bothers you ... because ...?

    Because of this sort of thing?
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    What! Ae you sure? After 100 years of taking their pay and not doing anything to represent anyone who has elected them? If so, that would mean we live in even stranger times than I thought.

    SF MPs do represent their consituents. They don't take their seat in the House of Commons but they do everything but that.

    And people vote for them knowing they won't take their seats.

    Yeah, it's really no use berating them for not taking the seats. It's understandably frustrating and it seems like a major sacrifice for pure symbolism, but symbolism is utterly crucial in Irish nationalism and the long game Sinn Fein has been playing. Any SF MP who considered taking a seat would have the litany of martyrs and all the years of blood and tears ringing an alarm in his head (and from his constituents if he aired the thought aloud). It would be political suicide and probably feel like a spiritual one as well.
  • Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg is an absolute disgrace and must apologise forthwith.
  • Robertus L wrote: »

    The Machiavellian may note the the PM has a majority on of less than 6000 in his own constituency - if the LibDems/Green with choose not to put up candidates, or to not campaign particularly hard, he could be forced to spend lots of time nursing his own constituents - keeping him from campaigning in the Midlands and Nort West of England

    I have read that The Boundaries Commission has recommended changes to the Uxbridge and South Ruislip Seat which will not be to the Conservative Part interest.

Sign In or Register to comment.