politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris might need much more than Moggsy’s public backing if he’s to make it
Moggsy appears to be ruling himself out of the leadership and is set to back fellow Etonian BoJohttps://t.co/Snu75YfUiB
Read the full story here
Comments
Neither has May mind you.
If the ERG cannot organise 48 MPs to trigger a VONC, they’ll struggle to get the 80-108 MPs required to get Boris on the final two.
Seems like a sick joke now.
Sold out the UK fishing industry, making any trade deal contingent on buying off of EU fishing fleets with access to British waters.
Agreed that the CJEU will remain the sole arbiter for EU law in the UK (that we will be indefinitely bound by, but have no say in drafting).
Zero changes to the godforsaken backstop, in direct contravention to the assurances she made her cabinet.
Whew boi, that's quite the litany of incompetence and dishonesty even for May.
The very idea is ludicrous.
In that unlikely scenario the pro-EU and pro-deal sections of the Parliamentary party would be routed and though some diehards might cling to their view the issue would be settled. The converse isn't the case, because only one side of this argument has any attachment to reality.
Brexit has emboldened them.
If you call yourself a One Nation Tory and voted for Brexit then you’ve really soiled the bed.
If they all "fuck off" the Tories are basically dead!
She clearly feels the centre ground is there.
We shall see.
Yes, you know he'll betray you. But you also know he'll betray you in a way which is predictable and can be planned for in advance.
Compare that to someone like Gove, who you know will betray you, but you won't know when, and won't see it coming.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/22/matt-hancock-says-second-brexit-referendum-is-possible
Things like reducing condom supply and teaching abstinence only was a real highlight.
Apparently that alone will reduce unwanted/teenage pregnancies.
Inside the Customs Union but outside the CFP ?
Or is it really a 'true Norway' ?
The omnishambles gutted the coalition until about six months before the GE of 2015.
Either would be a humiliation for May and a total repudiation of the strategy (if you can call it that) for her entire premiership.
Fish products are the only things outside the Customs Union (even though, as we know, the UK is in).
But the UK takes back control of its waters (and probably agrees a deal to smooth those two things out).
Plus he's not shown any inclination to want the job. (Even less so now, I'd imagine.)
I saw him on Marr a couple of weeks back and had to turn him off... Complete and total waste of space waffling on about absolutely nothing...
Have a guess what May has just done...
For that matter, May also has put Ruth in a tricky spot too. A lot of Scottish Tory voters did so because they believed Ruth's assurances about fishing.
May has just made Ruth a liar to her supporters.
It's being negotiated earlier and will come into place sooner than the FP. Of course such things are not in isolation, though.
Question is, did May know she was going to betray Scottish Tories? This might be the important question for Mundell: she lied to your face, you need to decided whether it's malice or incompetence.
The problem wasn't having the referendum (indeed, Clegg in 2007 or so whipped his party to abstain on a Lisbon referendum vote, advocating a 'real' In/Out referendum), it was having it so late.
Anyway, the Cabinet piss-and-wind 5 have clearly go nowhere with their version of the "deal". Resignation time? Or keep the Ministerial car? Tough decisions....
Staying in the EU will cede control of our waters.
This deal might or might not cede control of our waters ^_~
Incompetence or malice? Mixture of both, maybe?
That's a calculation for the Cabinet.
*waves at grabcocque*
"Duress is a means by which a person or party can be released from a contract, where that person or party has been forced or coerced into the contract. If this coercion can be shown to be true then the contract entered into cannot not be considered a valid agreement.
Traditionally Duress only related to Duress to the person, which in effect required actual violence or threatened violence against the person or party to the contract. The application of Duress has since expanded and it is now recognised that duress may be economic in nature and deal with threats of damage to property / goods and also threats or demands for money.
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/duress-makes-a-contract-voidable-contract-law-essay.php
(I might not be entirely serious, but hey.....)
Had it been Saudi and he'd done a Trumpish "mustn't intervene in other people's judicial systems" whitewash, he might have been.
How dare you!
86% of votes at the 2017 General Election were for parties pledging to implement it. No ifs, no buts, no Second Vote.
But hey, you know better than the voters.....
https://twitter.com/RossThomson_MP/status/1065576576639750144
Looks like Theresa May betraying the UK fishing industry and lying to the faces of Scots Tories might, in fact, be a story with legs.