I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
No such mistake is made. Satellite status is undesirable and it will happen under the WDA.
I agree satellite status as described by Rogers will happen eventually (80% probability maybe).
The big question since the referendum is whether Leavers accept this. That the symbolism of leaving is what matters, you take the "BINO" and move on.
This doesn't seem to be happening, which means that Brexit will be a failure in its own terms. The Spectator article is important in highlighting the failure.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
There are two options.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.
Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?
Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.
Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.
Writing rubbish for free remains as popular as ever, mind you.
And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places?
Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.
In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.
Can you name any of this supposed heavyweight talent , I need a laugh.
Perhaps I should just settle for "greater level of talent than is currently present in situ", some of whom weigh a lot.
Sounds more like it, any great talent on the back benches is well hidden and given state of Labour too cowardly to ever use any talent they may have or once were thought to have..
On the prospects for Boris as PM, I take some comfort that those saying we are about to suffer the Worst PM Evvah are overlapping in the venn diagram with those who told us to lay Boris as the favourite....
The universal opprobrium Boris receives is going to make it so much easier for him to clear the hurdles of OK PM. And probably means he will get away with stuff for which somebody lauded as Our Last Great Hope would have been lambasted.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
No such mistake is made. Satellite status is undesirable and it will happen under the WDA.
May's deal cunningly combines the worst features of leaving and remaining into one toxic mess. Why would anybody want it?
Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?
So what? Am I meant to be overawed by a self-styled welsh doctor not having heard of them?
Well you are clearly overawed by his arguments when your only replies are such sad rhetorical tropes.
It no different to posting quotes from Twitter users who might be Regius Professor of History or Head of Green Ink Letters and Crunchy Sock Usage at Bedroom Dwellers United as if they amount to a “gotcha”.
Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?
Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.
Did that not pre-date Thatcher?
And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
Interesting, and I guess that’s the origin of “Question number one” which now traditionally opens PMQs with the PM commenting on their engagements of the day.
The open, engagements of the day question, is credited (with a lot of reservations) to Labour's John Golding MP in 1975. In 1997, it was agreed to take it as read so prime ministers from Blair on have not had to refer the honourable lady or gentleman to the reply I made some moments ago half a dozen times each day.
Yes, as I understand it officially the process was (is) that all written PMQs were officially submitted and chosen in advance. So MPs knew in advance whether they were likely to be called. All written questions were answered in order and proponents were allowed one follow up question. The Speaker had discretion to allow further follow-up questions (this is why virtually every MP stands up as the question is asked, hoping to get lucky and catch the Speakers eye for one of these discretionary follow-ups).
This led to the occasional amusing circumstance where there might occasionally be a question on the order paper which was more specific than the generic open "engagements" question, and an MP not paying attention to the order paper would not notice this. (For a laugh) the Speaker would then call any such an MP foolish enough to stand up for this question, they would then ask their followup which had nothing to do with the order paper question and be ruled out of order to great hilarity in the House.
The Chinese national brand is the most harmful to perceptions of a product New data from the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project reveals which nation’s brands add the most value to goods that are manufactured there. The survey asked people in 23 countries whether they would think more or less positively about a product if it was made in one of 12 nations.
Across the 23 countries an average of 50% of people would think more positively about a product if they saw “made in Germany” written on it. By contrast, only 6% on average would think worse of the product for seeing its place of origin, giving products made in Germany an average net score of +45 and the top spot on the list.
When it comes to British goods, on average 41% of people across all countries think positively of them and only 6% negatively, giving a net score of +34 (tying in third place with France).
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
Sam Gyimah said on Sophy that upto 30 conservative mps are looking at ways of legislating against no deal, but will not support a vonc on the government. He said their objective is to open other options for the next PM
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
No such mistake is made. Satellite status is undesirable and it will happen under the WDA.
May's deal cunningly combines the worst features of leaving and remaining into one toxic mess. Why would anybody want it?
May's Deal gives the UK a two year standstill extension that allows Brexiteers to claim, we are out of the EU and that wasn't so bad, was it? After that people lose interest and won't notice all the subsequent concessions.
The "Transition Period" is the Brexiteers bestest bestest friend, but they didn't realise that.
The Chinese national brand is the most harmful to perceptions of a product New data from the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project reveals which nation’s brands add the most value to goods that are manufactured there. The survey asked people in 23 countries whether they would think more or less positively about a product if it was made in one of 12 nations.
Across the 23 countries an average of 50% of people would think more positively about a product if they saw “made in Germany” written on it. By contrast, only 6% on average would think worse of the product for seeing its place of origin, giving products made in Germany an average net score of +45 and the top spot on the list.
When it comes to British goods, on average 41% of people across all countries think positively of them and only 6% negatively, giving a net score of +34 (tying in third place with France).
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places?
Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.
In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.
Can you name any of this supposed heavyweight talent , I need a laugh.
Perhaps I should just settle for "greater level of talent than is currently present in situ", some of whom weigh a lot.
Sounds more like it, any great talent on the back benches is well hidden and given state of Labour too cowardly to ever use any talent they may have or once were thought to have..
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Then why are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the EU?
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.
Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?
Who was it who said they wanted to tear down parliament? Or take up a rifle? I don't think I have ever heard a Remainer threaten violence (and let's not talk about actual acts of violence, where I think the tally is even more skewed).
FWIW I don't think the Jonestown reference is appropriate, that death cult was mercifully uninterested in screwing up anyone else's life. But as a humorous analogy I think it's fine, and I think you're being a bit of a snowflake about it.
Mrs B, the shallow 'charm' (long since stale for me, to be honest) will quickly wear thin when the blonde jester runs into the brick wall of reality and actually has to govern rather than pretend he's a raconteur.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Then why are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the EU?
Because it's giving them money. Do you have a relevant point to make?
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
Sam Gyimah said on Sophy that upto 30 conservative mps are looking at ways of legislating against no deal, but will not support a vonc on the government. He said their objective is to open other options for the next PM
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
Some of their careers have already been ended, Grieve has lost s no confidence vote in his constituency and will likely be deselected before the next general election as has Lee and Gyimah is enough to face the same fate
The Chinese national brand is the most harmful to perceptions of a product New data from the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project reveals which nation’s brands add the most value to goods that are manufactured there. The survey asked people in 23 countries whether they would think more or less positively about a product if it was made in one of 12 nations.
Across the 23 countries an average of 50% of people would think more positively about a product if they saw “made in Germany” written on it. By contrast, only 6% on average would think worse of the product for seeing its place of origin, giving products made in Germany an average net score of +45 and the top spot on the list.
When it comes to British goods, on average 41% of people across all countries think positively of them and only 6% negatively, giving a net score of +34 (tying in third place with France).
The data shows that products from first world countries are regarded as better than those from South Korea, Mexico, Hong Kong and especially China.
No surprise there but what is noticeable is that products from Germany, USA and UK are rated especially highly in third world countries.
So an expanding middle class and increased affluence in third world countries do suggest a potential business opportunity for UK businesses.
There have always been huge opportunities. That will not change. What will change is that it will be harder and more expensive to do business in our biggest export market.
Surely the only acceptable post Brexit solution is for these foreign types to Know Their Place and do what we tell them again. It's the Cricket World Cup and all these countries we physically or culturally invaded are coming back to the Mother Country to play our sport and let us win.
All we need to know post Brexit is that Johnny foreigner will accept our goods as we damned well make them (ok, commission them to make them as we can't make stuff any more as industry is communism), accept our rules and standards, and let us ignore their obviously inferior rules and standards.
And if they don't like it , we will show them how trade was done when we invented it and send in one of our gunboats to show them who is in charge. Ok they'll need to build our gunboats for us as we shut the steelworks and the shipyards because communism, but they'll do that when we bally well tell them because we are ENGLAND
Sam Gyimah said on Sophy that upto 30 conservative mps are looking at ways of legislating against no deal, but will not support a vonc on the government. He said their objective is to open other options for the next PM
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
Some of their careers have already been ended, Grieve has lost s no confidence vote in his constituency and will likely be deselected before the next general election as has Lee and Gyimah is enough to face the same fate
And I see nothing to celebrate in your joy at these possible outcomes
The conservative party has to be a broad church, not a Farage tribute club as you would prefer
Sam Gyimah said on Sophy that upto 30 conservative mps are looking at ways of legislating against no deal, but will not support a vonc on the government. He said their objective is to open other options for the next PM
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
Mr. 43, indeed, though there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether limited influence is worth it if it entails submitting to all EU rules, whereas leaving means we have no say over the rules but they have a far more limited impact.
A question for Remainers would be: at what point is there 'too much' EU? We've seen national sovereignty eroded and the direction of travel is towards ever more integration. Are you committed to going all the way? How would you stop it if you think it's going too far?
There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the deplorable state of politics at the moment but this crossroads would never have been reached had the political class not led us down a path most people didn't want and were never asked to endorse. Brown in particular deserves censure for reneging upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
So how many times has the EU taken a decision which the UK supported and France and Germany opposed ?
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
So how many times has the EU taken a decision which the UK supported and France and Germany opposed ?
Why is the litmus test whether the UK was able to impose something on France and Germany?
As it happens, the UK got its way over enlargement, when France and Germany wanted to delay in order to pursue internal reform first.
Sam Gyimah said on Sophy that upto 30 conservative mps are looking at ways of legislating against no deal, but will not support a vonc on the government. He said their objective is to open other options for the next PM
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
Did he say what other options that would open ?
He hinted at various legitimate attempts to stear away from proroguing parliament and no deal but was very clear he will not vonc the government
56% of our exports go outside the EU now as your figures confirm, it would be difficult but not devastating if we trade with the EU on WTO terms as we do with most of the rest of the world
We do not currently trade with most of the rest of the world on WTO terms. We trade on terms negotiated by the EU. No Deal Brexit would nullify all those EU trade deals meaning we would suddenly jump to WTO (ie worse) on a lot more than the 44% of the export market being claimed.
The EU still does not have FTAs with most of the global economy e.g. China, the USA, India, Australia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc
Mr. NorthWales, Grieve largely shredded his own credibility.
I have memories (though I can't recall which of the umpteen votes it was) of him being offered, last minute, the concession he'd asked for and he cried in the Commons that it was "Too late". Hard to respect someone who gets given what they wanted yet decides it isn't good enough after all.
I'm not happy about deselections in most cases, I must say. Factionalism and valuing purity over pragmatism is the way of cults, not government.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Then why are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the EU?
Because it's giving them money. Do you have a relevant point to make?
I'm simply refuting the nonsense you wrote about the states of the former USSR. A waste of my time, no doubt.
The thing that I find astonishing is that anyone can consider themselves as a Conservative can think something as puerile as Brexit is more important than the Union. If this is so, then the Conservative Party is just the English Nationalist Party. The Conservative Party is completely and utterly infiltrated by swivel-eyed nutters
Mr. 43, indeed, though there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether limited influence is worth it if it entails submitting to all EU rules, whereas leaving means we have no say over the rules but they have a far more limited impact.
A question for Remainers would be: at what point is there 'too much' EU? We've seen national sovereignty eroded and the direction of travel is towards ever more integration. Are you committed to going all the way? How would you stop it if you think it's going too far?
There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the deplorable state of politics at the moment but this crossroads would never have been reached had the political class not led us down a path most people didn't want and were never asked to endorse. Brown in particular deserves censure for reneging upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum.
Blair, you mean. We've done this sketch before. By the time Brown came in, the treaty had been altered and downgraded after the French and Dutch people rejected it. Otherwise you can blame Cameron for not holding a referendum on Lisbon. Or Germany for outsmarting us.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.
Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?
Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.
Did that not pre-date Thatcher?
And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
Interesting, and I guess that’s the origin of “Question number one” which now traditionally opens PMQs with the PM commenting on their engagements of the day.
Yes indeed. Originally the supplementary question was supposed to be relevant as a follow up to the tabled question (as is the way question time still works in most local authorities), but it became so easy to link any topic to the PM's daily engagements ("when the PM is meeting ministers today, will s/he take time to....") that the supplementary - which was always the object of the exercise - became open. Eventually the endless repetition of the same answer to the same tabled question was dropped to save time.
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.
He sets out clearly why it is BINO. The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Satellite status is BINO, is cavalier colonialism and has no place in the 21st century.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
So how many times has the EU taken a decision which the UK supported and France and Germany opposed ?
The EU works on horse trading. Everyone gets a horse they want and allows the others to get their horse. Outside the EU presents a shopping list of demands from 27 different countries and trades this long list for access to its systems.
Mr. NorthWales, Grieve largely shredded his own credibility.
I have memories (though I can't recall which of the umpteen votes it was) of him being offered, last minute, the concession he'd asked for and he cried in the Commons that it was "Too late". Hard to respect someone who gets given what they wanted yet decides it isn't good enough after all.
I'm not happy about deselections in most cases, I must say. Factionalism and valuing purity over pragmatism is the way of cults, not government.
I do have concerns about Grieve as he seems to be using no deal as an excuse to assist his determination to stop brexit and that is dishonest and against the manifesto
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
In 1983 Thatcher got a landslide of 144 on just 42.4% as the opposition was split with 27% Labour and 25% SDP and in 1987 a landslide of 102 on just 42.2% as the opposition split was 31% Labour and 24% SDP.
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Are you alleging that the Spectator would publish something full of inaccurate bluster and prejudice, whose sole motivation is trashing the UK's institutions and arrangements to leave the country defenceless against the rapacious interests promoted by toxic lobbyists like the IEA?
why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
If people genuinely think no deal is as bad as they say, then they should be willing to pay that price. If they are not, they don't really think it is as bad as they claim.
The thing that I find astonishing is that anyone can consider themselves as a Conservative can think something as puerile as Brexit is more important than the Union. If this is so, then the Conservative Party is just the English Nationalist Party. The Conservative Party is completely and utterly infiltrated by swivel-eyed nutters
On that I absolutely agree.
However, Boris stated yesterday the Union is more important than even Brexit
The thing that I find astonishing is that anyone can consider themselves as a Conservative can think something as puerile as Brexit is more important than the Union. If this is so, then the Conservative Party is just the English Nationalist Party. The Conservative Party is completely and utterly infiltrated by swivel-eyed nutters
It has been an eye opener that the Union doesn't really matter to the Tories anymore. Oh, it does to some of them no doubt, and others will claim it does, but the Brexit 'do or die' attitude is explict in not caring about anything else at all. If we must, at any cost, Brexit by a specific date, that is clear that all else does not matter. No doubt adherents would say that the Union, and other things, will not be at risk (or any more risk) in that scenario, but that doesn't disguise that the Brexit objective can overrule anything else.
BJ adds 2.5% to the projected Tory vote but he pushes up the vote for all the opposition parties (ex BXP) by 1% or thereabouts, slightly more for the LibDems. Which hardly looks decisive (the Tories aren't going to win an election on 24%) compared to his actual performance in the early days in the job.
Mr. 43, indeed, though there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether limited influence is worth it if it entails submitting to all EU rules, whereas leaving means we have no say over the rules but they have a far more limited impact.
A question for Remainers would be: at what point is there 'too much' EU? We've seen national sovereignty eroded and the direction of travel is towards ever more integration. Are you committed to going all the way? How would you stop it if you think it's going too far?
There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the deplorable state of politics at the moment but this crossroads would never have been reached had the political class not led us down a path most people didn't want and were never asked to endorse. Brown in particular deserves censure for reneging upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum.
I think being "Masters of our own ship" is a perfectly respectable objective. But there's a problem if Brexit achieves the opposite of that.
I realise I am not entirely addressing your point of when is there "too much EU" and what do you do about it. For my part I am ok with the EU being a glass half full project when the alternative is no glass at all.
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
In 1983 Thatcher got a landslide of 144 on just 42.4% as the opposition was split with 27% Labour and 25% SDP and in 1987 a landslide of 102 as the opposition split was 30% Labour and 22% SDP.
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Judging by the press this morning Corbyn could be gone before the Autumn
The thing that I find astonishing is that anyone can consider themselves as a Conservative can think something as puerile as Brexit is more important than the Union. If this is so, then the Conservative Party is just the English Nationalist Party. The Conservative Party is completely and utterly infiltrated by swivel-eyed nutters
On that I absolutely agree.
However, Boris stated yesterday the Union is more important than even Brexit
The thing that I find astonishing is that anyone can consider themselves as a Conservative can think something as puerile as Brexit is more important than the Union. If this is so, then the Conservative Party is just the English Nationalist Party. The Conservative Party is completely and utterly infiltrated by swivel-eyed nutters
On that I absolutely agree.
However, Boris stated yesterday the Union is more important than even Brexit
The argument is utter rubbish. The EU's destination is statehood and federalism. The United Kingdom isn't part of that plan, and even if Brexit did put it at risk (which it doesn't), failing to leave would result in a temporary stay of execution at best.
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
In 1983 Thatcher got a landslide of 144 on just 42.4% as the opposition was split with 27% Labour and 25% SDP and in 1987 a landslide of 102 as the opposition split was 30% Labour and 22% SDP.
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Judging by the press this morning Corbyn could be gone before the Autumn
Which if there is a general election beforehand would be too late to save Labour
why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
If people genuinely think no deal is as bad as they say, then they should be willing to pay that price. If they are not, they don't really think it is as bad as they claim.
I expect it is self interest and a fear of Corbyn government
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters.
Over 50% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections, 36% voted Tory, only 12% voted LD
The last paragraph, from a woman who knew Johnson during his Bullington Club days, is chilling:
"The characteristics he displayed at Oxford – entitlement, aggression, amorality, lack of concern for others – are still there, dressed up in a contrived, jovial image. It’s a mask to sanitise some ugly features.”
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters
The way you dismiss fellow conservative members is a disgrace
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters.
Damage limitation isn't the same as winning an election
And 'we' were not outsmarted. The UK Government, under Brown, chose to sign it.
Cameron bears no responsibility for that.
Mr. NorthWales, aye. Ironic, given if he'd been more open to compromise we'd likely be in the same situation we are now, but he wouldn't've been deselected.
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
So how many times has the EU taken a decision which the UK supported and France and Germany opposed ?
The EU works on horse trading. Everyone gets a horse they want and allows the others to get their horse. Outside the EU presents a shopping list of demands from 27 different countries and trades this long list for access to its systems.
So in the EU we pay endless billions to get one horse in 27 - doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Especially since UK governments have been so willing to make concessions and get nothing in return.
But to return to my question - why is it nobody has ever been able to tell me how many times the EU has taken a decision which the UK supported and which France and Germany opposed ?
Perhaps because there has never been such an event ?
In which case the only 'joint decision making' in the EU is the joint decision making between France and Germany.
And that would explain the Foreign Office fantasies that they will at some always imminent point break apart the France-Germany alliance in the UK.
The 'France will need an ally against Germany' and 'Germany will need an ally against France' predictions we have heard since the Berlin Wall fell.
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters
The way you dismiss fellow conservative members is a disgrace
If you support a football team you just want it to win. You don’t care how and you don’t care for what reason.
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters
The way you dismiss fellow conservative members is a disgrace
Not sure the Brexit Party even exists in my constituency...
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll? .
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
In 1983 Thatcher got a landslide of 144 on just 42.4% as the opposition was split with 27% Labour and 25% SDP and in 1987 a landslide of 102 as the opposition split was 30% Labour and 22% SDP.
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Judging by the press this morning Corbyn could be gone before the Autumn
Which if there is a general election beforehand would be too late to save Labour
Labour rising again in the polls is the principal thing that would save the Tories. We are better off with Labour flat on its back; it'll win most of its stronghold seats regardless, being the most resilient to loss of vote share.
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters.
Over 50% of 2017 Tories voted Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections, 38% voted Tory, only 12% voted LD
You really are outing yourself as an idiot with your statements of opinion dressed up as facts. How does someone fall in love with a political figure so much to be so unquestioning? My prediction, which I can say with some certainty is that we will see you go through the five stages of grief when you realise the man you are in love with is even more hopeless as Prime Minister than many of us dare to think.
It's as bad in Labour. We have the Jonestown Jeremy at all costs wing. Unlike the Tory Kool-aid drinkers who don't know it will kill them, the fanatical Jezbollah worshippers DO know it will kill them and don't care, better dead than "Tory-lite"
I prefer the Masada Marxists, mainly because the association would annoy a goodly portion of them.
In 2009 or thereabouts*, the BBC aired a programme which followed the fates of maybe a dozen or so amateurs who were plunged into day trading, complete with brokerage and a couple of mentors.
Although the mentors' advice was largely restricted to trading, but one line I thought was apt for all walks of life. The amateur's stock had fallen, when the mentor came to ask what they were going to do, they said "I'm going to give it an hour; if it falls further, I'll sell".
Of course this position could never be correct; if the amateur thought it would rise, then she should wait more than an hour to see the result; if she thought it would fall (as it seemed she did), she should sell now.
If Mr Johnson believes that an election is necessary, he should call one the day he walks into Downing St.
(*This being 2009, the traders had a bad time - but actually lost less than the professionals. It's funny what you remember.)
And 'we' were not outsmarted. The UK Government, under Brown, chose to sign it.
Cameron bears no responsibility for that.
Mr. NorthWales, aye. Ironic, given if he'd been more open to compromise we'd likely be in the same situation we are now, but he wouldn't've been deselected.
Cameron promised a referendum and then did not hold it because Lisbon was by then a fait accompli. This seems reasonable enough to me. Similarly, by the time Brown reached Number 10, Tony Blair had already taken the decision not to hold the referendum on what was not by that time any longer a constitutional treaty, having been downgraded after the Dutch and French rejections.
Interesting numbers from Ashcroft's poll there on voting intention under Boris and Hunt.
If Boris is Tory leader he has it Tories 24.5%, Labour 20.7%, LDs 19.6%, Brexit Party 16.4%. So Tories ahead, Brexit Party fall back to 4th and Labour and LDs neck and neck for second.
With Hunt as Tory leader he has it Tories 22%%, Brexit Party 20.5%, Labour 19.9% and LDs 18.3%, so the Brexit Party second
If Hunt is Tory leader most Leavers vote Brexit Party, 43%, followed by 29.9% for the Tories and most Remainers vote LD 31.9% followed by 31.2% for Labour
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters.
Over 50% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections, 36% voted Tory, only 12% voted LD
If you do the maths on your own prediction, you end up in a much worse place than 2017, which famously didn't work out too well.
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters.
Over 50% of 2017 Tories voted Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections, 38% voted Tory, only 12% voted LD
You really are outing yourself as an idiot with your statements of opinion dressed up as facts. How does someone fall in love with a political figure so much to be so unquestioning? My prediction, which I can say with some certainty is that we will see you go through the five stages of grief when you realise the man you are in love with is even more hopeless as Prime Minister than many of us dare to think.
Hyufd has become a Boris fanatic and sees Boris as a Messiah
Boris is no Messiah and Hyufd is likely to become very disillusioned when he sees Boris has played him
The last paragraph, from a woman who knew Johnson during his Bullington Club days, is chilling:
"The characteristics he displayed at Oxford – entitlement, aggression, amorality, lack of concern for others – are still there, dressed up in a contrived, jovial image. It’s a mask to sanitise some ugly features.”
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
So how many times has the EU taken a decision which the UK supported and France and Germany opposed ?
The EU works on horse trading. Everyone gets a horse they want and allows the others to get their horse. Outside the EU presents a shopping list of demands from 27 different countries and trades this long list for access to its systems.
So in the EU we pay endless billions to get one horse in 27 - doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Especially since UK governments have been so willing to make concessions and get nothing in return.
But to return to my question - why is it nobody has ever been able to tell me how many times the EU has taken a decision which the UK supported and which France and Germany opposed ?
Perhaps because there has never been such an event ?
In which case the only 'joint decision making' in the EU is the joint decision making between France and Germany.
And that would explain the Foreign Office fantasies that they will at some always imminent point break apart the France-Germany alliance in the UK.
The 'France will need an ally against Germany' and 'Germany will need an ally against France' predictions we have heard since the Berlin Wall fell.
What particular things do you resent Germany and France imposing on the UK against our will?
What do people even mean by 'satellite status'? The fact that living next door to a large power centre, it is likely to continue to be a big political topic for the foreseeable future? Stunning insight folks, welcome to the last 1000 years of our history.
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
Exactly! Question for Leavers though. Remainers make the distinction between joint decision making and rule taking.
So how many times has the EU taken a decision which the UK supported and France and Germany opposed ?
The EU works on horse trading. Everyone gets a horse they want and allows the others to get their horse. Outside the EU presents a shopping list of demands from 27 different countries and trades this long list for access to its systems.
So in the EU we pay endless billions to get one horse in 27 - doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Especially since UK governments have been so willing to make concessions and get nothing in return.
But to return to my question - why is it nobody has ever been able to tell me how many times the EU has taken a decision which the UK supported and which France and Germany opposed ?
Perhaps because there has never been such an event ?
In which case the only 'joint decision making' in the EU is the joint decision making between France and Germany.
And that would explain the Foreign Office fantasies that they will at some always imminent point break apart the France-Germany alliance in the UK.
The 'France will need an ally against Germany' and 'Germany will need an ally against France' predictions we have heard since the Berlin Wall fell.
Because to return to your question again about when did the EU take a decision that the UK supported and which France and Germany opposed, the EU doesn't work like that. It works on consensus. The UK wanted the Single Market and expansion; France and Germany wanted other things. The UK conceded on stuff it didn't want, by opt out if necessary, to get the stuff it did want. France and Germany did the same.
Outside there is no consensus. We will do what we are required, with some informal but very limited influence, probably backed up by billions of cash.
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
In 1983 Thatcher got a landslide of 144 on just 42.4% as the opposition was split with 27% Labour and 25% SDP and in 1987 a landslide of 102 as the opposition split was 30% Labour and 22% SDP.
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Judging by the press this morning Corbyn could be gone before the Autumn
Which makes an immediate election all the more likely, if the Conservatives think they’ll soon be facing someone who likes Jews and doesn’t always side with our enemies internationally.
That September election on Betfair is still value at 11.
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
1 The Tories were on 37% in the poll ie less than May got in 2017 and below the 42% for the LDs and Labour combined so no diehard Remainers warmed to Boris at all, they still voted LD or Labour.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
How can the landslide be past tense already? It's just a projection, and a shaky one at that.
In 1983 Thatcher got a landslide of 144 on just 42.4% as the opposition was split with 27% Labour and 25% SDP and in 1987 a landslide of 102 on just 42.2% as the opposition split was 31% Labour and 24% SDP.
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Fact remains that writing things like "That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP", when we're simply discussing projected election results based on estimated voting behaviour in a hypothetical scenario, just makes you look foolish.
In 2009 or thereabouts*, the BBC aired a programme which followed the fates of maybe a dozen or so amateurs who were plunged into day trading, complete with brokerage and a couple of mentors.
Although the mentors' advice was largely restricted to trading, but one line I thought was apt for all walks of life. The amateur's stock had fallen, when the mentor came to ask what they were going to do, they said "I'm going to give it an hour; if it falls further, I'll sell".
Of course this position could never be correct; if the amateur thought it would rise, then she should wait more than an hour to see the result; if she thought it would fall (as it seemed she did), she should sell now.
If Mr Johnson believes that an election is necessary, he should call one the day he walks into Downing St.
(*This being 2009, the traders had a bad time - but actually lost less than the professionals. It's funny what you remember.)
Boris can't call an election the day he walks into Downing Street because that will be the 24th and the Commons recess starts on the 25th. There is not the time to get it through parliament. Boris could start planning for an election then (and probably plans are already under way).
You really are outing yourself as an idiot with your statements of opinion dressed up as facts.
"You really are outing yourself as an idiot....."
In contrast to yourself, many of us here try and make a point to someone we disagree with without routinely throwing in a gratuitous insult that seems designed to cause offence.
Sam Gyimah said on Sophy that upto 30 conservative mps are looking at ways of legislating against no deal, but will not support a vonc on the government. He said their objective is to open other options for the next PM
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
Did he say what other options that would open ?
He hinted at various legitimate attempts to stear away from proroguing parliament and no deal but was very clear he will not vonc the government
So he didn't state any options at all.
In other words he's full of crap, against everything and for nothing.
Once Johnson has been PM for a few weeks I confidently expect the predictions of huge Con gains at a GE to disappear. Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either. So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
I have been a Conservative Party member for over 20 years. I will not vote Conservative while we have a clown for leader. Until he is replaced by someone who is actually qualified to do such an important job I will vote LD. Whether that means we will have a LD government I would doubt, but I think there are a lot of people like me.
Fine, for every 1 of you Boris will win back 2 or 3 Brexit Party voters.
Over 50% of 2017 Tories voted Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections, 38% voted Tory, only 12% voted LD
You really are outing yourself as an idiot with your statements of opinion dressed up as facts. How does someone fall in love with a political figure so much to be so unquestioning? My prediction, which I can say with some certainty is that we will see you go through the five stages of grief when you realise the man you are in love with is even more hopeless as Prime Minister than many of us dare to think.
Hyufd has become a Boris fanatic and sees Boris as a Messiah
Boris is no Messiah and Hyufd is likely to become very disillusioned when he sees Boris has played him
To be fair, Big_G, he has got you yourself to move considerably from your original intention to resign rather than stay a member of a party he was leading, and it is only a day or two since you were contemplating actually voting for him.
Interesting numbers from Ashcroft's poll there on voting intention under Boris and Hunt.
If Boris is Tory leader he has it Tories 24.5%, Labour 20.7%, LDs 19.6%, Brexit Party 16.4%. So Tories ahead, Brexit Party fall back to 4th and Labour and LDs neck and neck for second.
With Hunt as Tory leader he has it Tories 22%%, Brexit Party 20.5%, Labour 19.9% and LDs 18.3%, so the Brexit Party second
If Hunt is Tory leader most Leavers vote Brexit Party, 43%, followed by 29.9% for the Tories and most Remainers vote LD 31.9% followed by 31.2% for Labour
If Boris is Tory leader most Leavers vote Tory, 40.8%, followed by 34% for the Brexit Party. Most Remainers vote LD, 35.8%, followed by 31.7% for the LDs
Interesting numbers from Ashcroft's poll there on voting intention under Boris and Hunt.
If Boris is Tory leader he has it Tories 24.5%, Labour 20.7%, LDs 19.6%, Brexit Party 16.4%. So Tories ahead, Brexit Party fall back to 4th and Labour and LDs neck and neck for second.
With Hunt as Tory leader he has it Tories 22%%, Brexit Party 20.5%, Labour 19.9% and LDs 18.3%, so the Brexit Party second
If Hunt is Tory leader most Leavers vote Brexit Party, 43%, followed by 29.9% for the Tories and most Remainers vote LD 31.9% followed by 31.2% for Labour
If Boris is Tory leader most Leavers vote Tory, 40.8%, followed by 34% for the Brexit Party.
With a split like that, there is no way the Tories can win. The bottom line here is that without the Tories demolishing the BXP (or vice versa) they need a deal (or at least an accommodation) before your scenario has a hope of coming true.
Yet if they do a deal, the next question becomes whether this galvanizes the remain side into co-operation or at least tactical voting.
Judging by the press this morning Corbyn could be gone before the Autumn
Which makes an immediate election all the more likely, if the Conservatives think they’ll soon be facing someone who likes Jews and doesn’t always side with our enemies internationally.
That September election on Betfair is still value at 11.
I agree. I don't understand why it's rated so much less likely than October. I guess because a September election would require campaigning through August, but October just doesn't give enough time afterwards for anything meaningful to move on Brexit. Including No Deal preparation rampup. Not sure what implications this has on party conference season, or even if that matters (it probably shouldn't, but does).
Which makes an immediate election all the more likely, if the Conservatives think they’ll soon be facing someone who likes Jews and doesn’t always side with our enemies internationally.
That September election on Betfair is still value at 11.
Is it? Count back the timetable for calling a September election and you start needing to postpone the recess and overcome the Conservative Party's traditional wariness of holiday elections (as their supporters can afford longer holidays skiing in Barbados than Labour's!).
Interesting numbers from Ashcroft's poll there on voting intention under Boris and Hunt.
If Boris is Tory leader he has it Tories 24.5%, Labour 20.7%, LDs 19.6%, Brexit Party 16.4%. So Tories ahead, Brexit Party fall back to 4th and Labour and LDs neck and neck for second.
With Hunt as Tory leader he has it Tories 22%%, Brexit Party 20.5%, Labour 19.9% and LDs 18.3%, so the Brexit Party second
If Hunt is Tory leader most Leavers vote Brexit Party, 43%, followed by 29.9% for the Tories and most Remainers vote LD 31.9% followed by 31.2% for Labour
With Boris as leader, the combined Conservative + Brexit Party vote goes down. He shrinks the pie.
Comments
The big question since the referendum is whether Leavers accept this. That the symbolism of leaving is what matters, you take the "BINO" and move on.
This doesn't seem to be happening, which means that Brexit will be a failure in its own terms. The Spectator article is important in highlighting the failure.
The article (as then written, likely updated as it was breaking) stated that Iran blamed European countries, not the US.
The universal opprobrium Boris receives is going to make it so much easier for him to clear the hurdles of OK PM. And probably means he will get away with stuff for which somebody lauded as Our Last Great Hope would have been lambasted.
This led to the occasional amusing circumstance where there might occasionally be a question on the order paper which was more specific than the generic open "engagements" question, and an MP not paying attention to the order paper would not notice this. (For a laugh) the Speaker would then call any such an MP foolish enough to stand up for this question, they would then ask their followup which had nothing to do with the order paper question and be ruled out of order to great hilarity in the House.
The Chinese national brand is the most harmful to perceptions of a product
New data from the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project reveals which nation’s brands add the most value to goods that are manufactured there. The survey asked people in 23 countries whether they would think more or less positively about a product if it was made in one of 12 nations.
Across the 23 countries an average of 50% of people would think more positively about a product if they saw “made in Germany” written on it. By contrast, only 6% on average would think worse of the product for seeing its place of origin, giving products made in Germany an average net score of +45 and the top spot on the list.
When it comes to British goods, on average 41% of people across all countries think positively of them and only 6% negatively, giving a net score of +34 (tying in third place with France).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2019/07/02/made-germany-best-thing-you-can-see-stamped-your-p
The data shows that products from first world countries are regarded as better than those from South Korea, Mexico, Hong Kong and especially China.
No surprise there but what is noticeable is that products from Germany, USA and UK are rated especially highly in third world countries.
So an expanding middle class and increased affluence in third world countries do suggest a potential business opportunity for UK businesses.
Normally that would mean huge Lab gains would be predicted. I don't think that will happen either.
So could we see predictions of a Lib Dem government instead?
It does seem highly unlikely any conservative mps will join a vonc and why would they when in many cases it would end their careers and many of their colleagues
The "Transition Period" is the Brexiteers bestest bestest friend, but they didn't realise that.
I still find it amazing so many farmers voted against their own interests .
Is that in any way less preferable than being in said bloc? The states of the former USSR don't seem to think so.
FWIW I don't think the Jonestown reference is appropriate, that death cult was mercifully uninterested in screwing up anyone else's life. But as a humorous analogy I think it's fine, and I think you're being a bit of a snowflake about it.
https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1147779187178180609
LAB: 25% (-1)
CON: 23% (+3)
BREX: 22% (-1)
LDEM: 15% (-1)
GRN: 8% (+2)
via @OpiniumResearch, 03 - 05 Jul
Chgs. w/ 20 Jun
All we need to know post Brexit is that Johnny foreigner will accept our goods as we damned well make them (ok, commission them to make them as we can't make stuff any more as industry is communism), accept our rules and standards, and let us ignore their obviously inferior rules and standards.
And if they don't like it , we will show them how trade was done when we invented it and send in one of our gunboats to show them who is in charge. Ok they'll need to build our gunboats for us as we shut the steelworks and the shipyards because communism, but they'll do that when we bally well tell them because we are ENGLAND
The conservative party has to be a broad church, not a Farage tribute club as you would prefer
A question for Remainers would be: at what point is there 'too much' EU? We've seen national sovereignty eroded and the direction of travel is towards ever more integration. Are you committed to going all the way? How would you stop it if you think it's going too far?
There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the deplorable state of politics at the moment but this crossroads would never have been reached had the political class not led us down a path most people didn't want and were never asked to endorse. Brown in particular deserves censure for reneging upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum.
The main difference Comres showed was Boris cut the Brexit Party vote back to 14% from over 20% now as some Brexit Party voters would vote Tory again under Boris, however the Remain vote was much more split with 22% voting Labour v Boris and 20% voting LD.
That split enabled a Boris landslide under FPTP
As it happens, the UK got its way over enlargement, when France and Germany wanted to delay in order to pursue internal reform first.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/britain-to-become-defender-of-eu-enlargement/819141/
I have memories (though I can't recall which of the umpteen votes it was) of him being offered, last minute, the concession he'd asked for and he cried in the Commons that it was "Too late". Hard to respect someone who gets given what they wanted yet decides it isn't good enough after all.
I'm not happy about deselections in most cases, I must say. Factionalism and valuing purity over pragmatism is the way of cults, not government.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Conservative-Leadership-Survey-Results-Summary-July-2019-1.pdf
https://us4.campaign-archive.com/?e=99cd3aa6df&u=7c92abe0d0d9432cf9c5b98c9&id=ce3ba015ee
(Edited: misread one of the findings)
Boris can do the same given many diehard Remainers refuse to vote for Labour under Corbyn as they did in 2017 but will vote LD now instead, splitting the centre left and Remain vote under FPTP if Boris wins back voters from the Brexit Party and unites most of the Leave vote under the Tories.
If Boris wants a landslide or even just a comfortable majority he needs an autumn general election while Corbyn is still Labour leader
Shocking.
However, Boris stated yesterday the Union is more important than even Brexit
Arrogant, Dishonest, Dangerous, Unreliable, Amusing
BJ adds 2.5% to the projected Tory vote but he pushes up the vote for all the opposition parties (ex BXP) by 1% or thereabouts, slightly more for the LibDems. Which hardly looks decisive (the Tories aren't going to win an election on 24%) compared to his actual performance in the early days in the job.
I realise I am not entirely addressing your point of when is there "too much EU" and what do you do about it. For my part I am ok with the EU being a glass half full project when the alternative is no glass at all.
Over 50% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections, 36% voted Tory, only 12% voted LD
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/oxford-bullingdon-club-boris-johnson-sexism-violence-bullying-culture
The last paragraph, from a woman who knew Johnson during his Bullington Club days, is chilling:
"The characteristics he displayed at Oxford – entitlement, aggression, amorality, lack of concern for others – are still there, dressed up in a contrived, jovial image. It’s a mask to sanitise some ugly features.”
And 'we' were not outsmarted. The UK Government, under Brown, chose to sign it.
Cameron bears no responsibility for that.
Mr. NorthWales, aye. Ironic, given if he'd been more open to compromise we'd likely be in the same situation we are now, but he wouldn't've been deselected.
But to return to my question - why is it nobody has ever been able to tell me how many times the EU has taken a decision which the UK supported and which France and Germany opposed ?
Perhaps because there has never been such an event ?
In which case the only 'joint decision making' in the EU is the joint decision making between France and Germany.
And that would explain the Foreign Office fantasies that they will at some always imminent point break apart the France-Germany alliance in the UK.
The 'France will need an ally against Germany' and 'Germany will need an ally against France' predictions we have heard since the Berlin Wall fell.
Although the mentors' advice was largely restricted to trading, but one line I thought was apt for all walks of life. The amateur's stock had fallen, when the mentor came to ask what they were going to do, they said "I'm going to give it an hour; if it falls further, I'll sell".
Of course this position could never be correct; if the amateur thought it would rise, then she should wait more than an hour to see the result; if she thought it would fall (as it seemed she did), she should sell now.
If Mr Johnson believes that an election is necessary, he should call one the day he walks into Downing St.
(*This being 2009, the traders had a bad time - but actually lost less than the professionals. It's funny what you remember.)
If Boris is Tory leader he has it Tories 24.5%, Labour 20.7%, LDs 19.6%, Brexit Party 16.4%. So Tories ahead, Brexit Party fall back to 4th and Labour and LDs neck and neck for second.
With Hunt as Tory leader he has it Tories 22%%, Brexit Party 20.5%, Labour 19.9% and LDs 18.3%, so the Brexit Party second
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Conservative-Leadership-Survey-Results-Summary-July-2019-1.pdf.
If Hunt is Tory leader most Leavers vote Brexit Party, 43%, followed by 29.9% for the Tories and most Remainers vote LD 31.9% followed by 31.2% for Labour
Boris is no Messiah and Hyufd is likely to become very disillusioned when he sees Boris has played him
Outside there is no consensus. We will do what we are required, with some informal but very limited influence, probably backed up by billions of cash.
That September election on Betfair is still value at 11.
FWIW I think it'll be much closer than that. 59:41.
In contrast to yourself, many of us here try and make a point to someone we disagree with without routinely throwing in a gratuitous insult that seems designed to cause offence.
In other words he's full of crap, against everything and for nothing.
Yet if they do a deal, the next question becomes whether this galvanizes the remain side into co-operation or at least tactical voting.