Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)

[anonymous-user]

Dont like rolls said:

SWoll said:

How about settling it the old fashioned way. Each side picks their champion and then they have a fight to the death?

They could sell the rights to Sky Box Office and make it pay per view?

ETA - Based on the stereotypical supporter of each side I'd put my money on Leave.

Ah but think of the joy when they say they want another referendum (round).

dereck chisora v jug ears lineaker, I know who my groats would be on

[Dont like rolls]

catweasle said:

dereck chisora v jug ears lineaker, I know who my groats would be on

I was thinking Sajid Javid vrs Chukka the Melt

[robemcdonald]

Can we have the cringe thread back?

[Derek Smith]

Dr Jekyll said:

Derek Smith said:

As long as the facts about the current state of WTO, and how it is being ignored and sidestepped by the big countries, is made available to all and everyone, then, perhaps, there will be little point in a referendum between the deal and WTO.

I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.

We already deal with most of the world on WTO terms so I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps it's dealing with the EU on WTO that worries you. Is it a case of 'Stay in the EU because the EU can't be trusted not to ignore and sidestep trade rules'?

The WTO is something of a myth. It's ephemeral. It is ignored by many countries.

What's all this rubbish about me be worried? All I've done is explained that the WTO is being ignored by some big countries. If it doesn't suit your agenda, well OK, but don't push wild guesses on me just to support it.

The WTO is struggling. Read about it. It's out there.

[Dr Jekyll]

Derek Smith said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Derek Smith said:

As long as the facts about the current state of WTO, and how it is being ignored and sidestepped by the big countries, is made available to all and everyone, then, perhaps, there will be little point in a referendum between the deal and WTO.

I can see no logical argument against another referendum that excludes cost.

We already deal with most of the world on WTO terms so I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps it's dealing with the EU on WTO that worries you. Is it a case of 'Stay in the EU because the EU can't be trusted not to ignore and sidestep trade rules'?

The WTO is something of a myth. It's ephemeral. It is ignored by many countries.

What's all this rubbish about me be worried? All I've done is explained that the WTO is being ignored by some big countries. If it doesn't suit your agenda, well OK, but don't push wild guesses on me just to support it.

The WTO is struggling. Read about it. It's out there.

No, you've put that forward as an argument for staying tied to the EU rather than dealing on WTO terms.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Derek Smith said:

The WTO is something of a myth. It's ephemeral. It is ignored by many countries.

What's all this rubbish about me be worried? All I've done is explained that the WTO is being ignored by some big countries. If it doesn't suit your agenda, well OK, but don't push wild guesses on me just to support it.

The WTO is struggling. Read about it. It's out there.

I wasn't talking about the WTO as an alternative path to redemption from self loathing, just as a default trading arrangement in the absence of a specific deal.

Would you expect all trade to cease if we simply left the EU?

[Derek Smith]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Derek Smith said:

The WTO is something of a myth. It's ephemeral. It is ignored by many countries.

What's all this rubbish about me be worried? All I've done is explained that the WTO is being ignored by some big countries. If it doesn't suit your agenda, well OK, but don't push wild guesses on me just to support it.

The WTO is struggling. Read about it. It's out there.

I wasn't talking about the WTO as an alternative path to redemption from self loathing, just as a default trading arrangement in the absence of a specific deal.

Would you expect all trade to cease if we simply left the EU?

That's got nothing to do with what I posted. All I've said is that this great, friendly bunch of countries, all of whom want to trade with us on the grounds of an agreement that has no means of penalising those who ignore it, such as some big countries, is not the panacea of all our ills.

Why ask such a nonsensical question? Of course trade will continue. The point is how much it will cost us.

The idea that there's some sort of fair trade agreement between all countries that is honoured by everyone is something that even Walt Disney wouldn't run with.

The default trading position is that the powerful impose.

[anonymous-user]

Dont like rolls said:

bold needs qualifying with evidence (as a start on some of the rest).

See: the internet. Seriously, this is a current affairs discussion. It does not seem too big an ask to expect participants to have some awareness of current affairs, and some access to fact-checked online sources. The evidence that Johnson disdains Africans (possibly also Muslims*, but mainly Africans) is ample, and derives mainly from his own published statements. Johnson's racism appears to be of the snobbish, Sanders of the River, Imperialist variety rather than the Tommy Robinson variety, or the Jeremy Corbyn variety, but racism is racism.


Johnson is, as many have observed, ironically something of a metropolitan liberal, and probably at heart a remainer (to the extent that he has a serious opinion about any subject), but he has the lazy racism of the entitled. He is in some ways a throwback to the stereotypical toff of the pre War era (Johnson plays that role way better than Rees-Mogg, who seems to suffer from a shortage of personality, and so carries the shtick off less convincingly). That is one reason why Johnson plays well with those seeking to inhabit a nostalgic vision of a Britain that never truly existed. Imagine Bertie Wooster, Tuppy Glossop, or Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps, but with added harm and guile. Britain used to be ruled by members of the Carlton, the Reform, and the Athenaeum, and owned by members of White's. Nowadays we get the Drones Club.




*Anyone saying that Muslims are not a race and there is no racism directed at Muslims will be given the Paddington stare.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th November 09:41

[psi310398]

Breadvan72 said:

SNIP

*Anyone saying that Muslims are not a race and there is no racism directed at Muslims will be given the Paddington stare.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 18th November 09:41

Neat little debating trick there. It is, of course, possible to hold the first view (IMO correctly) and also to agree that some Muslims are affected by racism.
You do your argument no favours by conflating the points.

In my view it is perfectly respectable to dislike someone's value system, and even to refuse to have anything to do with people who subscribe to a particular one whether it be Islam or Catholicism or Marxism or Tommy Robinsonism, but is not respectable to discriminate on the grounds of race.

[techguyone]

BV is showing off some impressive Class War ideals again. I'm starting to wonder if he's really Wolfie Smith and hails from Tooting.

Edited by techguyone on Monday 18th November 11:58

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Derek Smith said:

That's got nothing to do with what I posted. All I've said is that this great, friendly bunch of countries, all of whom want to trade with us on the grounds of an agreement that has no means of penalising those who ignore it, such as some big countries, is not the panacea of all our ills.

Why ask such a nonsensical question? Of course trade will continue. The point is how much it will cost us.

The idea that there's some sort of fair trade agreement between all countries that is honoured by everyone is something that even Walt Disney wouldn't run with.

The default trading position is that the powerful impose.

I never said WTO was a panacea for all ills, it's just a set of default trading arrangements which would facilitate trade without a specific deal.

[Mrr T]

Dr Jekyll said:

We already deal with most of the world on WTO terms so I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps it's dealing with the EU on WTO that worries you. Is it a case of 'Stay in the EU because the EU can't be trusted not to ignore and sidestep trade rules'?

Not really correct. The UK trades with all WTO members on WTO terms. For most WTO members those terms are improved by bilateral or multilateral agreements. The UK trades with very few WTO members only on WTO rules.

[Dr Jekyll]

Mrr T said:

Dr Jekyll said:

We already deal with most of the world on WTO terms so I don't see the relevance. Or perhaps it's dealing with the EU on WTO that worries you. Is it a case of 'Stay in the EU because the EU can't be trusted not to ignore and sidestep trade rules'?

Not really correct. The UK trades with all WTO members on WTO terms. For most WTO members those terms are improved by bilateral or multilateral agreements. The UK trades with very few WTO members only on WTO rules.

But those agreements cover minor things like furniture labelling, totally different from full trade agreements. They don't alter the fact that we trade quite happily on WTO terms.

[ClaphamGT3]

Just delivered a woefully insubstantial speech to the CBI

[turbobloke]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Just delivered a woefully insubstantial speech to the CBI

The CBI will start plugging nationalisation at that rate. Then the full marxism menu. Not long now.

[Gargamel]

Breadvan72 said:

Dont like rolls said:

bold needs qualifying with evidence (as a start on some of the rest).

See: the internet. Seriously, this is a current affairs discussion. It does not seem too big an ask to expect participants to have some awareness of current affairs, and some access to fact-checked online sources. The evidence that Johnson disdains Africans (possibly also Muslims*, but mainly Africans) is ample, and derives mainly from his own published statements. Johnson's racism appears to be of the snobbish, Sanders of the River, Imperialist variety rather than the Tommy Robinson variety, or the Jeremy Corbyn variety, but racism is racism.


Johnson is, as many have observed, ironically something of a metropolitan liberal, and probably at heart a remainer (to the extent that he has a serious opinion about any subject), but he has the lazy racism of the entitled. He is in some ways a throwback to the stereotypical toff of the pre War era (Johnson plays that role way better than Rees-Mogg, who seems to suffer from a shortage of personality, and so carries the shtick off less convincingly). That is one reason why Johnson plays well with those seeking to inhabit a nostalgic vision of a Britain that never truly existed. Imagine Bertie Wooster, Tuppy Glossop, or Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps, but with added harm and guile. Britain used to be ruled by members of the Carlton, the Reform, and the Athenaeum, and owned by members of White's. Nowadays we get the Drones Club.




*Anyone saying that Muslims are not a race and there is no racism directed at Muslims will be given the Paddington stare.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 18th November 09:41

Has Boris used language that belongs back in the 19th Century, yes absolutely.

Does he also have a very wide and inclusive Cabinet and wider party membership, yes he does.

I don’t think Boris holds racist values or at least I see now evidence of him holding a bias when appointing cabinet ministers or similar positions. I don’t think he favors one group or race over another. He might be - i can’t say. But I think there is a difference in using language and holding beliefs.

[robemcdonald]

Gargamel said:

Has Boris used language that belongs back in the 19th Century, yes absolutely.

Does he also have a very wide and inclusive Cabinet and wider party membership, yes he does.

I don’t think Boris holds racist values or at least I see now evidence of him holding a bias when appointing cabinet ministers or similar positions. I don’t think he favors one group or race over another. He might be - i can’t say. But I think there is a difference in using language and holding beliefs.

First we have the "my dad is harder than your dad" from yesterday evening and now we have the "I cant be racist. Some of my best friends are black" argument.

The gift that keeps giving.

Keep up the good work..

[Gargamel]

robemcdonald said:

First we have the "my dad is harder than your dad" from yesterday evening and now we have the "I cant be racist. Some of my best friends are black" argument.

The gift that keeps giving.

Keep up the good work..

I going to guess that reading and comprehension are not amongst your strong points.

[Piha]

Did I hear correctly that de Pfeffel is going to cancel his much vaunted cut in corporation tax? I thought the tory fanboi's on PH insisted cutting taxes brought more money into the exchequer!

[turbobloke]

Piha said:

Did I hear correctly that de Pfeffel is going to cancel his much vaunted cut in corporation tax? I thought the tory fanboi's on PH insisted cutting taxes brought more money into the exchequer!

Knowing your place (on the Laffer Curve) can help at such times.

Tax rate cuts can increase tax-take, as you are doubtless aware, depending on the starting point as above.