politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The front page of Private Eye captures the political mood perf

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The front page of Private Eye captures the political mood perfectly

*grudging standing ovation for @PrivateEyeNews* pic.twitter.com/5fGCLStlGf

Read the full story here

FF43

First out the door.

Big_G_NorthWales

Second like remain

Stark_Dawning

Sean_F said:

chrisoxon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The Minister for Winging It is being found out. David Davis had years to learn how the EU works, to understand how complex leaving would be and to research what dynamics drive international trade agreements. But he could not be bothered. He found it much more agreeable to wave Union Jacks and to talk airily about the tyranny of Brussels.

What seems to unite the right-wing Brexit elite is a complete aversion to detail, hard work and preparation. The UK will pay the price economically and in terms of our global standing. If you give power to plastic patriots shielded from real life by wealth and privilege that's what happens.

I'm confused now. You're saying that all Brexiteers are wealthy and privileged, while @williamglenn says we're all stupid and poor?

Could it maybe be that people of all backgrounds voted were split between both sides last year and that while there are some trends, drawing a crude caricature of supporters is a dumb idea?

A point well made.

Brexiteers can't simultaneously be privileged folks who are shielded from the consequences from their votes, and at the same time thick and poor.

FPT: A distinction must be made between the Brexit Elite - a coterie of moneyed posh boys who loathe the dynamism and egalitarianism that EU membership brings and long for a return to the Ealing Britain of the 1950s when they were in charge - and the poor, wretched masses they duped into voting for their own doom.

Theuniondivvie

Sick, but funny.

https://twitter.com/Nick_Pettigrew/status/910120997826781186

Beverley_C

Mrs May should demote Boris to Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Culture, Media and Sport.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Is 2.5 still value, d'you think?

Edited extra bit: Ladbrokes also has 3.75 for him to not be FS on 25 September.

Ishmael_Z

Stark_Dawning said:

Sean_F said:

chrisoxon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The Minister for Winging It is being found out. David Davis had years to learn how the EU works, to understand how complex leaving would be and to research what dynamics drive international trade agreements. But he could not be bothered. He found it much more agreeable to wave Union Jacks and to talk airily about the tyranny of Brussels.

What seems to unite the right-wing Brexit elite is a complete aversion to detail, hard work and preparation. The UK will pay the price economically and in terms of our global standing. If you give power to plastic patriots shielded from real life by wealth and privilege that's what happens.

I'm confused now. You're saying that all Brexiteers are wealthy and privileged, while @williamglenn says we're all stupid and poor?

Could it maybe be that people of all backgrounds voted were split between both sides last year and that while there are some trends, drawing a crude caricature of supporters is a dumb idea?

A point well made.

Brexiteers can't simultaneously be privileged folks who are shielded from the consequences from their votes, and at the same time thick and poor.

FPT: A distinction must be made between the Brexit Elite - a coterie of moneyed posh boys who loathe the dynamism and egalitarianism that EU membership brings and long for a return to the Ealing Britain of the 1950s when they were in charge - and the poor, wretched masses they duped into voting for their own doom.

Unlike the Bremain Elite - a coterie of moneyed posh boys who love the well-paid sinecures that EU membership brings.

The accursed power which stands on Privilege
(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge)
Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign:
(Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne).

RochdalePioneers

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Richard_Nabavi

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

GIN1138

Any market's on when former peace loving exile and now blood-thirsty warlord Aung San Suu Kyi be stripped of her Nobel Peace Prize?

RochdalePioneers

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I remember the night that pillock Purnell flounced out of Brown's cabinet expecting a similar phalanx of supporters to flounce with him.

He's still waiting...

Richard_Nabavi

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I remember the night that pillock Purnell flounced out of Brown's cabinet expecting a similar phalanx of supporters to flounce with him.

He's still waiting...

Yes, exactly. These things need careful planning.

Benpointer

Richard_Nabavi said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I remember the night that pillock Purnell flounced out of Brown's cabinet expecting a similar phalanx of supporters to flounce with him.

He's still waiting...

Yes, exactly. These things need careful planning.

That probably rules Boris out then.

Ishmael_Z

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I remember the night that pillock Purnell flounced out of Brown's cabinet expecting a similar phalanx of supporters to flounce with him.

He's still waiting...

Brown was bloody scary. TMay, less so.

Mortimer

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

GIN1138

Here's what Speaker B said to Aung San Suu Kyi when she addressed both house's of Parliamenet in 2012;

"This Hall has hosted many events over the past 900 years. In recent times only a few international figures - Charles de Gaulle, Nelson Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI and Barack Obama - have spoken here. Today Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will become the first figure other than a Head of State, the first woman from abroad and the first citizen of Asia to do so.

This is not a break from precedent without a purpose. The courage of our guest is legendary. She has withstood the unimaginable suffering of separation from her family and her people with a dignity, fortitude and resolve which most of us can barely conceive. Her connections with the United Kingdom, reinforced in Oxford yesterday, are intimate. She has been the symbol of resistance to a regime which even in an imperfect world has been exceptional in its barbarity. As the UN has documented, and from three trips to Burma's borders I can myself attest, this is a cabal guilty of rape as a weapon of war, extra-judicial killings, compulsory relocation, forced labour, deployment of child soldiers, use of human minesweepers, incarceration of opponents in unspeakable conditions, destruction of villages, obstruction of aid and excruciating torture. Burma has become a beautiful but benighted land where fear runs through society like blood flowing through veins. One woman has now defied a dictatorship of such depravity for two decades. That is why Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a leader and a stateswoman, is here with us this afternoon.

However, there is room for cautious optimism. The recent election to Parliament of our guest, accompanied by 42 of her colleagues, and the release of many political prisoners are welcome signs of reform. We earnestly hope that further, and fundamental, reform will ultimately lead to the freedom, democracy and rule of law which we have so long enjoyed and the people of Burma have too long been denied. There is an Asian saying that a journey of a thousand miles must start with a single step. We are proud that one such step will be taken in this Parliament today.

Parliamentary colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to welcome the conscience of a country and a heroine for humanity, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi."



http://www.johnbercow.co.uk/content/speakers-address-daw-aung-san-suu-kyi


Things might get a tad "embarrassing" if she doesn't start towing the line soon...

AlastairMeeks

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

Richard_Nabavi

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

Richard_Nabavi

AlastairMeeks said:

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

Not if he's got any sense.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

He's not planning his career; he's planning his obituary.

AlastairMeeks

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

We can assume that whatever Boris Johnson is doing now has been carefully planned over the summer.

Benpointer

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

Brexit = no food riots. Phew, that's a relief then!

anothernick

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

You might avoid food riots but you'd get a few tractor blockades on the motorways I guess. Farmers would be bankrupted overnight.

Benpointer

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

We can assume that whatever Boris Johnson is doing now has been carefully planned over the summer.

Mmmm - he didn't plan his post-Brexit ascension so well.

williamglenn

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

We can assume that whatever Boris Johnson is doing now has been carefully planned over the summer.

Mmmm - he didn't plan his post-Brexit ascension so well.

It was all planned perfectly. It all went wrong when he won the referedum by mistake.

blueblue

Sigh - the political timing of the last few years has been so damned fcuked up.

Boris as leader after Cameron, fighting a post-Remain GE in 2020: Tory Maj nailed on.

Boris as leader after Cameron, fighting a post-Leave GE in 2017: Tory Maj probable.

Boris as leader after May, fighting a peri-Brexit GE in 2018/19/20: PM Corbyn probable.

We're well into the point of diminishing returns... but who can do better?

AlastairMeeks

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

We can assume that whatever Boris Johnson is doing now has been carefully planned over the summer.

Mmmm - he didn't plan his post-Brexit ascension so well.

He'd been rather busier beforehand.

Casino_Royale

If Boris does flounce, I expect him to do it just *after* the Florence speech, i.e. in response to it, so in that sense over the weekend would make sense.

It would set him up for Tory conference, or make him a pariah, and it's difficult to know what the reaction would be. Would he really want to do it before, or actually during (for even more drama) or just after?

That said, I can also believe the rumours that it's his enemies putting it about that he's going to resign by the end of the week, forcing him to put up or shut up.

In which case, he will do neither.

Casino_Royale

Stark_Dawning said:

Sean_F said:

chrisoxon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The Minister for Winging It is being found out. David Davis had years to learn how the EU works, to understand how complex leaving would be and to research what dynamics drive international trade agreements. But he could not be bothered. He found it much more agreeable to wave Union Jacks and to talk airily about the tyranny of Brussels.

What seems to unite the right-wing Brexit elite is a complete aversion to detail, hard work and preparation. The UK will pay the price economically and in terms of our global standing. If you give power to plastic patriots shielded from real life by wealth and privilege that's what happens.

I'm confused now. You're saying that all Brexiteers are wealthy and privileged, while @williamglenn says we're all stupid and poor?

Could it maybe be that people of all backgrounds voted were split between both sides last year and that while there are some trends, drawing a crude caricature of supporters is a dumb idea?

A point well made.

Brexiteers can't simultaneously be privileged folks who are shielded from the consequences from their votes, and at the same time thick and poor.

FPT: A distinction must be made between the Brexit Elite - a coterie of moneyed posh boys who loathe the dynamism and egalitarianism that EU membership brings and long for a return to the Ealing Britain of the 1950s when they were in charge - and the poor, wretched masses they duped into voting for their own doom.

Got it. Anyone who voted for Brexit had no good reason to do so, and are confused and morally compromised people.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

Yet he mucked up last time, didn't he?

I quite like Boris as a person. He provides some much-needed light relief in politics. But I'm far from sure that someone who wants the job quite as much as he does, that has shown so little competence in the roles he has had, and who was so spectacularly shafted the previous time he went for the top job, should be allowed another chance.

I'm also far from sure he's up to it. Then again, there are not too many potential candidates on the Conservative benches who are ...

Casino_Royale

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Casino_Royale

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

Casino_Royale

Perhaps others can fill me in but I really struggle to believe (given her history and well-documented personal integrity) that Aung San Suu Kyi is complicit in war crimes.

How do we know the military aren't pulling the strings and trying to soil her name?

Dura_Ace

Benpointer said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

Brexit = no food riots. Phew, that's a relief then!

Remember, "not that bad" is now the absolute upper limit of the leavers' expectations for their project.

Sean_F

anothernick said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

You might avoid food riots but you'd get a few tractor blockades on the motorways I guess. Farmers would be bankrupted overnight.

You don't think it will be the like the Britain depicted in The Wargame?

JosiasJessop

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

MarkHopkins

#boris4PM

Mortimer

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Ha. Indeed.

Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, for what it's worth, that's my reading. If she wanted to try and stop it, that would put her against the military, who remain powerful, and many Burmese people. It's hard to say how she thinks that would turn out, or how it would in reality.

For the military, she's acting as a lightning rod for international condemnation.

JosiasJessop

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps others can fill me in but I really struggle to believe (given her history and well-documented personal integrity) that Aung San Suu Kyi is complicit in war crimes.

How do we know the military aren't pulling the strings and trying to soil her name?

I asked a similar question a couple of weeks back, and Dr Sox gave an interesting link that gave a little perspective on the situation.

But at the end of the day, if you are the leader then you are responsible. It is happening in her name. If she cannot control what her own military is doing, she should just resign and make it clear that she has no control.

It's perfectly possible that she becomes the first recipient of the peace prize to appear at the Hague.

williamglenn

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Ha. Indeed.

Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...

Is that why we still control the Suez canal?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, but if she did resign, who would take over? It could precipitate the collapse of the (partial) democracy Burma now has.

As Syria/Iraq/Libya has taught us, even very bad situations can become much worse.

Mortimer

My take on Boris;

May is not going for a Swiss style Brexit, but a Canada Plus one. I.e. Exactly as elucidated in Lancaster House speech.

Boris is putting down his red lines to demonstrate a) he is influential and b) Hammond (surely his main rival for the leadership, now) is less so

Mortimer

williamglenn said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Ha. Indeed.

Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...

Is that why we still control the Suez canal?

Remind me when the Suez Canal was located in Europe?

Benpointer

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Ha. Indeed.

Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...

What would 'not surrendering' look like in this instance?

Mortimer

Benpointer said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Ha. Indeed.

Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...

What would 'not surrendering' look like in this instance?

Not giving in to such shenanigans as 'tell us how much you want to pay us for Leaving, and it better be in the high tens of billions, and you're not going to know what that money buys you'.

philiph

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

That probably rules Boris out then.

I don't think so, actually. When it comes to career progression, Boris has planned ahead quite carefully and skilfully.

Yet he mucked up last time, didn't he?

I quite like Boris as a person. He provides some much-needed light relief in politics. But I'm far from sure that someone who wants the job quite as much as he does, that has shown so little competence in the roles he has had, and who was so spectacularly shafted the previous time he went for the top job, should be allowed another chance.

I'm also far from sure he's up to it. Then again, there are not too many potential candidates on the Conservative benches who are ...

I think it depends on what type of PM you are going to be.

He is good at the communications, the vision the big picture, not so keen on the detail.

If he is good or bad would be decided by the people he places in important positions who will implement policy, and how they are allowed to do so.

If he is going to be hands on, micromanage and detail obsessed, then forget it, that isn't him.

Casino_Royale

Mortimer said:

My take on Boris;

May is not going for a Swiss style Brexit, but a Canada Plus one. I.e. Exactly as elucidated in Lancaster House speech.

Boris is putting down his red lines to demonstrate a) he is influential and b) Hammond (surely his main rival for the leadership, now) is less so

She is going for (IMHO) big payment (probably £9bn net payment or so over 3 years from 2019-2022, very similar to now, plus another £12bn upfront) for a transition period to GE2022, a commitment to shadow EU regulation for that period, and a commitment to not "dump" tax or regulation to undercut the EU in the longer-run.

In other words, kicking the can down the road and saving the real negotiations on the deal to take effect post GE2022 for later.

Mortimer

Benpointer said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

Ha. Indeed.

Despite the twisting of the historical facts yesterday, Remainers doom mongering about Brexit forget that we don't tend to surrender to bullying by third parties...

What would 'not surrendering' look like in this instance?

And on the other side of the coin, it also suggests to me that more blame will be put at the feet of the EU than anyone else.

Casino_Royale

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps others can fill me in but I really struggle to believe (given her history and well-documented personal integrity) that Aung San Suu Kyi is complicit in war crimes.

How do we know the military aren't pulling the strings and trying to soil her name?

I asked a similar question a couple of weeks back, and Dr Sox gave an interesting link that gave a little perspective on the situation.

But at the end of the day, if you are the leader then you are responsible. It is happening in her name. If she cannot control what her own military is doing, she should just resign and make it clear that she has no control.

It's perfectly possible that she becomes the first recipient of the peace prize to appear at the Hague.

Maybe she should, but I suspect it's not as simple as that in Burma.

Casino_Royale

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

anothernick said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

You might avoid food riots but you'd get a few tractor blockades on the motorways I guess. Farmers would be bankrupted overnight.

You don't think it will be the like the Britain depicted in The Wargame?

Threads.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Royale, he should've hung around in Parliament. Even if May's 2017 election had gone well, she wasn't going to be there forever and Osborne had plenty of time to wait.

anothernick

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

My take on Boris;

May is not going for a Swiss style Brexit, but a Canada Plus one. I.e. Exactly as elucidated in Lancaster House speech.

Boris is putting down his red lines to demonstrate a) he is influential and b) Hammond (surely his main rival for the leadership, now) is less so

She is going for (IMHO) big payment (probably £9bn net payment or so over 3 years from 2019-2022, very similar to now, plus another £12bn upfront) for a transition period to GE2022, a commitment to shadow EU regulation for that period, and a commitment to not "dump" tax or regulation to undercut the EU in the longer-run.

In other words, kicking the can down the road and saving the real negotiations on the deal to take effect post GE2022 for later.

So the UK will remain in the EU economic structure but leave the political structure. We will have to accept rules that we have no say in making and we will pay for the privilege.

This seems to me a very good deal from the EU's point of view. What incentive will they have to agree a final settlement with the UK - better just to let the "transitional arrangement" continue as long as possible. And the UK will still face an economic cliff edge if it wants out.

Casino_Royale

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, for what it's worth, that's my reading. If she wanted to try and stop it, that would put her against the military, who remain powerful, and many Burmese people. It's hard to say how she thinks that would turn out, or how it would in reality.

For the military, she's acting as a lightning rod for international condemnation.

Yes, I think the truth is extremely complicated.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/910147252596985856

Roger

Beverley_C said:

Mrs May should demote Boris to Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Culture, Media and Sport.

Agreed. As Samual Pepys once said, 'A man does well when he rids himself of a turd'

Charles

GIN1138 said:

Any market's on when former peace loving exile and now blood-thirsty warlord Aung San Suu Kyi be stripped of her Nobel Peace Prize?

Is that before or after the US president who, by kicking the van down the road, did more to increase the risk of war than anyone else?

Charles

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps others can fill me in but I really struggle to believe (given her history and well-documented personal integrity) that Aung San Suu Kyi is complicit in war crimes.

How do we know the military aren't pulling the strings and trying to soil her name?

Because she's the leader of her country and is not condemning/preventing them.

She is morally complicit, even if she isn't there with a machete

stevef

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

CopperSulphate

Casino_Royale said:

Perhaps others can fill me in but I really struggle to believe (given her history and well-documented personal integrity) that Aung San Suu Kyi is complicit in war crimes.

How do we know the military aren't pulling the strings and trying to soil her name?

It's amazing that wherever Islam goes there is death and violence and yet they always seem to be the victims. They do have an awful lot of bad luck.

Mortimer

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

Agreed.

We're not going there. It would be a reversal of everything done so far.

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

From the way some were talking about it on the previous thread, they were making it sound like the EU would succeed where the U-boats failed in 1942.

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

logical_song

Bye bye BoJo.
Best not to be involved any further with the current mess, even though you were pivotal in creating it.

Richard_Tyndall

I can't figure the politics of this as far as Boris is concerned. It seems like lunacy.

There are only two options regarding what May was or is going to say in her speech. If she was going to say everything that Boris wanted to hear then right now she will need to be frantically rewriting her speech or it will seem like she has surrendered to him. If she was not going to say what he wanted to hear then she is Dan sure not going to change it now or again she will appear (rightly) to be surrendering to him.

This is surely a no-win situation for Boris.

williamglenn

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

not_on_fire

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.

Richard_Tyndall

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.

The reasons were entirely within his control. He misread the mood of both his own party and the nation.

Mortimer

not_on_fire said:

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

On the contrary, it perfectly reflects the narrow vote to leave.

When you have two options, Leave or Remain, throwing away all the benefits of Leave and all the benefits of Rrmain is not a compromise that reflects any result. It would be damn foolish.

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

It is entirely lawful for the government to invoke Article 50. That is not an "attack" on anybody.

dixiedean

Trump's speech to the UN greeted with rapturous indifference. Many issues raised. No answers proposed.

williamglenn

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

It is entirely lawful for the government to invoke Article 50. That is not an "attack" on anybody.

The rhetoric of the Brexiteers was a very clear existential challenge to the EU.

CopperSulphate

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

It is entirely lawful for the government to invoke Article 50. That is not an "attack" on anybody.

The rhetoric of the Brexiteers was a very clear existential challenge to the EU.

Bloody hell give it a rest.

CopperSulphate

Richard_Tyndall said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.

The reasons were entirely within his control. He misread the mood of both his own party and the nation.

If he kept his head down afterwards then he'd be in prime position to be the next leader anyway.

But he flounced off to the Standard and went insane.

dixiedean

Richard_Tyndall said:

I can't figure the politics of this as far as Boris is concerned. It seems like lunacy.

There are only two options regarding what May was or is going to say in her speech. If she was going to say everything that Boris wanted to hear then right now she will need to be frantically rewriting her speech or it will seem like she has surrendered to him. If she was not going to say what he wanted to hear then she is Dan sure not going to change it now or again she will appear (rightly) to be surrendering to him.

This is surely a no-win situation for Boris.

Boris has seen the speech first draft (as will other Senior Ministers). It can only be that he didn't like it. The ball is in TM's court now. She will either cave in or Boris walks with several others, but he'd prefer to be fired to play the martyr.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Tyndall said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.

The reasons were entirely within his control. He misread the mood of both his own party and the nation.

He had a golden opportunity to win over Tory MPs and party members post GE2015 to his cause.

Instead, he tried to bribe and threaten his own colleagues, whilst using his position to beat his own voters, activists, members with a stick in an attempt to show other non-Tory voters he was secretly on their side.

eek

CopperSulphate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.

The reasons were entirely within his control. He misread the mood of both his own party and the nation.

If he kept his head down afterwards then he'd be in prime position to be the next leader anyway.

But he flounced off to the Standard and went insane.

Doesn't that show how badly the election went. Back in April everyone including George expected a Tory majority and for his career to be finished. So George left for an easy job.

Yet they made such a mess of the election that George would probably be PM by now if he had just waited..

Casino_Royale

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

Are you the Persian King Xerxes from 300?

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

It is entirely lawful for the government to invoke Article 50. That is not an "attack" on anybody.

The rhetoric of the Brexiteers was a very clear existential challenge to the EU.

Those members who see advantage to being in the EU will remain members. Those who don't will not. That's not affected by our decision.

Richard_Tyndall

It is notable though that with the exception of a few diehards like TSE absolutely no one in the Tory party seems to be sorry to see the back of Osborne.

Richard_Tyndall

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

Are you the Persian King Xerxes from 300?

The arrogance is certainly there.

TOPPING

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Forget the bloody name-calling and talk about practicalities. If Brexit types want WTO then we have the small hurdle to overcome of we don't have the time needed to set up for it. Give me detail of how we overcome the very real barriers not rhetoric and abuse.

Agreed.

My suggestion would be that, in the unlikely event of us not having a short more of the same transition deal, we'd go zero tariffs/importer certification on all foods. Food riots are not going to happen.

Is that any way for a modern, sophisticated economy to conduct itself?!

williamglenn

Richard_Tyndall said:

It is notable though that with the exception of a few diehards like TSE absolutely no one in the Tory party seems to be sorry to see the back of him.

A certain type of Tory feels that they were living under a Blairite dictatorship from 1997 (or possibly even earlier) until June 23rd last year, and that now they've taken back control.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

SouthamObserver said:

The EU is not attacking us. We are leaving, having been told by those who led the campaign for our withdrawal that it would be easy to do and there would be no downsides. That is not the EU's fault. The Tory manifesto promised us a Brexit that would create a more prosperous and fairer Britain. It is time to deliver.

The EU is not attacking us - we're attacking it.

Gove said before the referendum that it would spark "the democratic liberation of a whole continent" and Boris said that we would speak for "hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice".

We picked a fight that we are inevitably going to lose.

It is entirely lawful for the government to invoke Article 50. That is not an "attack" on anybody.

The rhetoric of the Brexiteers was a very clear existential challenge to the EU.

Those members who see advantage to being in the EU will remain members. Those who don't will not. That's not affected by our decision.

Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.

If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.

The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.

Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.

CopperSulphate

eek said:

CopperSulphate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Boris is intending to flounce as a calculated step on his great mission to endow us with a Prime Minister christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, then if he's doing it right he won't be acting alone. He'll have some cabinet co-flouncers, and he'll have backbench and minister-of-state level MPs primed and ready to get the bandwagon rolling.

I take it that he won't be making the mistake of relying on Michael Gove for a second time.

But, if Michael Gove wants to be leader (and I think he does) he's going to have to avoid making the same mistakes again himself, and show he can be trusted.

Personally, I think he can't resist playing politics (with a small "p") and that will prevent him ever getting to the top.

My own view is that some of the people who are continually marked out for the top job don't actually want it; however people thinking they do might help them in their various aims. An example of this is Osborne, who I really don't think wanted to be PM.

Gove might be the same. I'm unsure he really wants the top job, but the talk of the potential gives him a certain amount of power and influence within and outwith the party.

On the other hand, I get the impression that BoJo really wants the top job.

I think George Osborne absolutely wanted to be PM, had it all lined up, and thought it slipped through his fingers for reasons beyond his control.

The reasons were entirely within his control. He misread the mood of both his own party and the nation.

If he kept his head down afterwards then he'd be in prime position to be the next leader anyway.

But he flounced off to the Standard and went insane.

Doesn't that show how badly the election went. Back in April everyone including George expected a Tory majority and for his career to be finished. So George left for an easy job.

Yet they made such a mess of the election that George would probably be PM by now if he had just waited..

Even if it went well there would be a change of leader sooner or later. He just had to hang around and not do anything too stupid.

I think half of his bitterness comes from the fact that he knows he screwed up leaving parliament.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Tyndall said:

It is notable though that with the exception of a few diehards like TSE absolutely no one in the Tory party seems to be sorry to see the back of Osborne.

To be fair to TSE, I think both politically and socially he and Osborne are very similar, and both got on well with one another.

But, that's not a huge demographic.

williamglenn

Casino_Royale said:

Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.

If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.

The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.

Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.

I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.

Morris_Dancer

Meanwhile, in the Communist Party:
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/910161767233458176

Verulamius

Boris is currently in a quantum wave state, which will collapse after May's Florence speech.

TOPPING

Mortimer said:

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

Agreed.

We're not going there. It would be a reversal of everything done so far.

I like others struggle to see how you have leaped from Brexit to DefCon 1.

The EFTA states aren't in the EU, and not subject to the supposedly egregious whims of the ECJ. I mean ask Richard Tyndall for heaven's sake. He would be happy for us to go EEA/EFTA (which I appreciate logistically might not be possible) and if there's anyone there who sees sovereignty-eating monsters behind the sofa, it's him.

We could leave the EU and be EFTA/EEA and we would not be in the EU. To say it is a "betrayal of the referendum result" is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking/fantasy on your part (unless you have asked all 34-odd million voters about it).

Richard_Tyndall

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.

If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.

The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.

Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.

I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.

Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.

Richard_Tyndall

TOPPING said:

Mortimer said:

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

Agreed.

We're not going there. It would be a reversal of everything done so far.

I like others struggle to see how you have leaped from Brexit to DefCon 1.

The EFTA states aren't in the EU, and not subject to the supposedly egregious whims of the ECJ. I mean ask Richard Tyndall for heaven's sake. He would be happy for us to go EEA/EFTA (which I appreciate logistically might not be possible) and if there's anyone there who sees sovereignty-eating monsters behind the sofa, it's him.

We could leave the EU and be EFTA/EEA and we would not be in the EU. To say it is a "betrayal of the referendum result" is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking/fantasy on your part (unless you have asked all 34-odd million voters about it).

We do agree on somethings although the use of the word sofa is one I might take issue with.

That said I agree with the rest of your posting.

TOPPING

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Mortimer said:

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

Agreed.

We're not going there. It would be a reversal of everything done so far.

I like others struggle to see how you have leaped from Brexit to DefCon 1.

The EFTA states aren't in the EU, and not subject to the supposedly egregious whims of the ECJ. I mean ask Richard Tyndall for heaven's sake. He would be happy for us to go EEA/EFTA (which I appreciate logistically might not be possible) and if there's anyone there who sees sovereignty-eating monsters behind the sofa, it's him.

We could leave the EU and be EFTA/EEA and we would not be in the EU. To say it is a "betrayal of the referendum result" is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking/fantasy on your part (unless you have asked all 34-odd million voters about it).

We do agree on somethings although the use of the word sofa is one I might take issue with.

That said I agree with the rest of your posting.

Are we losing it?

Richard_Tyndall

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Mortimer said:

stevef said:

A Swiss Brexit would be good reason to resign since it would mean that we were still under the control of the EU despite not being a member, we would still not have control of our borders despite not being a member, we were still subject to EU laws despite being not being amember. We would be in the EU in all but name despite Brexit. It would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

Agreed.

We're not going there. It would be a reversal of everything done so far.

I like others struggle to see how you have leaped from Brexit to DefCon 1.

The EFTA states aren't in the EU, and not subject to the supposedly egregious whims of the ECJ. I mean ask Richard Tyndall for heaven's sake. He would be happy for us to go EEA/EFTA (which I appreciate logistically might not be possible) and if there's anyone there who sees sovereignty-eating monsters behind the sofa, it's him.

We could leave the EU and be EFTA/EEA and we would not be in the EU. To say it is a "betrayal of the referendum result" is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking/fantasy on your part (unless you have asked all 34-odd million voters about it).

We do agree on somethings although the use of the word sofa is one I might take issue with.

That said I agree with the rest of your posting.

Are we losing it?

My wife thinks i lost it years ago.

Tim_B

dixiedean said:

Trump's speech to the UN greeted with rapturous indifference. Many issues raised. No answers proposed.

As good and succinct a description of the UN as I've seen.

Casino_Royale

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.

If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.

The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.

Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.

I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.

I think you'd be delighted to use the EU military to punish those who erred. I don't think it's a mischaracterisation at all.

Would you execute everyone, or only the ringleaders?

williamglenn

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.

If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.

The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.

Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.

I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.

Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.

I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.

Casino_Royale

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Ultimately, there's no getting around that. If people feel an identity, they will act with one.

If an EU member state whose people shared a national identity strongly wished to secede from the EU in future, the fact that it might be legally, constitutionally,or economically, extremely difficult to do so would not stop them from doing so, if they wished to do so.

The only option would be for the EU to resist it by force (something williamglenn would no doubt strongly approve of) or, the other softer approach, is to stop it happening in the first place by gradually breaking down national identities by promoting regional and European ones at their expense.

Something the EU has been pursuing as subsidiary policy for years, despite Europhiles insisting that's wrong and claiming anyone who thinks otherwise is barking.

I won't object to your mischaracterisation of my views, but I do think you're wrong on the substance. A nation that it confident in its national identity is one that is more able to play a constructive role within the EU. England needs its national identity back, and it's not the EU, but the UK, that is denying us our self-determination.

Says the man who has regularly objected to the concept of the nation state.

I've merely said that the nation state isn't the end point of civilisation. The European Union is a model of something that goes beyond the nation state, and does it very well. Your comparison of it with Yugoslavia is facile.

What you advocate represents the end of the nation state in any meaningful sense.

It moves them to member states, much more akin to (you guessed it) US States, but with less power.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, all power structures fail. If the Romans couldn't survive indefinitely, the EU most certainly will not.

rottenborough

Morris_Dancer said:

Meanwhile, in the Communist Party:
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/910161767233458176

How much of this can the moderates take before they grow a backbone?