politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove’s cocaine admission dominate just four of the front pages
Comments
-
Lion vs Bear? Ridiculous.
Everyone knows it should be bear vs shark.0 -
The government trying to go ahead with no deal would not be able to bring forward a single piece of legislation from now until after 31 st October because that always includes a business motion which can be amended.Chris said:
There's some useful discussion of the practicalities ofrottenborough said:
Incredible. I mean supporting the rights of a parliamentary democracy is just so not a rock solid conservative value is it?williamglenn said:
Brexit just becomes a more terrible virus by the week.
(1) the Commons preventing No Deal and
(2) prorogation
here:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/new-prime-minister-intent-no-deal-brexit-cant-be-stopped-mps-0
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/proroguing-parliament-would-be-undemocratic-and-probably-trigger-election
Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
0 -
Dialling Edmund Burke.eek said:
The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?rottenborough said:Blue Momentum behind Gauke's Special AGM:
https://order-order.com/2019/06/11/gauke-pleads-members-defeat-deselection-attempt/#more-3490630 -
Who ironically died in Beaconsfield the constituency of Grieve and rather close to Gauke's...rottenborough said:
Dialling Edmund Burke.eek said:
The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?rottenborough said:Blue Momentum behind Gauke's Special AGM:
https://order-order.com/2019/06/11/gauke-pleads-members-defeat-deselection-attempt/#more-3490630 -
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.Cyclefree said:Morning all from a rainy NY.
There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.
I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.0 -
Plainly, hers was an interesting career, going from being the daughter of some obscure Athenian bureaucrat, to being chosen as Empress by beauty contest, to becoming ruler of the Eastern Empire in her own right. But, she was obviously not a nice person.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, hope you have a nice time, and no helicopters land on you.
Mr. F, thanks. It did strike me as odd to single her out for praise.0 -
I'm presuming the idea is that an amendment to a motion that had nothing to do with Brexit would be ruled out of order?nico67 said:
The government trying to go ahead with no deal would not be able to bring forward a single piece of legislation from now until after 31 st October because that always includes a business motion which can be amended.Chris said:
There's some useful discussion of the practicalities ofrottenborough said:
Incredible. I mean supporting the rights of a parliamentary democracy is just so not a rock solid conservative value is it?williamglenn said:
Brexit just becomes a more terrible virus by the week.
(1) the Commons preventing No Deal and
(2) prorogation
here:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/new-prime-minister-intent-no-deal-brexit-cant-be-stopped-mps-0
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/proroguing-parliament-would-be-undemocratic-and-probably-trigger-election
Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
But that's an interesting point about No Deal legislation. Then again, is there any prospect there would be enough time for that to pass by the end of October, if it's resisted?0 -
In a parliamentary democracy it is meant to be the latter, but unfortunately that convention is being subverted, in the same way as the First Among Equals principle has been subverted. Dangerous times.eek said:
The first comment there is actually of interest (rare for most sites unlike here). What do we elect MPs to do - simply to reflect the opinion of the most vocal constituents or to do what the MP thinks is best for the constituency?rottenborough said:Blue Momentum behind Gauke's Special AGM:
https://order-order.com/2019/06/11/gauke-pleads-members-defeat-deselection-attempt/#more-3490630 -
Bear v shark do do do do do do.TOPPING said:Lion vs Bear? Ridiculous.
Everyone knows it should be bear vs shark.
Bear v shark do do do do do do.
Mum v shark do do do do do do.
Mum v shark do do do do do do.
0 -
The EU have said they won't negotiate with us until we are out and we foolishly agreed to it. I've said I have no problems with extensions so long as they are for credible negotiations.TheWhiteRabbit said:
What is the advantage, compared to an extension of Article 50?Philip_Thompson said:
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.TheWhiteRabbit said:
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?Philip_Thompson said:
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.Freggles said:
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?Philip_Thompson said:
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.OblitusSumMe said:The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?0 -
A blockade is a casus belli.kinabalu said:
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.Philip_Thompson said:I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
0 -
Yes. Blockades have for centuries been viewed as a direct act of war or at least a casus belli.Theuniondivvie said:
You initially said 'virtually a declaration of war' which according to my Ladybird book of international protocol isn't yer actual declaration of war. Of course our armed forces are more prepared for a virtual rather than an actual response. A sail past by a non operational aircraft carrier will be just the thing.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?Chris said:
Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.0 -
Unfortunately notChris said:
Seriously, I don't believe you're real. Your comments are satirical, aren't they?Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.0 -
Given that we would be imposing a blockade on ourselves, do you think retaliation against the Brexiteers responsible would be justified?Philip_Thompson said:
A blockade is a casus belli.kinabalu said:
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.Philip_Thompson said:I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
0 -
One problem is that most of the EU countries are also America`s allies. So which way would Trump jump? Remember there is nothing he would like more than to see us down on our knees grovelling.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.0 -
No. It is perfectly reasonable to insist on a guarantee against another party behaving like a wazzock. Note that the backstop is a mutual guarantee - it protects us against the EU behaving badly too.Philip_Thompson said:
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.OblitusSumMe said:The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
It's a bit like car insurance. It is perfectly reasonable for the government to insist that all drivers are insured so that other drivers are protected from their mistakes.0 -
Alien v Predator might be more appropriate ?williamglenn said:
Bear v shark do do do do do do.TOPPING said:Lion vs Bear? Ridiculous.
Everyone knows it should be bear vs shark.
Bear v shark do do do do do do.
Mum v shark do do do do do do.
Mum v shark do do do do do do.0 -
You are being ridiculous again. You Leavers and your obsession with war! One has to wonder whether you read too many war comics as children. Achtung Spitfire! For you ze var is over Tommy. Hande hoch!Philip_Thompson said:
A blockade is a casus belli.kinabalu said:
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.Philip_Thompson said:I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
0 -
That is a point, though. We're in a stronger position than I thought, because we have the lion, which would beat the motley collection of cockerels, eagles, wolves, bulls, pine martens, sheep, dogs and butterflies that other European countries are stuck with.TOPPING said:Lion vs Bear? Ridiculous.
Everyone knows it should be bear vs shark.
A couple of the others do also have lions. But that's where our secret weapon - the unicorn - would come in.1 -
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.0
-
What happened in 1948? The Aussies ran up the biggest score in a day against, I'm embarrassed to admit Essex, but what else?TGOHF said:0 -
I don't see how we are culpable now. We haven't reneged on anything, the EU chose to add Article 50 to its Constitution after the GFA was passed and the Irish (on their second attempt) ratified it via referendum. Exercising A50 is our right and we are not doing anything wrong by doing so.Freggles said:
Well, quite. But surely it is our government who has proposed the backstop and would prefer it over indefinite transition because the backstop ends FoM and payments into the EU?Philip_Thompson said:
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.TheWhiteRabbit said:
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?Philip_Thompson said:
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.Freggles said:
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?Philip_Thompson said:
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.OblitusSumMe said:The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
Also, if we exit without a deal now, it's us reneging on the Irish border. If it happens during FTA negotiations, the culpability is much less clear... What do you think?1 -
I assume the passing of the Parliament Act which entailed two very brief prorogations.OldKingCole said:
What happened in 1948? The Aussies ran up the biggest score in a day against, I'm embarrassed to admit Essex, but what else?TGOHF said:0 -
In terms of being ruled out of order that’s up to Bercow . He really can do whatever he feels like . Emergency debates so far can’t have amendments , they’re normally just neutral motions but Bercow could try and find a way to allow MPs to force a change in the standing orders .Chris said:
I'm presuming the idea is that an amendment to a motion that had nothing to do with Brexit would be ruled out of order?nico67 said:
The government trying to go ahead with no deal would not be able to bring forward a single piece of legislation from now until after 31 st October because that always includes a business motion which can be amended.Chris said:
There's some useful discussion of the practicalities ofrottenborough said:
Incredible. I mean supporting the rights of a parliamentary democracy is just so not a rock solid conservative value is it?williamglenn said:
Brexit just becomes a more terrible virus by the week.
(1) the Commons preventing No Deal and
(2) prorogation
here:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/new-prime-minister-intent-no-deal-brexit-cant-be-stopped-mps-0
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/proroguing-parliament-would-be-undemocratic-and-probably-trigger-election
Though the first article suggests it would be very hard for the Commons to block No Deal anyway, so the argument about prorogation may be academic.
It also means none of the legislation to do with trade, Customs , immigration etc needed even in the event of no deal will be ready.
But that's an interesting point about No Deal legislation. Then again, is there any prospect there would be enough time for that to pass by the end of October, if it's resisted?0 -
-
It's quite 'interesting' that, apparently those of us who lived through the War..... yeah, I know, I was 7 when it ended but I still remember the bombers and doodlebugs....... are Remainers while those who only read the comics are Leavers.Nigel_Foremain said:
You are being ridiculous again. You Leavers and your obsession with war! One has to wonder whether you read too many war comics as children. Achtung Spitfire! For you ze var is over Tommy. Hande hoch!Philip_Thompson said:
A blockade is a casus belli.kinabalu said:
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.Philip_Thompson said:I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
1 -
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.0 -
No the ridiculous ones are those suggesting we can and will be blockaded if we don't surrender. I've already said it is bullshit and won't happen.Nigel_Foremain said:
You are being ridiculous again. You Leavers and your obsession with war! One has to wonder whether you read too many war comics as children. Achtung Spitfire! For you ze var is over Tommy. Hande hoch!Philip_Thompson said:
A blockade is a casus belli.kinabalu said:
I think 'bully' works better than 'declare war on' here.Philip_Thompson said:I'm real. You think the EU should be able to declare war on us and we sit back and do nothing?
Funny how Remainers can suggest we can be blockaded but calling that out is an obsession. Get over yourself.1 -
The withdrawal agreement was negotiated under A50 and agreed by the UK government.Philip_Thompson said:I don't see how we are culpable now. We haven't reneged on anything, the EU chose to add Article 50 to its Constitution after the GFA was passed and the Irish (on their second attempt) ratified it via referendum. Exercising A50 is our right and we are not doing anything wrong by doing so.
1 -
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?Scott_P said:0 -
Please don't indulge him, you should just mock him for his right wing militaristic fantasies.PClipp said:
One problem is that most of the EU countries are also America`s allies. So which way would Trump jump? Remember there is nothing he would like more than to see us down on our knees grovelling.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.0 -
Wasn't that the Act which brought the country universal FPTP and single member constituencies?Philip_Thompson said:
I assume the passing of the Parliament Act which entailed two very brief prorogations.OldKingCole said:
What happened in 1948? The Aussies ran up the biggest score in a day against, I'm embarrassed to admit Essex, but what else?TGOHF said:0 -
I’m surprised at you. I’d have thought it obvious why we should care what people on the Continent think.DavidL said:
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.Cyclefree said:Morning all from a rainy NY.
There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.
I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
0 -
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.viewcode said:
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.0 -
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.mr-claypole said:Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
0 -
Luckily we have powerful allies on our side, so we should easily defeat the Brexiteers.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.viewcode said:
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
0 -
Actually it would just be a few people checking that Lorries contain exactly what they are claiming to contain.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.viewcode said:
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.0 -
It is what he said. I doubt he will be the only one. Boris Johnson may well be short of a majority in the house, and he ain't the person to deliver the kind of compromises needed for minority government. A Johnson administration (if that is not an oxymoron) will make May's look like a paragon of strong and stable governmenttlg86 said:
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?Scott_P said:0 -
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?0
-
I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.0
-
You have lost the plot. You are reinforcing every stereotype about war obsessed little Englanders.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.viewcode said:
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.2 -
I've been away for a few days and firstly wish to apologise for getting Peterborough so wrong. Like a lot of people, I thought the BXP were a shoo-in for the win. That error led to a series of others, which is a good but painful lesson.0
-
I can't remember either. Do they hate each other? Adore each other? Or is it something more nuanced? For example, an intense mutual loathing mitigated by an equally strong and mutual respect for each other's intellect and ability. Or, just as likely, the opposite, a personal chemistry so aromatic as to make their respective partners a little resentful, but somewhat spoiled by both considering the other to be a bit dim. Whatever the truth of the matter, it will no doubt come out in time.OnlyLivingBoy said:Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.0 -
I don't dispute that some Tories are in a fantasy world but I object to those who disapprove of this policy or that citing people in other countries with interests potentially inimical to ours as "evidence" that we are going the wrong way. It's like American Democrats going on about how much contempt Trump is held in abroad. It may make them feel better about their own views but it is counterproductive and ultimately irrelevant.Cyclefree said:
I’m surprised at you. I’d have thought it obvious why we should care what people on the Continent think.DavidL said:
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.Cyclefree said:Morning all from a rainy NY.
There was a forced landing of a helicopter yesterday on a building next to the one I’m due to be speaking in today. The incident messed up my evening plans so let’s hope nothing untoward happens today.
I’m assuming you’re all being deafened by the sound of contemptuous laughter from across the Channel as Europeans look on at the collection of dullards, chancers, fantasists and loons vying for the Tory party leadership.
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
Anyway, enjoy your talk.0 -
You don’t need to prorogue to disarm parliament. Just call an election.0
-
Is that our first Goodwin's Law of the day?justin124 said:I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.
0 -
Having one, very clear, thing to say makes it easier for him to avoid the more relevant detailed questions about what he is going to do that is different to May's strategy and that isn't simply no deal.Chris said:One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
0 -
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.viewcode said:
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely if they declare war on us seeking to blockade us illegally then we should absolutely call on our American allies to assist.MarqueeMark said:
Our military - and Trump's.....Philip_Thompson said:
I never said a blockade of the EU. What was being proposed was a blockade of the UK in violation of international laws. If that happens our military if necessary should break the blockade yes.Chris said:
Yes!Philip_Thompson said:
I think that's bullshit and virtually a declaration of war. If the EU wants to treat us as an enemy then we need to respond in kind.eek said:
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
A military/naval blockade of the EU, with the ultimate threat of nuclear force.
We'll have Johnny Foreigner on his knees within the hour.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.0 -
what is the story?kinabalu said:
I can't remember either. Do they hate each other? Adore each other? Or is it something more nuanced? For example, an intense mutual loathing mitigated by an equally strong and mutual respect for each other's intellect and ability. Or, just as likely, the opposite, a personal chemistry so aromatic as to make their respective partners a little resentful, but somewhat spoiled by both considering the other to be a bit dim. Whatever the truth of the matter, it will no doubt come out in time.OnlyLivingBoy said:Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.0 -
Yes, it was totally stupid, a massive blunder made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it is identical to Theresa May's blunder of insisting on the 29th March date. You might have thought that the candidates would have learnt something from that, but Boris and the other 31st Octoberites are setting themselves up for an early and humiliating disaster, playing straight into Farage's hands.Chris said:One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
0 -
Not longer in the PM's power, thanks to the wisdom of Nicholas Clegg.Jonathan said:You don’t need to prorogue to disarm parliament. Just call an election.
0 -
IMHO, Boris would probably win an ensuing election if he lost a vote of no confidence.Scott_P said:
I don't think he'd be a good PM though.0 -
What price do we collectively make Boris to win the first round?0
-
No loss anymore sadly.tlg86 said:
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?Scott_P said:
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.DavidL said:
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.mr-claypole said:Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
0 -
If Johnson tried to do that simply to avoid personal humiliation, parliament should vote against an election and against bringing him down. Make him go to Brussels and grovel for an extension.Jonathan said:You don’t need to prorogue to disarm parliament. Just call an election.
0 -
Well I suppose it's just about possible not to resign the whip should the party appoint as a leader someone you think "a shallow populist – manifestly unsuitable for high office – who would undoubtedly be a disaster for the country" and the party (after all, there are precedents one can think of), but probably, yes.tlg86 said:
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?Scott_P said:0 -
I don't know other than Reuters who covered Harper's launch, but I think any other platforms would have a similiar viewership. It was 55 viewers on the Reuters stream or so.
If 10 outlets covered him, that'd be ~ 1000 viewers max.
He's now trending on twitter with over 5000 active tweets about him.
0 -
It wouldn'r make any difference if the winner Boris could call an election - they wouldn't win the election...edmundintokyo said:
Not longer in the PM's power, thanks to the wisdom of Nicholas Clegg.Jonathan said:You don’t need to prorogue to disarm parliament. Just call an election.
0 -
World Cup: At this rate, Sri Lanka will qualify for the semi finals after collecting 1 point from each match. That's not a bad strategy after beating Afghanistan.0
-
1.33 maybe?Tissue_Price said:What price do we collectively make Boris to win the first round?
0 -
1-10 or so ? And 10-1 Hunt perhaps.Tissue_Price said:What price do we collectively make Boris to win the first round?
0 -
I think Corbyn and a majority of MPs would say, "sure, we're totally up for an election, but we don't trust you not to crash the car in the meantime so let's put a new PM in first".williamglenn said:
If Johnson tried to do that simply to avoid personal humiliation, parliament should vote against an election and against bringing him down. Make him go to Brussels and grovel for an extension.0 -
When you add in his bizarre tax promises you begin to see why his advisors think that staying quiet is the best thing he can do.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it was totally stupid, a massive blunder made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it is identical to Theresa May's blunder of insisting on the 29th March date. You might have thought that the candidates would have learnt something from that, but Boris and the other 31st Octoberites are setting themselves up for an early and humiliating disaster, playing straight into Farage's hands.Chris said:One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
0 -
+1Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it was totally stupid, a massive blunder made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it is identical to Theresa May's blunder of insisting on the 29th March date. You might have thought that the candidates would have learnt something from that, but Boris and the other 31st Octoberites are setting themselves up for an early and humiliating disaster, playing straight into Farage's hands.Chris said:One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
0 -
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?surbiton19 said:
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.0 -
Google for it - you really don't want to post it yourself...Nigel_Foremain said:
what is the story?kinabalu said:
I can't remember either. Do they hate each other? Adore each other? Or is it something more nuanced? For example, an intense mutual loathing mitigated by an equally strong and mutual respect for each other's intellect and ability. Or, just as likely, the opposite, a personal chemistry so aromatic as to make their respective partners a little resentful, but somewhat spoiled by both considering the other to be a bit dim. Whatever the truth of the matter, it will no doubt come out in time.OnlyLivingBoy said:Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).
Regarding the 'melon' story. Appalling if true. Unfortunately, courtesy of Donald Trump, the bar is now set below ground level for these 'what a character!' types in politics. So a shrug and a grimace, maybe even a chuckle, and a "Boris being Boris" will be the response of many.0 -
Can someone help me out with the exact current arithmetic in the House of Commons? By my reckoning it currently stands at this:
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer?
DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
Opposition: 317
Labour 244
SNP 35
Ind 11
LibDem 11
TIG / Ind 11
Plaid 4
Green 1
On Thursday 20th we will know about the Brecon & Radnorshire recall petition. If it's successful then the numbers would be:
321 v 317
If the LibDems or another opposition party then win the by-election it would be 321 v 318
These figures do not include 1 x Speaker, 3 x Deputy Speakers, 7 x Sinn Fein
This is seriously squeaky bum time for a new Gov't. If the Independents like Boles and Mercer vote against the Gov't it gets incredibly tight. It only takes a couple of the remainer Tories to decide they've had enough and the Government will fall.0 -
By having the backstop in place then no deal cannot be used by either side as a threat in the negotiations over the future trade agreement. It's the future trade agreement which will be more difficult than the issues of legacy financial obligations and reciprocal citizen rights, so this is the lower risk point at which to deal with creating a guarantee on the Irish border.Philip_Thompson said:
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.TheWhiteRabbit said:
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?Philip_Thompson said:
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.Freggles said:
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?Philip_Thompson said:
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.OblitusSumMe said:The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?0 -
Whatever else you might think of Biden, he (or his speechwriters) do have a real knack of winding up Trump, which would undoubtedly be of value in the forthcoming election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks
“How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...0 -
I think the idea was to play silly buggers with the timing to prevent parliament from stopping the PM from crashing out of the EU.eek said:
It wouldn'r make any difference if the winner Boris could call an election - they wouldn't win the election...0 -
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorogue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart0 -
I think that the success of his campaign is that it will be much more difficult for the incoming leader not to have him at the cabinet table bound by collective responsibility. Who would want a Tory Yvette Cooper on the back benchers when you have a minority government?Philip_Thompson said:
No loss anymore sadly.tlg86 said:
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?Scott_P said:
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.DavidL said:
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.mr-claypole said:Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
0 -
No planes flying because we don't have the paperwork for planes to fly.Philip_Thompson said:
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?surbiton19 said:
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
No exports as lorries are being checked blocking the ferries
No imports as the lorries being checked are blocking the roads...0 -
I'll have £50 to win £500 pleasePulpstar said:
1-10 or so ? And 10-1 Hunt perhaps.Tissue_Price said:What price do we collectively make Boris to win the first round?
0 -
0
-
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.HYUFD said:So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart0 -
I don't see Osborne confirming any of this because he really doesn't look very good if he merely witnessed the incident rather than witnessed it and punched/remonstrated with Johnson - which doesn't seem to be part of the narrative.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Presumably Osborne saw the alleged Johnson melon incident if it happened (which I would imagine it did, based purely on my low opinion of Johnson and his public comments and behaviour). I imagine that the sort of people who are programmed to believe the word of a posh white man over a black woman might find the story more credible if Osborne backs it up. But perhaps loyalty to the party might prevent him from wielding the knife? (I know Osborne hated May but I cannot remember amid all the noise of the Tory soap opera what the Osborne-Johnson relationship is right now).TrèsDifficile said:
Osborne?0 -
Hunt would certainly be the value bet on those odds.Tissue_Price said:
I'll have £50 to win £500 pleasePulpstar said:
1-10 or so ? And 10-1 Hunt perhaps.Tissue_Price said:What price do we collectively make Boris to win the first round?
0 -
The only decent moment from the Dems during the whole campaign against Trump came from Biden when he did a speech and launched a furious attack on the GOP nominee: "just a bunch of malarky".Nigelb said:Whatever else you might think of Biden, he (or his speechwriters) do have a real knack of winding up Trump, which would undoubtedly be of value in the forthcoming election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks
“How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...
Can he still fire that up at his age?0 -
I can see it may be beneficial to him during the leadership campaign. But it may be storing up trouble for afterwards. It seems unnecessary, and even if he thought it might be necessary I don't understand why he didn't wait and see.OblitusSumMe said:
Having one, very clear, thing to say makes it easier for him to avoid the more relevant detailed questions about what he is going to do that is different to May's strategy and that isn't simply no deal.Chris said:One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
0 -
Boris has made a career out of speaking first and thinking second, there's no chance of him changing his stripes.Chris said:One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
0 -
I’ve got a nasty feeling Leadsom is going to (just) hang around lingering at the back like a bad smell for the first couple of rounds.
Just to annoy me and my cash flow.1 -
With respect, all analysis pointed to a narrow Labour win [ as I wrote before the by-election ]. Most people were relying on polls which are overstating BXP by about 5 points and the Peterborough constituency and its local authority boundaries are not the same.Mysticrose said:I've been away for a few days and firstly wish to apologise for getting Peterborough so wrong. Like a lot of people, I thought the BXP were a shoo-in for the win. That error led to a series of others, which is a good but painful lesson.
0 -
Corbyn?DavidL said:
I think that the success of his campaign is that it will be much more difficult for the incoming leader not to have him at the cabinet table bound by collective responsibility. Who would want a Tory Yvette Cooper on the back benchers when you have a minority government?Philip_Thompson said:
No loss anymore sadly.tlg86 said:
He's quitting the Tories if Boris becomes leader, right?Scott_P said:
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.DavidL said:
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.mr-claypole said:Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
0 -
Parliament can determine their own timetable and if 40 people turn up its quorateedmundintokyo said:
I think the idea was to play silly buggers with the timing to prevent parliament from stopping the PM from crashing out of the EU.eek said:
It wouldn'r make any difference if the winner Boris could call an election - they wouldn't win the election...0 -
I use the numbers direct from Parliament at https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/Mysticrose said:Can someone help me out with the exact current arithmetic in the House of Commons? By my reckoning it currently stands at this:
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer?
DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
...
Snip
...
That has 313 Conservatives, presumably not including Boles but including Mercer.0 -
I cannot for the life of me think which one of these positions the membership will be slavering over.HYUFD said:So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorogue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart0 -
How big is the "not Boris, not Hunt, not Gove, not Raab" vote? She could still make it to the final 2.Casino_Royale said:I’ve got a nasty feeling Leadsom is going to (just) hang around lingering at the back like a bad smell for the first couple of rounds.
Just to annoy me and my cash flow.0 -
Being personally moral does not mean you win an election, ask May and Brownjustin124 said:I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.
0 -
A good question - just as well he has a long primary campaign ahead of him to test that.rottenborough said:
The only decent moment from the Dems during the whole campaign against Trump came from Biden when he did a speech and launched a furious attack on the GOP nominee: "just a bunch of malarky".Nigelb said:Whatever else you might think of Biden, he (or his speechwriters) do have a real knack of winding up Trump, which would undoubtedly be of value in the forthcoming election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447840-biden-to-target-trump-in-iowa-remarks
“How many sleepless nights do you think Trump has had over what he’s doing to America’s farmers?” he plans to add, according to the news outlet. “Here’s the answer: Just as many as he had when he stiffed the construction workers and electricians and plumbers who built his hotels and casinos. Zero.”...
Can he still fire that up at his age?
There are other candidates with far more facility in debate than Clinton had. Harris and Buttigieg certainly have the ability to go head to head with him, very different in manner though they are.0 -
Not much change at the head of the market. Johnson the clear and odds on fav, then Hunt and Leadsom in single digits, Gove post cocaine twice the price he was before he did it - lesson there.
Saj and Rory rock solid at 33s. Not really coming in but in no way shape or form on the drift either. These two guys are in this contest.
Dom Raab, strangely, just no betting support. Don't understand that. Brexit believer and a nice young man.
McVey and Harper at prices so long that they may as well pull out now. Wasting everybody's time. Why do it?
Hancock is massive too, but he's getting nibbled at. Maybe the dark horse.0 -
0
-
I feel most people refuse to see things from the EUs point of view here.eek said:
No planes flying because we don't have the paperwork for planes to fly.Philip_Thompson said:
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?surbiton19 said:
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
No exports as lorries are being checked blocking the ferries
No imports as the lorries being checked are blocking the roads...
Imagine Wales left the union and decided to have completely different standards to England/Scotland/NI. Do you not think the public would be right to be concerned if items coming from Wales were no longer held to the same standard they were used to? Do you not think the government would have to say "Hey, boyos, either you have laws equal to ours or we check things at the border?". That takes time, impacts businesses, new infrastructure etc.
This isn't about "punishing us". This is about the average Franc or German or whoever knowing if they eat something that comes through us is held to a standard they approve of. Sure, there is also the EU wide protectionist racket side of it, but again, that isn't going to convince the average EU citizen that us wanting all the access and leeway and none of the oversight is hunky dorey.
The referendum was to Leave the EU. This has been interpreted as out of everything. Well then, we don't get any of the good stuff we've been getting for 40 odd years. That is rod of our own governments making.1 -
I think what others think can be a helpful guide to whether what we are doing is sensible. It is not determinative of course. And sometimes we may well disagree. But to ignore the opinions of others completely is dangerous.DavidL said:
I don't dispute that some Tories are in a fantasy world but I object to those who disapprove of this policy or that citing people in other countries with interests potentially inimical to ours as "evidence" that we are going the wrong way. It's like American Democrats going on about how much contempt Trump is held in abroad. It may make them feel better about their own views but it is counterproductive and ultimately irrelevant.Cyclefree said:
I’m surprised at you. I’d have thought it obvious why we should care what people on the Continent think.DavidL said:
Unworthy @Cyclefree. Why should we care at all what people on the continent think? How many Americans really care what we think about the Donald? In that case we don't get a say because ultimately it is none of our business and those who "protest" against a democratically chosen President are simply making fools of themselves. Ditto the EU.Cyclefree said:
None of this is to say that the current impasse/fiasco is optimal of course. But it is our problem and we will solve it one way or another.
All the candidates are proposing steps which require the consent of those on the Continent. We need and, I assume, want a good relationship and trade and other deals with them in future. So some air of realism about what is possible and realistic should be a given. Some wish to have the respect of our neighbours would be nice.
If this was a private matter happening in some voluntary association with no effect on anyone else we could ignore it. But this is potentially the next PM we are talking about and a government which will affect our lives and whose actions will also have an impact on the lives of people and businesses on the Continent.
So yes we should care about what they think. And yes they have an interest in what is happening. And yes they are entitled to a view.
But parts of Britain and the Tory party have retreated into a fantasy world. It does not make for pleasant watching. We would do well to listen to the contemptuous hard truths the rest of the world is saying to us, uncomfortable as it may be.
Anyway, enjoy your talk.
And I do not see the EU as an enemy.
Thank you for your good wishes. I am doing two. I will feel more relaxed once they are over. A few nerves and a bit of adrenalin is necessary to make sure I do my best.
0 -
Why is Johnson uniquely among the 10 routinely called by his given name? Is it meant to make him seem sort of cuddly and amusing compared to the other 9?0
