Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 3)

[anonymous-user]

Brave Fart said:

I understood Brexit to mean the act of leaving the EU. Which we will do, given a Tory majority, in January, once the last of the mince pies have been digested.
The subsequent trade talks are post-Brexit. Boris's statement / slogan is, therefore, not a lie.

Brexit will not be done until lengthy and complex negotiations have been completed. The WA is a starting point, not an end point.

[Digger]

WA? Working Agreement?

[Tuna]

Breadvan72 said:

Brexit will not be done until lengthy and complex negotiations have been completed. The WA is a starting point, not an end point.

Both sides have been guilty of pretending the WA represents a 'final agreement' and so muddying the waters. Withdrawal itself will be a big step in the process, and the danger for die-hard Remainers is that it turns out it's not the end of the world after all.

Some clarity after three years of limbo and uncertainty will itself benefit a lot of businesses and individuals. The completion of the process will take far longer, but the direct relevance to the 'man on the street' will decline rapidly as key stages are passed.

[anonymous-user]

IforB said:

Now, given that this lady appears to have naffed off and claimed diplomatic protection, despite potentially not actually having it, then it would be interesting to know why the Government has done zero to bring her back so that she can be asked questions as part of a normal Police investigation.

I don't know about you, but anyone from another country disappearing and using the old "Diplomatic Immunity" phrase to simply avoid being questioned by Police or prosecuted for breaking UK laws doesn't really sit right anyway, let alone when a British citizen has been killed and the person who looks to have done it has scarpered and may not really have been allowed to use that particular little loophole.

If someone commits or is suspected of committing a crime in the UK, then surely our justice system should be allowed to do its job? So I am wondering why the Government is trying to bully the parents away from taking legal action that might show up that the Government aren't really trying to get this woman back and want to sweep the whole thing under the table.

Are you really be OK with that?

Edited by IforB on Thursday 21st November 16:42

USA government control if this woman will be returned to the UK and they have said she isn't coming back to the UK.

UK government has done what they can under the current UK USA extradition rules.

UK has sent police to the USA to interview the woman.

Maybe you can explain what else they can do that they haven't yet done.

[gooner1]

Breadvan72 said:

Tuna said:

Out of interest, what is the normal procedure for court cases brought like this? If the people bringing the case lose, do they usually have to pay costs?

The general rule in all litigation is yes, but when a public interest issue is raised then the answer may be no. Given the nature of the issues raised by the Dunn case, it would be pretty standard for the Gov not to seek costs if successful.

Is it not also possible, though unlikely, that if this case is deemed to be in the public interest, that
the court concerned could rule that no costs be awarded against the Dunns if they were to lose?

[pingu393]

Tuna said:

La Liga said:

Didn't take long for the internet to get back at the Tories: https://www.thetorymanifesto.com/

A truly stylish and literate take down.

I knew it wasn't written by Mr Rees-Mogg. He'd have spelt it phuque

[Zirconia]

pingu393 said:

Tuna said:

La Liga said:

Didn't take long for the internet to get back at the Tories: https://www.thetorymanifesto.com/

A truly stylish and literate take down.

I knew it wasn't written by Mr Rees-Mogg. He'd have spelt it phuque

Mogg would have used begat begat begat

[CrutyRammers]

Crafty_ said:

So what group are responsible for "fair play" during an election (assuming there is such a thing) ?

Tories seem intent on misleading people this week.

How much more can they get away with before they are in trouble ?

On the other hand, are they really that desperate they have to keep trying cheap tricks ?

Boris was on the radio driving home, talking about how terrible the Labour Manifesto is, as usual he doesn't sound calm and measured, just a jumble of words thrown together.

They're just catching up with the momentum lot last time...the canary, London economic, novaro media and all those outfits put out huge amounts of bullst about the Tories which played well with their voters. Methinks the Tories are trying to get a bit of that action, though I'm not sure it'll work.

[turbobloke]

CrutyRammers said:

Crafty_ said:

So what group are responsible for "fair play" during an election (assuming there is such a thing) ?

Tories seem intent on misleading people this week.

How much more can they get away with before they are in trouble ?

On the other hand, are they really that desperate they have to keep trying cheap tricks ?

Boris was on the radio driving home, talking about how terrible the Labour Manifesto is, as usual he doesn't sound calm and measured, just a jumble of words thrown together.

They're just catching up with the momentum lot last time...the canary, London economic, novaro media and all those outfits put out huge amounts of bullst about the Tories which played well with their voters. Methinks the Tories are trying to get a bit of that action, though I'm not sure it'll work.

Lots of the Labour manifesto is aimed at misleading people. The IFS review is telling,

[IforB]

jsf said:

IforB said:

Now, given that this lady appears to have naffed off and claimed diplomatic protection, despite potentially not actually having it, then it would be interesting to know why the Government has done zero to bring her back so that she can be asked questions as part of a normal Police investigation.

I don't know about you, but anyone from another country disappearing and using the old "Diplomatic Immunity" phrase to simply avoid being questioned by Police or prosecuted for breaking UK laws doesn't really sit right anyway, let alone when a British citizen has been killed and the person who looks to have done it has scarpered and may not really have been allowed to use that particular little loophole.

If someone commits or is suspected of committing a crime in the UK, then surely our justice system should be allowed to do its job? So I am wondering why the Government is trying to bully the parents away from taking legal action that might show up that the Government aren't really trying to get this woman back and want to sweep the whole thing under the table.

Are you really be OK with that?

Edited by IforB on Thursday 21st November 16:42

USA government control if this woman will be returned to the UK and they have said she isn't coming back to the UK.

UK government has done what they can under the current UK USA extradition rules.

UK has sent police to the USA to interview the woman.

Maybe you can explain what else they can do that they haven't yet done.

Hmm, you appear to be missing the entire point that it would be for the court to determine whether they really had done what they could.

Are you a fan of relying on any Government to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[Brave Fart]

Breadvan72 said:

Brexit will not be done until lengthy and complex negotiations have been completed. The WA is a starting point, not an end point.

I disagree with your first sentence. For me, Brexit means the act of leaving - the Withdrawal Agreement. Subsequent negotiations are, therefore, post-Brexit. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but to accuse Boris of lying when he is clearly referring to the WA is unreasonable.

[Crafty_]

Brave Fart said:

I disagree with your first sentence. For me, Brexit means the act of leaving - the Withdrawal Agreement. Subsequent negotiations are, therefore, post-Brexit. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but to accuse Boris of lying when he is clearly referring to the WA is unreasonable.

Even if we're still paying in to the EU and still under their rules ?

[Mrr T]

Brave Fart said:

I disagree with your first sentence. For me, Brexit means the act of leaving - the Withdrawal Agreement. Subsequent negotiations are, therefore, post-Brexit. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but to accuse Boris of lying when he is clearly referring to the WA is unreasonable.

BJ says 9 months is sufficient time to negotiate the new relationship with the EU and he will not extend the transition period. Everybody else says there will not be sufficient time to negotiate the new relationship with the EU in 9 months. BJ is lying again.

[Dixy]

Crafty_ said:

Even if we're still paying in to the EU and still under their rules ?

So after a landslide victory would you have him make a clean break on WTO.

[anonymous-user]

Dixy said:

Crafty_ said:

Even if we're still paying in to the EU and still under their rules ?

So after a landslide victory would you have him make a clean break on WTO.

A clean break on WTO is as much of a fantasy position as the rest of the Brexit unicornfest.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

Dixy said:

Crafty_ said:

Even if we're still paying in to the EU and still under their rules ?

So after a landslide victory would you have him make a clean break on WTO.

A clean break on WTO is as much of a fantasy position as the rest of the Brexit unicornfest.

What's "the rest of the Brexit unicornfest"? Does it include leaving under Boris's new old deal?

[techguyone]

Breadvan72 said:

A clean break on WTO is as much of a fantasy position as the rest of the Brexit unicornfest.

Lube up your unicorn, you're going for a ride Dorothy. Like it or not

[gooner1]

techguyone said:

Breadvan72 said:

A clean break on WTO is as much of a fantasy position as the rest of the Brexit unicornfest.

Lube up your unicorn, you're going for a ride Dorothy. Like it or not

[Crafty_]

Dixy said:

Crafty_ said:

Even if we're still paying in to the EU and still under their rules ?

So after a landslide victory would you have him make a clean break on WTO.

I didn't say that, I was merely pointing out that even when Boris finally gets his day and we're officially out, in reality fk all changes. We're still paying in and all those who voted to "get their sovereignity back" won't.

According to Mr Johnson, this situation will only go on for 9 months whilst a deal is put together. Plenty of others point out that trade deals take years to put together and if you think about it, its a perfect situation for the EU - pesky old UK cannot veto anything or cause any trouble, meantime the EU will be getting a wedge of cash from us... why wouldn't they dither as long as possible ?

Seems to me to be the worst case scenario - if we stayed in we'd retain our rights. If we were properly out we wouldn't be paying.
As it is, we've got the worst of both worlds.

[turbobloke]

Crafty_ said:

Dixy said:

Crafty_ said:

Even if we're still paying in to the EU and still under their rules ?

So after a landslide victory would you have him make a clean break on WTO.

I didn't say that, I was merely pointing out that even when Boris finally gets his day and we're officially out, in reality fk all changes. We're still paying in and all those who voted to "get their sovereignty back" won't.

That thing about sovereignty is convenient use of the word or abuse of the word. We won't have full sovereignty as part of NATO regardless of the EU, as we made commitment on accepting membership.

Some people will have voted Leave to get more powers to Westminster than before, over more policy areas than before, not all powers in all areas. That's the path the UK will be on after we initially leave the EU with some but not all things the same as before. It won't be all or nothing immediately, but a progression in the right direction over time. We can negotiate our own traed deals for example and not be part of one size fits 28.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 22 November 19:29