Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
What a mess this is.
Ministers standing up in Parliament and confirming that they will indeed seek to break the agreement they signed in good faith and pushed through Parliament.
Yank law makers saying that should we break the agreement (and no manner of semantics about "only breaking it a teensy-weeny bit" matter) then any chance of a UK-US trade deal are up in smoke.
Sir Jonathon Jones resigning seemingly because of the Government willingness to break the WA.
The testing system in disarray and not even close to coping.
Schools opening then having to close almost immediately.
All in 24hrs. Honestly, it is hard to keep up.
One thing that is certain, is that Johnson is goi g to have the mother of all hissy fits at PMQ's as he fails yet again to respond to what is put in front of him by Starmer.
Bad day for HMG.
Ministers standing up in Parliament and confirming that they will indeed seek to break the agreement they signed in good faith and pushed through Parliament.
Yank law makers saying that should we break the agreement (and no manner of semantics about "only breaking it a teensy-weeny bit" matter) then any chance of a UK-US trade deal are up in smoke.
Sir Jonathon Jones resigning seemingly because of the Government willingness to break the WA.
The testing system in disarray and not even close to coping.
Schools opening then having to close almost immediately.
All in 24hrs. Honestly, it is hard to keep up.
One thing that is certain, is that Johnson is goi g to have the mother of all hissy fits at PMQ's as he fails yet again to respond to what is put in front of him by Starmer.
Bad day for HMG.
markyb_lcy said:
Do they have verifiable evidence?
I’m hesitant to believe much of what The Sun print without alternative corroboration.
If true then that sure doesn’t look good, but both sides (and their aligned press) are slinging mud.
If the Sun told me it was raining and I was outside and getting wet, I'd still check.I’m hesitant to believe much of what The Sun print without alternative corroboration.
If true then that sure doesn’t look good, but both sides (and their aligned press) are slinging mud.
Anyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
JagLover said:
Just thinking about this. Some see it as merely a threat to the EU but given its counter-productive effect on negotiations that seems unlikely.
From all the detail out there it isn't throwing out the WA just unilaterally interpreting the provisions in respect to NI to minimise UK/NI internal trade friction.
It is also likely to create a showdown with the HOL and this is just the sort of issue where Boris/Cummings would like such a confrontation.
In summary it looks like talks are most likely to fail and the UK isn't going to capitulate in order to progress them (which is good news) and legislation being brought in now because it will create a political confrontation that may take some time to resolve.
Are you trying to argue that you can be only a little bit pregnant?From all the detail out there it isn't throwing out the WA just unilaterally interpreting the provisions in respect to NI to minimise UK/NI internal trade friction.
It is also likely to create a showdown with the HOL and this is just the sort of issue where Boris/Cummings would like such a confrontation.
In summary it looks like talks are most likely to fail and the UK isn't going to capitulate in order to progress them (which is good news) and legislation being brought in now because it will create a political confrontation that may take some time to resolve.
Either you are breaching an agreement or not. It is binary and there are no weasel words that can change that.
Breach a contract and you breach a contract.
IforB said:
If the Sun told me it was raining and I was outside and getting wet, I'd still check.
Anyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
OK seems a bit extreemeAnyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
That's a lot of people who need their bumps feeling - are you going to provide this service???
B'stard Child said:
markyb_lcy said:
B'stard Child said:
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
A measure of how thick and shallow a large proportion of the population are.30 million a month view the Online version
B'stard Child said:
IforB said:
If the Sun told me it was raining and I was outside and getting wet, I'd still check.
Anyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
OK seems a bit extreemeAnyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
That's a lot of people who need their bumps feeling - are you going to provide this service???
Edited by IforB on Wednesday 9th September 00:55
IforB said:
B'stard Child said:
IforB said:
If the Sun told me it was raining and I was outside and getting wet, I'd still check.
Anyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
OK seems a bit extreemeAnyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
That's a lot of people who need their bumps feeling - are you going to provide this service???
Are you actually suggesting that the Sun plays any part in providing balanced, in depth political discourse?
If so, then your bump test may need to be fairly extreme and involve 2x4's! :lol:
I'm still wondering how you are going to bump feel 2 million people
IforB said:
Seriously, the Sun is a sorry excuse for a "news" paper.
As is the Mail, The Mirror, Guardian etc etc however people still read them 
markyb_lcy said:
B'stard Child said:
markyb_lcy said:
B'stard Child said:
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
A measure of how thick and shallow a large proportion of the population are.30 million a month view the Online version
IforB said:
B'stard Child said:
IforB said:
If the Sun told me it was raining and I was outside and getting wet, I'd still check.
Anyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
OK seems a bit extreemeAnyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
That's a lot of people who need their bumps feeling - are you going to provide this service???
Edited by IforB on Wednesday 9th September 00:55
B'stard Child said:
markyb_lcy said:
B'stard Child said:
markyb_lcy said:
B'stard Child said:
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
A measure of how thick and shallow a large proportion of the population are.30 million a month view the Online version
Unfortunately it would also be rather unfair. Therein lies true Elitism. Democracy isn’t necessarily the system that gives the best outcomes but it sure does seem the fairest way to govern.
TLDR; we are f
ked B'stard Child said:
IforB said:
B'stard Child said:
IforB said:
If the Sun told me it was raining and I was outside and getting wet, I'd still check.
Anyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
OK seems a bit extreemeAnyone who uses the Sun as a verified source of "news" needs their bumps felt.
1.2 Million people who purchase the paper daily
30 million a month view the Online version
That's a lot of people who need their bumps feeling - are you going to provide this service???
Edited by IforB on Wednesday 9th September 00:55
markyb_lcy said:
B'stard Child said:
Is this where you insist on an IQ test to vote?? It's not like it's never been suggested before
It’s tempting, isn’t it? Unfortunately it would also be rather unfair. Therein lies true Elitism. Democracy isn’t necessarily the system that gives the best outcomes but it sure does seem the fairest way to govern.
markyb_lcy said:
TLDR; we are fked
I don't think we are - I think democracy is stronger than that............ But when results don't go the way they wanted I could understand how people get to that conclusion ked Murph7355 said:
JagLover said:
....interpreting the provisions in respect to NI to minimise UK/NI internal trade friction. ...
Something the WA notes is to be avoided (NI/UK trade friction).Something may be a technical breach of the WA (the lack of jointly agreed measures) while remaining within its spirit and ALSO needed to remain in compliance with another international agreement in the form of the GFA. If we are required to have checks on goods moving from the UK to NI then the UK is bringing legislation in unilaterally to do so in the least disruptive way possible.
If rumours are true of the EU threatening food exports from the UK to NI then how is that in compliance with the GFA?
As I said I do not agree with simply tearing up the WA. But international agreements are modified all the time and as long as the UK government can be seen to be acting in good faith I do not see there being any significant impact on parties outside of the dispute.
The way the negotiations have gone have also confirmed me in my view that we should have as little to do with the EU as possible once we have left. A basic FTA fine, if they ever seem like being willing to sign one, but nothing further. The slightest leverage and then they try and force their control over you. They are an empire but they operate through economic coercion, not military might.
markyb_lcy said:
It’s tempting, isn’t it?
Unfortunately it would also be rather unfair. Therein lies true Elitism. Democracy isn’t necessarily the system that gives the best outcomes but it sure does seem the fairest way to govern.
TLDR; we are fked
I think elitism is too kind a word for it. It's mob rule - just by a different mob. It's a dangerous misconception that 'intelligence' or 'IQ' is somehow a measure of immunity against idiotic political ideas, fringe ideologies, extremely poor decision making and anti-social or even sociopathic behaviour. Similarly, judgement by the paper you read.Unfortunately it would also be rather unfair. Therein lies true Elitism. Democracy isn’t necessarily the system that gives the best outcomes but it sure does seem the fairest way to govern.
TLDR; we are f
ked This is not "people who think 'better'", it's "people who think like me", dressed up in arrogance.
That's not aimed at you marky, but this particular trope is a pet peeve having worked with quite a few "high functioning" individuals. Like anybody else on this planet, they can be lovely, but they can be complete nightmares. The people behind extinction rebellion fit neatly into this category. Guardian readers, the lot of them
Tuna said:
markyb_lcy said:
It’s tempting, isn’t it?
Unfortunately it would also be rather unfair. Therein lies true Elitism. Democracy isn’t necessarily the system that gives the best outcomes but it sure does seem the fairest way to govern.
TLDR; we are fked
I think elitism is too kind a word for it. It's mob rule - just by a different mob. It's a dangerous misconception that 'intelligence' or 'IQ' is somehow a measure of immunity against idiotic political ideas, fringe ideologies, extremely poor decision making and anti-social or even sociopathic behaviour. Similarly, judgement by the paper you read.Unfortunately it would also be rather unfair. Therein lies true Elitism. Democracy isn’t necessarily the system that gives the best outcomes but it sure does seem the fairest way to govern.
TLDR; we are f
ked This is not "people who think 'better'", it's "people who think like me", dressed up in arrogance.
That's not aimed at you marky, but this particular trope is a pet peeve having worked with quite a few "high functioning" individuals. Like anybody else on this planet, they can be lovely, but they can be complete nightmares. The people behind extinction rebellion fit neatly into this category. Guardian readers, the lot of them
And yet there's no harm in breaking that rule, in the context of social bantercourse
Guardian readers as a self-appointed (non-) elite, here elite is inappropriate and not a good thing.
Elite sports, elite universities, this is real excellence and elite is a good thing, as it should be.
As to IQ / other metrics and immunity against unworkable and/or extreme political ideas, as noted ^^ it's unrelated. Take Prof Hawking. He needed a viva to get his First, plenty of his peers clearly did better, yet he was/is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable elites in science worldwide and across time, far exceeding the achievements of his examiners. In keeping with other ivory tower inhabitants, he was well over to the Left. Even so he realised that Corbyn was 'a disaster', and moving from UC Oxford to Cambridge at Tit Hall and Caius was a good decision obviously.
Whenever Boris does something like this whilst I'd be accused of what aboutery I often think "I wonder what people would say if someone else did that?" and I think this is a good example.
I wonder what the reaction would be from those saying "this is fine" if Barnier or Ursula von der Leyen stood up in the European Parliament and said they were sick of arguing about fish and were going to introduce EU legislation that would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
I suspect we'd see a rather different reaction than the one we've had on here and much less sympathy for it only being a "technical breach".
I wonder what the reaction would be from those saying "this is fine" if Barnier or Ursula von der Leyen stood up in the European Parliament and said they were sick of arguing about fish and were going to introduce EU legislation that would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
I suspect we'd see a rather different reaction than the one we've had on here and much less sympathy for it only being a "technical breach".
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Whenever Boris does something like this whilst I'd be accused of what aboutery I often think "I wonder what people would say if someone else did that?" and I think this is a good example.
I wonder what the reaction would be from those saying "this is fine" if Barnier or Ursula von der Leyen stood up in the European Parliament and said they were sick of arguing about fish and were going to introduce EU legislation that would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
I suspect we'd see a rather different reaction than the one we've had on here and much less sympathy for it only being a "technical breach".
Amazing isn't it. I wonder what the reaction would be from those saying "this is fine" if Barnier or Ursula von der Leyen stood up in the European Parliament and said they were sick of arguing about fish and were going to introduce EU legislation that would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
I suspect we'd see a rather different reaction than the one we've had on here and much less sympathy for it only being a "technical breach".
A "technical breach" is of course still a breach. It is like someone describing themselves as "a little bit pregnant."
You either are, or you are not.
It is still amazing what the Johnson fanbois on here will support. Were this a Labour PM or God forbid, the EU acting like this, they would be howling from the roof tops.
The Government are on record, in Parliament of all places, saying they WILL break the law.
That alone is astonishing. It is premeditated.
There is no way to spin this that isn't utterly appalling. Either they are incompetent as they are happy to talk about breaking law (that they put into being) or they are incompetent because they put together a terrible agreement in the first place.
Actually, it is both. They did a crap job previously, have done a crap job in the meantime and are now trying to get out of it by acting illegally.
Whilst we have no need for any more information to prove their utter unsuitability to run this country, they keep providing it.
Equally, as day follows night, the Boris Fanbois will try and pretend it is acceptable.
IforB said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Whenever Boris does something like this whilst I'd be accused of what aboutery I often think "I wonder what people would say if someone else did that?" and I think this is a good example.
I wonder what the reaction would be from those saying "this is fine" if Barnier or Ursula von der Leyen stood up in the European Parliament and said they were sick of arguing about fish and were going to introduce EU legislation that would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
I suspect we'd see a rather different reaction than the one we've had on here and much less sympathy for it only being a "technical breach".
Amazing isn't it. I wonder what the reaction would be from those saying "this is fine" if Barnier or Ursula von der Leyen stood up in the European Parliament and said they were sick of arguing about fish and were going to introduce EU legislation that would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
I suspect we'd see a rather different reaction than the one we've had on here and much less sympathy for it only being a "technical breach".
A "technical breach" is of course still a breach. It is like someone describing themselves as "a little bit pregnant."
You either are, or you are not.
It is still amazing what the Johnson fanbois on here will support. Were this a Labour PM or God forbid, the EU acting like this, they would be howling from the roof tops.
The Government are on record, in Parliament of all places, saying they WILL break the law.
That alone is astonishing. It is premeditated.
There is no way to spin this that isn't utterly appalling. Either they are incompetent as they are happy to talk about breaking law (that they put into being) or they are incompetent because they put together a terrible agreement in the first place.
Actually, it is both. They did a crap job previously, have done a crap job in the meantime and are now trying to get out of it by acting illegally.
Whilst we have no need for any more information to prove their utter unsuitability to run this country, they keep providing it.
Equally, as day follows night, the Boris Fanbois will try and pretend it is acceptable.
Fiscal transfers are expressly forbidden in Lisbon. Yet they exist - and recently a whole package was agreed using a new mechanism (a controlled one this time, as opposed to the other main fiscal transfer mechanism in place since the euro was setup).
You can find the comments from me and other leave supporters at the time, regarding how it wasn't enough and they should to more. That's despite being fully aware it's a breach of 'international law'.
See, outcomes based pragmatism is key. The 'why' is key.
In both examples, the why appears to be understandable. In both examples, the outcomes appear to be appropriate and desirable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff