Boris

[Quickenthetempo]

Boris is crazy isn't he?

Went for the throat of Corbyn like he was arguing in a pub.

Get him in that room with the EU lot.

[Colburn_Claret]

Like the nationwide poll in 2015 that indicated the public wanted a vote in the first place?

The minute it became clear that the Brexit promised by Leave could not be delivered, there was a perfectly valid reason to hold another vote.

You don't know that the Brexit promised by Leave cannot be delivered. It might not be delivered before we leave, that doesn't mean it wont be when the EU finally accept that we've gone. Holding any type of vote before the dust has settled is pointless, and dishonest. Just as a referendum on leaving on a no deal, or remain is dishonest. Only time will tell, but you're not willing to try, probably because you're frightened you've been wrong all this time.

[Colburn_Claret]

I'd no longer think we've changed out mind. And since the only reason, the ONLY reason, i'm saying we should have a second referendum is because i think we've changed our mind then naturally i'd stop making that argument.

I opposed a second referendum for a long time after the first one. Have you forgotten that?

The problem you have turtle is the question you want to put to the people, in a second referendum is fraudulent.
I would suggest that your options would be leave on a no deal or remain.
That would be fine if a no deal was the end of the road only it isn't, just another stepping stone along the way.
Under those circumstances it would be impossible to get any deal through, because the EU would quite rightly know that all they have to do is sit on their hands, say nothing, and the Leave vote is undermined. Which is basically what Parliament and May have been doing for the last 3 years.

The only way to have an honest negotiation is to leave first, it's the only thing that will get them back to the table, and it will.
Any talk of a second referendum would undermine it, and you know that.

[Imploding Turtle]

The problem you have turtle is the question you want to put to the people, in a second referendum is fraudulent.
I would suggest that your options would be leave on a no deal or remain.
That would be fine if a no deal was the end of the road only it isn't, just another stepping stone along the way.
Under those circumstances it would be impossible to get any deal through, because the EU would quite rightly know that all they have to do is sit on their hands, say nothing, and the Leave vote is undermined. Which is basically what Parliament and May have been doing for the last 3 years.

The only way to have an honest negotiation is to leave first, it's the only thing that will get them back to the table, and it will.
Any talk of a second referendum would undermine it, and you know that.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

You say that the question I want to put to the people is fraudulent without explaining why. You also don't even say what question it is I want to put.

I've no problem with Leave with No Deal versus Remain, because i don't think we're going to reach a deal that will get through parliament.


I would suggest a three-way vote though to include whatever deal we are able to have made. How would that be fraudulent if the referendum was ranked choice?

[AndrewJB]

The problem you have turtle is the question you want to put to the people, in a second referendum is fraudulent.
I would suggest that your options would be leave on a no deal or remain.
That would be fine if a no deal was the end of the road only it isn't, just another stepping stone along the way.
Under those circumstances it would be impossible to get any deal through, because the EU would quite rightly know that all they have to do is sit on their hands, say nothing, and the Leave vote is undermined. Which is basically what Parliament and May have been doing for the last 3 years.

The only way to have an honest negotiation is to leave first, it's the only thing that will get them back to the table, and it will.
Any talk of a second referendum would undermine it, and you know that.

What you're suggesting - that the EU would just sit on their hands and do nothing - isn't what has happened. You don't like May's deal, but it was negotiated, and nobody criticised the EU for not participating. So there's no reason to believe that the EU wouldn't participate just as enthusiastically in working out a free trade deal (it'll be in their interest too). Bear in mind as well that whereas the EU position was very clear and consistent, the UK position (what we knew of it at least) was there wasn't an agreement within the cabinet over what they all wanted. If anything the EU were more honest than we were.

So right there I've just shown you there is every good reason to leave with a deal, and then move on to free trade talks.

Leave without a deal, and we pointlessly walk away from all the things we hugely benefit from, and there's absolutely no guarantee doing this will bring them to the table. Why would they, with more desire to see Britain well, than them sitting down with us having not just trashed our own and some of their economies?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

You can all relax now, Brexit is coming, there won't be a second referendum. Boris Johnson will wipe the floor with Corbyn in a General election, he showed that today, he has bucketloads more charisma and a highly simplified message. You will get what you wanted, a hard Brexit and it will be utterly horrible but Boris has given a thirty year timetable for all the suffering (on top of 9 years of austerity).
The English outside of London will lap it up, "Make Britain Great Again", a long-term dream to hold onto through thirty years of crap.
He's selling you all down the river on a big, red bus full of lies but you've bought tickets for it and you DESERVE it.

[Quickenthetempo]

You can all relax now, Brexit is coming, there won't be a second referendum. Boris Johnson will wipe the floor with Corbyn in a General election, he showed that today, he has bucketloads more charisma and a highly simplified message. You will get what you wanted, a hard Brexit and it will be utterly horrible but Boris has given a thirty year timetable for all the suffering (on top of 9 years of austerity).
The English outside of London will lap it up, "Make Britain Great Again", a long-term dream to hold onto through thirty years of crap.
He's selling you all down the river on a big, red bus full of lies but you've bought tickets for it and you DESERVE it.

Dry your eyes mate

[Murger]

You can all relax now, Brexit is coming, there won't be a second referendum. Boris Johnson will wipe the floor with Corbyn in a General election, he showed that today, he has bucketloads more charisma and a highly simplified message. You will get what you wanted, a hard Brexit and it will be utterly horrible but Boris has given a thirty year timetable for all the suffering (on top of 9 years of austerity).
The English outside of London will lap it up, "Make Britain Great Again", a long-term dream to hold onto through thirty years of crap.
He's selling you all down the river on a big, red bus full of lies but you've bought tickets for it and you DESERVE it.

You ok hun?

[Colburn_Claret]

What you're suggesting - that the EU would just sit on their hands and do nothing - isn't what has happened. You don't like May's deal, but it was negotiated, and nobody criticised the EU for not participating. So there's no reason to believe that the EU wouldn't participate just as enthusiastically in working out a free trade deal (it'll be in their interest too). Bear in mind as well that whereas the EU position was very clear and consistent, the UK position (what we knew of it at least) was there wasn't an agreement within the cabinet over what they all wanted. If anything the EU were more honest than we were.

So right there I've just shown you there is every good reason to leave with a deal, and then move on to free trade talks.

Leave without a deal, and we pointlessly walk away from all the things we hugely benefit from, and there's absolutely no guarantee doing this will bring them to the table. Why would they, with more desire to see Britain well, than them sitting down with us having not just trashed our own and some of their economies?

There wasnt agreement in our Cabinet, at least we can agree on something. It's worth bearing in mind when people question Boris and his night of the long knives.
Negotiations should have been led, from the start, by those who fought to leave. In that case May's deal wouldn't have left the negotiation table. It's why Boris walked out of the Government, they were selling Brexit short. It's hard to put the rabbit back in the hat now. We agree that we need a deal, so how do you propose getting a new deal, in a climate of back stabbing and betrayal. You say the EU was honest, I'd agree, they've already admitted that they couldn't believe that May gave them everything they wanted. They walked in , in trepidation and left laughing. We've been climbing a greasy pole ever since.

[Colburn_Claret]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

You say that the question I want to put to the people is fraudulent without explaining why. You also don't even say what question it is I want to put.

I've no problem with Leave with No Deal versus Remain, because i don't think we're going to reach a deal that will get through parliament.


I would suggest a three-way vote though to include whatever deal we are able to have made. How would that be fraudulent if the referendum was ranked choice?

Because the EU know your options before they're written, and as I've explained many times,, it is impossible to get a deal whilst the EU think we might remain. Impossible.
Now if we leave first, they then accept we've gone, and real negotiations can begin, hopefully including that free trade agreement, but maybe not. We'll never know till we try.

[Imploding Turtle]

There wasnt agreement in our Cabinet, at least we can agree on something. It's worth bearing in mind when people question Boris and his night of the long knives.
Negotiations should have been led, from the start, by those who fought to leave. In that case May's deal wouldn't have left the negotiation table. It's why Boris walked out of the Government, they were selling Brexit short. It's hard to put the rabbit back in the hat now. We agree that we need a deal, so how do you propose getting a new deal, in a climate of back stabbing and betrayal. You say the EU was honest, I'd agree, they've already admitted that they couldn't believe that May gave them everything they wanted. They walked in , in trepidation and left laughing. We've been climbing a greasy pole ever since.

David Davis was Brexit secretary, and he did **** all, as was and did Dominic Raab. The latter didn't even know Dover was important.

But if it was the job of people other than the PM and Brexit secretaries to get this done then what did Boris do while he was Foreign Secretary? Why is he so innocent?

[JohnMcGreal]

Because the EU know your options before they're written, and as I've explained many times,, it is impossible to get a deal whilst the EU think we might remain. Impossible.
Now if we leave first, they then accept we've gone, and real negotiations can begin, hopefully including that free trade agreement, but maybe not. We'll never know till we try.

Ignoring the fact that nobody campaigned to just crash out with no deal, knacker the country completely and then start really negotiating, what do you think the EU will do in that first meeting after we've left?

When they demand a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights (the key sticking points of the WA), how do you think we should respond, bearing in mind back home everything is going completely tits up?

[Imploding Turtle]

Ignoring the fact that nobody campaigned to just crash out with no deal, knacker the country completely and then start really negotiating, what do you think the EU will do in that first meeting after we've left?

When they demand a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights (the key sticking points of the WA), how do you think we should respond, bearing in mind back home everything is going completely tits up?

They told us this would all be easy.

[JohnMcGreal]

They told us this would all be easy.

Indeed. After we've left with no deal, the top EU negotiators will probably come rushing to London instead of us going to Brussels, because they need us more than we need them.

[aggi]

Because the EU know your options before they're written, and as I've explained many times,, it is impossible to get a deal whilst the EU think we might remain. Impossible.
Now if we leave first, they then accept we've gone, and real negotiations can begin, hopefully including that free trade agreement, but maybe not. We'll never know till we try.

We discussed this yesterday. Relative to the EU the impact on the UK will be much higher if we crash out with no deal. Do you really think that will be a strong base for us to negotiate from?

[martin_p]

David Davis was Brexit secretary, and he did **** all, as was and did Dominic Raab. The latter didn't even know Dover was important.

But if it was the job of people other than the PM and Brexit secretaries to get this done then what did Boris do while he was Foreign Secretary? Why is he so innocent?

Yes, May only took over after Davis had failed to get anywhere for 18 months and the clock was ticking.

[Colburn_Claret]

We discussed this yesterday. Relative to the EU the impact on the UK will be much higher if we crash out with no deal. Do you really think that will be a strong base for us to negotiate from?

You claim that it will be worse for us, it still isnt good for them, even if you're right. The only reason they wouldn't come to a compromise deal is if they want to cut their nose of to spite their face. Remember it isnt Brussels that would suffer, it's the 27 countries that would take the hit. So yes, I do think there is a strong base for negotiations.

[Spijed]

And we are led to believe ministers like Domonic Raab are clever people!

Strewth

[Colburn_Claret]

Ignoring the fact that nobody campaigned to just crash out with no deal, knacker the country completely and then start really negotiating, what do you think the EU will do in that first meeting after we've left?

When they demand a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights (the key sticking points of the WA), how do you think we should respond, bearing in mind back home everything is going completely tits up?

I trust the people doing the deal, to have a lot more common sense than the idiots we've just lost.

[Damo]

Ignoring the fact that nobody campaigned to just crash out with no deal, knacker the country completely and then start really negotiating, what do you think the EU will do in that first meeting after we've left?

When they demand a resolution to the Irish border, the financial settlement and citizens rights (the key sticking points of the WA), how do you think we should respond, bearing in mind back home everything is going completely tits up?

The EU are going to start demanding things after we have left

[Bin Ont Turf]

The EU are going to start demanding things after we have left

Remember we're just a sad pathetic little nation in the North Atlantic.

We'll probably have to give them the county of Kent and all the Scottish Langoustines.

[aggi]

You claim that it will be worse for us, it still isnt good for them, even if you're right. The only reason they wouldn't come to a compromise deal is if they want to cut their nose of to spite their face. Remember it isnt Brussels that would suffer, it's the 27 countries that would take the hit. So yes, I do think there is a strong base for negotiations.

Well it would be the 27 countries but that is pretty much the point. As we discussed yesterday, for countries like France and Germany (and others like Spain and Poland) that hit is 7% of their exports. For the UK it is 45% to the EU.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And we are led to believe ministers like Domonic Raab are clever people!

Strewth

He's got a Master's Degree, so I doubt he's a complete bell end

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

He's got a Master's Degree, so I doubt he's a complete bell end

Is his Master’s Degree in Geography? Some frighteningly genuinely thick adults in this cabinet.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Dry your eyes mate

?

I'm very happy for you.

I will be 0% affected by Brexit.

Hard, soft, runny, deal, no deal, whatever, it will make absolutely no difference at all to me.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Is his Master’s Degree in Geography? Some frighteningly genuinely thick adults in this cabinet.

Frighteningly thick adults in both of the main parties but a number of them appear to have degrees.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

You ok hun?

I'm fine, I actually think the EU should reopen the process and listen to what the new leader of the country has to say.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Theresa May's deal was voted down three times and cost her her job. The Eu deciding that it's still the only deal on offer is ridiculous, by playing (cholrinated) chicken with them, Boris is probably doing the right thing.

[JohnMcGreal]

The EU are going to start demanding things after we have left

You're still not getting it, are you?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49123319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good start.

[tiger76]

Sounds promising if Boris and the HS can implement these recruitment plans,however this will still only bring the numbers up to 2009 levels.

And i don't see any details on how this will be funded,existing budgets or new money,if it's the former then what other departments will have to feel the pinch,and if it's the latter will this mean more borrowing or tax rises,as always the devil is in the detail.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Fair points ref costings etc.

As for 2009 levels, people generally use then as a starting point for when things went downhill, so if numbers can be raised to there and then kick on afterwards it can only be a good thing

[nil_desperandum]

There wasnt agreement in our Cabinet, at least we can agree on something. It's worth bearing in mind when people question Boris and his night of the long knives.
.

Careful. When I correctly predicted (on this thread on Feb 28th) that eventually there would have to be a Tory "Night of the long knives" I was excoriated by a group of brexiteers for using a Nazi reference!. Apparently any reference even remotely linked to Germany in the 1930s causes offence and can't be used. If you happened to be a "remainer" then you'd immediately have Ringo on your back, but I'm confident no one will criticise you for it.
Anyway, just to be clear, it's widely accepted as a generic term and was applied to MacMillan's purge of the cabinet in 1962, so it's perfectly acceptable.
The startling difference here is that he only sacked 7 out of 21!, and yet it was still regarded as a cull. This is effectively a coup.

[AndrewJB]

Sounds promising if Boris and the HS can implement these recruitment plans,however this will still only bring the numbers up to 2009 levels.

And i don't see any details on how this will be funded,existing budgets or new money,if it's the former then what other departments will have to feel the pinch,and if it's the latter will this mean more borrowing or tax rises,as always the devil is in the detail.

If any other party leader became PM with such a platform of tax cuts and spending increases, the media would stamp all over it. Which promises do you think he won’t keep?

[dsr]

Careful. When I correctly predicted (on this thread on Feb 28th) that eventually there would have to be a Tory "Night of the long knives" I was excoriated by a group of brexiteers for using a Nazi reference!.

Is "Jakubclaret" a username for a group of Brexiteers, then? How do you know that? Or are you assuming that if one Brexiteer says something stupid, then we have all said it?

[nil_desperandum]

Is "Jakubclaret" a username for a group of Brexiteers, then? How do you know that? Or are you assuming that if one Brexiteer says something stupid, then we have all said it?

It's been a common trait.
Ringo and a couple of others referenced it in the past week, when in referencing German businessmen of the 1930s installing Hitler as a puppet, it was claimed that I was comparing Johnson to Hitler, and implying that I was claiming that Johnson was like Hitler. (Which I never implied or said)

[RingoMcCartney]

Careful. When I correctly predicted (on this thread on Feb 28th) that eventually there would have to be a Tory "Night of the long knives" I was excoriated by a group of brexiteers for using a Nazi reference!. Apparently any reference even remotely linked to Germany in the 1930s causes offence and can't be used. If you happened to be a "remainer" then you'd immediately have Ringo on your back, but I'm confident no one will criticise you for it.
Anyway, just to be clear, it's widely accepted as a generic term and was applied to MacMillan's purge of the cabinet in 1962, so it's perfectly acceptable.
The startling difference here is that he only sacked 7 out of 21!, and yet it was still regarded as a cull. This is effectively a coup.

You have a very vague definition of "remotely linked"

Funnily enough, It's very similar to my definition of "blatantly linked"!

We know there's no point arguing with you. But:
My point - which should be clear to anyone who doesn't have an agenda, is that you can't just assume that you can get rid of Johnson as easily as he has been anointed.
There are many occasions in history, with 1930s Germany being the most obvious example, where clever, intelligent people have assumed that putting a fool or conman nto power is a good idea, and that he can quickly and easily be sidestepped or replaced.
History tells us that it often doesn't work out that way.
There's absolutely no guarantees at all that Johnson will just be there temporarilly to deliver brexit. Once in No 10 there's no guarantee he won't be there for some time.
And my initial post was in reply to someone who said we could easily get rid of him.
Context is everything when reading posts and replies.

If you want people to stop saying you're comparing Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler . One way would be to actually stop comparing Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler !!!

But then play the victim if you don't, only makes it worse for you

[Imploding Turtle]

It's been a common trait.
Ringo and a couple of others referenced it in the past week, when in referencing German businessmen of the 1930s installing Hitler as a puppet, it was claimed that I was comparing Johnson to Hitler, and implying that I was claiming that Johnson was like Hitler. (Which I never implied or said)

The Night of the Long Knives has been a Nazi fantasy for quite a while now. They really, really want a new one, so it's telling who on the right would jump at the chance to describe what we're seeing as that.

[dsr]

The Night of the Long Knives has been a Nazi fantasy for quite a while now. They really, really want a new one, so it's telling who on the right would jump at the chance to describe what we're seeing as that.

You're making the same mistake as Jakubclaret did. The meaning of "night of the long knives" in the sense of a swingeing change of cabinet refers to Macmillan, not Hitler. Nil-d knows that. I'm amazed that someone as political as you doesn't.

You weren't deliberately misunderstanding just to make a foolish point, were you?

[nil_desperandum]

If you want people to stop saying you're comparing Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler . One way would be to actually stop comparing Boris Johnson to Adolf Hitler !!!

Maybe we could simplify this if you can actually find a quote from me where I've made a direct comparison between Johnson and Hitler.
As someone else correctly pointed out, the fact that the names "Johnson" and "Hitler" happen to be in the same paragraph doesn't mean that you are drawing comparisons between them. But if you go back to my original post, you'll see that I consciously avoided including Hitler's name in my point for fear that someone - guess who - would choose to misinterpret what I was saying.

[Imploding Turtle]

You're making the same mistake as Jakubclaret did. The meaning of "night of the long knives" in the sense of a swingeing change of cabinet refers to Macmillan, not Hitler. Nil-d knows that. I'm amazed that someone as political as you doesn't.

You weren't deliberately misunderstanding just to make a foolish point, were you?

And why was Macmillan's called "Night of the Long Knives"? What caused it to receive that name? To what were people comparing it when they called it that?

[Bosscat]

You're making the same mistake as Jakubclaret did. The meaning of "night of the long knives" in the sense of a swingeing change of cabinet refers to Macmillan, not Hitler. Nil-d knows that. I'm amazed that someone as political as you doesn't.

You weren't deliberately misunderstanding just to make a foolish point, were you?

Actually read the following m8

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 4151325609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_o ... ong_Knives_(1962" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Both right m8 IT's abso-bloody-lutely correct as Herr Hitlers was 1st SuperMacs was named for the earlier one

[nil_desperandum]

Actually read the following m8

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 4151325609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_o ... ong_Knives_(1962" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Both right m8 IT's abso-bloody-lutely correct

Yes, but when I originally referenced this back in February I was so obviously referring to a cabinet reshuffle (MacMillan), not a murderous purge of all political opponents.
I think 99% of posters got this.

[dsr]

And why was Macmillan's called "Night of the Long Knives"? What caused it to receive that name? To what were people comparing it when they called it that?

If you want to post a pointless rant about how people used "Night of the long knives" in a fascist-supporting manner in 1962, then go ahead, make a fool of yourself that way. But in 2019, the description of a cabinet reshuffle as "night of the long knives" refers to MacMillan, not Hitler.

[Imploding Turtle]

If you want to post a pointless rant about how people used "Night of the long knives" in a fascist-supporting manner in 1962, then go ahead, make a fool of yourself that way. But in 2019, the description of a cabinet reshuffle as "night of the long knives" refers to MacMillan, not Hitler.

When they referred to Macmillan's reshuffle as Night of the Long Knives it was because of its similarities to Hitler's.

Any comparison to Macmillan's is by definition a comparison to Hitler's.

[dsr]

When they referred to Macmillan's reshuffle as Night of the Long Knives it was because of its similarities to Hitler's.

Any comparison to Macmillan's is by definition a comparison to Hitler's.

Not in normal English, it isn't. Only in your peculiar world.

[Imploding Turtle]

Not in normal English, it isn't. Only in your peculiar world.

It's not English, it's maths.

[Rick_Muller]

Is anyone else worried that these 2 muppets are now pulling the strings in USA and UK...???

Trump&Johnson.jpg (940.6 KiB) Viewed 2000 times

[Imploding Turtle]

Is anyone else worried that these 2 muppets are now pulling the strings in USA and UK...???

Trump&Johnson.jpg

They're the muppets. Putin is pulling their strings.

[Right_winger]

They're the muppets. Putin is pulling their strings.

Blah blah blah more nonsense from Daily Charlie