Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 7)
Discussion
Condi said:
What are people's opinion of his attempts to renegotiate the NI protocol?
Something he said was the easiest deal ever and signed less than 7 months ago. The practical implications were obvious and yet secondary to "Getting Brexit done". Yet another case of Boris saying whatever he thinks people want to hear with little consideration of how it will actually play out in practice? If he thinks that it will be easy or even possible to get the EU to change their mind then he's deluded.
Well, if you don't understand the problem, you're not going to understand opinions that don't agree with your own, are you?Something he said was the easiest deal ever and signed less than 7 months ago. The practical implications were obvious and yet secondary to "Getting Brexit done". Yet another case of Boris saying whatever he thinks people want to hear with little consideration of how it will actually play out in practice? If he thinks that it will be easy or even possible to get the EU to change their mind then he's deluded.
NI was the sticking point (quite deliberately so on some sides) for Brexit. The NI protocol set out the principles of operation that allowed *both* sides to feel they had not lost control of the situation. As such this isn't about renegotiating anything. However, the EU continues to attempt to use it to 'renegotiate Brexit' - specifically trying to force regulatory alignment.
Now, it's fair enough to argue that we should have stood firm and not accepted any compromise. Personally, I don't think that would have been acceptable to anyone. I note that the same people who didn't want Brexit in the first place and loudly told Leavers to "own it" are now whinging that Frost didn't magically negotiate the perfect deal with the EU. It's like a bunch of toddlers complaining they didn't get ice-cream.
I don't think you'll find anyone claiming that the EU's behaviour has been demonstrating "good faith" - Biden himself was quite clear that they had to share responsibility for the problem (funnily enough, the cheerleaders who thought he was going to blame Boris went very quiet at that point). And the key point here is that it is a shared problem. Not one where you apportion blame and then pout until you get your way.
The Spruce Goose said:
Could say France is actually more open than the UK....
Sorry, but "open" for what, exactly? I'm having a Das EFX afternoon at the BBQ, but curious what you mean here?
100% is proven they are open for corruption, given all the fines they pay; but open for what? Tea and cakes?
stongle said:
Sorry, but "open" for what, exactly?
I'm having a Das EFX afternoon at the BBQ, but curious what you mean here?
100% is proven they are open for corruption, given all the fines they pay; but open for what? Tea and cakes?
Exposing Corruption. Johnson has certainty set some records, well besides the amount of kids he has sired, hopefully he will be held accountable.I'm having a Das EFX afternoon at the BBQ, but curious what you mean here?
100% is proven they are open for corruption, given all the fines they pay; but open for what? Tea and cakes?
General Price said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Exposing Corruption. Johnson has certainty set some records, well besides the amount of kids he has sired, hopefully he will be held accountable.
I don't think having a few kids is against the law.He may be, he may not be. That's where it's at for now.
General Price said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Exposing Corruption. Johnson has certainty set some records, well besides the amount of kids he has sired, hopefully he will be held accountable.
I don't think having a few kids is against the law.Trying to keep the identity of the father secret is - according to The Court of Appeal - when the father is Boris Johnson.
Johnson's adulterous, "reckless", extra marital affairs are a matter of public interest because they cast doubt on his fitness for public office.
They were the judges' words (or something like that anyway) when he was Mayor, never mind PM.
General Price said:
I don't think having a few kids is against the law.
Setting records for kids as a PM is obviously nothing to do with breaking the law, setting records in potential corruption activities is, like i said 20 billion contracts, 1 legal win so far, still another mutitude of cases to come.I guess you feel trying to imply i mentioned his kids being illegal when i didn't is the only way to argue as this is clearly a big issue for Tory supporters to comprehend history being written.
The Spruce Goose said:
General Price said:
I don't think having a few kids is against the law.
Setting records for kids as a PM is obviously nothing to do with breaking the law, setting records in potential corruption activities is, like i said 20 billion contracts, 1 legal win so far, still another mutitude of cases to come.I guess you feel trying to imply i mentioned his kids being illegal when i didn't is the only way to argue as this is clearly a big issue for Tory supporters to comprehend history being written.
turbobloke said:
Do you think this is going to make any difference apart from reinforcing dislike for those who don't vote for Boris/Conservatives anyway? The pattern is repetitive yet goes nowhere. If only politicians, of any persuasion, weren't politicians.
Should unlawful and/or immoral behaviour be accepted because the person behaving that way is a politician?APontus said:
turbobloke said:
Do you think this is going to make any difference apart from reinforcing dislike for those who don't vote for Boris/Conservatives anyway? The pattern is repetitive yet goes nowhere. If only politicians, of any persuasion, weren't politicians.
Should unlawful and/or immoral behaviour be accepted because the person behaving that way is a politician?Just ask Tuna and Turbo.
Tuna said:
Well, if you don't understand the problem, you're not going to understand opinions that don't agree with your own, are you?
NI was the sticking point (quite deliberately so on some sides) for Brexit. The NI protocol set out the principles of operation that allowed *both* sides to feel they had not lost control of the situation. As such this isn't about renegotiating anything. However, the EU continues to attempt to use it to 'renegotiate Brexit' - specifically trying to force regulatory alignment.
Now, it's fair enough to argue that we should have stood firm and not accepted any compromise. Personally, I don't think that would have been acceptable to anyone. I note that the same people who didn't want Brexit in the first place and loudly told Leavers to "own it" are now whinging that Frost didn't magically negotiate the perfect deal with the EU. It's like a bunch of toddlers complaining they didn't get ice-cream.
I don't think you'll find anyone claiming that the EU's behaviour has been demonstrating "good faith" - Biden himself was quite clear that they had to share responsibility for the problem (funnily enough, the cheerleaders who thought he was going to blame Boris went very quiet at that point). And the key point here is that it is a shared problem. Not one where you apportion blame and then pout until you get your way.
But it's not a shared problem. The EU are happy with the arrangement that they and Boris agreed less than 7 months ago. The implications were obvious to anyone who read it at the time, and the only reason Boris was able to agree that deal where May wasn't was because he wasn't relying on DUP votes. Signing away NI was a small price to pay at the time to "Get Brexit Done". NI was the sticking point (quite deliberately so on some sides) for Brexit. The NI protocol set out the principles of operation that allowed *both* sides to feel they had not lost control of the situation. As such this isn't about renegotiating anything. However, the EU continues to attempt to use it to 'renegotiate Brexit' - specifically trying to force regulatory alignment.
Now, it's fair enough to argue that we should have stood firm and not accepted any compromise. Personally, I don't think that would have been acceptable to anyone. I note that the same people who didn't want Brexit in the first place and loudly told Leavers to "own it" are now whinging that Frost didn't magically negotiate the perfect deal with the EU. It's like a bunch of toddlers complaining they didn't get ice-cream.
I don't think you'll find anyone claiming that the EU's behaviour has been demonstrating "good faith" - Biden himself was quite clear that they had to share responsibility for the problem (funnily enough, the cheerleaders who thought he was going to blame Boris went very quiet at that point). And the key point here is that it is a shared problem. Not one where you apportion blame and then pout until you get your way.
To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
Condi said:
But it's not a shared problem. The EU are happy with the arrangement that they and Boris agreed less than 7 months ago. The implications were obvious to anyone who read it at the time, and the only reason Boris was able to agree that deal where May wasn't was because he wasn't relying on DUP votes. Signing away NI was a small price to pay at the time to "Get Brexit Done".
To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
I'm not sure everyone would agree with you on that point.To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
Unknown_User said:
Condi said:
But it's not a shared problem. The EU are happy with the arrangement that they and Boris agreed less than 7 months ago. The implications were obvious to anyone who read it at the time, and the only reason Boris was able to agree that deal where May wasn't was because he wasn't relying on DUP votes. Signing away NI was a small price to pay at the time to "Get Brexit Done".
To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
I'm not sure everyone would agree with you on that point.To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
Condi said:
Ok, "for Boris, signing away NI was a small price to pay".
That much is obvious.Everyone could see the problems coming with the route he took of an internal customs border but as usual he took the quick and easy route to get an agreement rather than hold out to protect the existing arrangements and face down the EU over imposing checks at the actual border.
There was noise about doing things, then he folded to just make his immediate problem go away, and now he's stuck dealing with the fallout that *everyone* knew was inevitable.
There's a bit of a pattern of Boris doing stuff to make his short term problems go away, a very clear desire to always back off to avoid conflict, and a very obvious lack of actually thinking things through.
It's just what everyone who's ever dealt with him knows, especially that for a supposedly 'clever' person he often does a great impression of an idiot.
turbobloke said:
Do you think this is going to make any difference apart from reinforcing dislike for those who don't vote for Boris/Conservatives anyway? The pattern is repetitive yet goes nowhere. If only politicians, of any persuasion, weren't politicians.
It's funny this argument is always used to justify there actions. They are in the hot seat, they have total control, they are accountable. The problem with Boris his motives are a cash grab whilst in the hot seat, along with his Dad doing his deals, it is all very odd to an average Joe on the street, yet we seem to accept it as part of Boris being PM.pquinn said:
Condi said:
Ok, "for Boris, signing away NI was a small price to pay".
That much is obvious.Everyone could see the problems coming with the route he took of an internal customs border but as usual he took the quick and easy route to get an agreement rather than hold out to protect the existing arrangements and face down the EU over imposing checks at the actual border.
There was noise about doing things, then he folded to just make his immediate problem go away, and now he's stuck dealing with the fallout that *everyone* knew was inevitable.
There's a bit of a pattern of Boris doing stuff to make his short term problems go away, a very clear desire to always back off to avoid conflict, and a very obvious lack of actually thinking things through.
It's just what everyone who's ever dealt with him knows, especially that for a supposedly 'clever' person he often does a great impression of an idiot.
There was no "holding out". The timelines were set.
The EU *wanted* extensions/capitulation on a deal. We had been through too much of that guff already.
The only other option was "no deal". Which most commentators on here would have been even more aggrieved about.
When I read the NI protocol at the time I could have sworn there was something in there about respecting the UK internal market...
Both sides need to get a grip, but it seems the "subtle" differences in the approach on law may be irreconcilable...I'd suggest for political reasons.
(The "well if your standards are always going to be higher than the EU's" argument doesn't wash. Right now there are no issues. But we would then have to abide by any standard the EU presents, no matter how asinine).
Condi said:
But it's not a shared problem. The EU are happy with the arrangement that they and Boris agreed less than 7 months ago. The implications were obvious to anyone who read it at the time, and the only reason Boris was able to agree that deal where May wasn't was because he wasn't relying on DUP votes. Signing away NI was a small price to pay at the time to "Get Brexit Done".
To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
Seriously, you're just reinforcing that you haven't got a clue on what has been agreed and negotiated.To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.
From the other thread:
Note *for the first half of next year* - this was, from day one, a temporary arrangement to allow a more permanent solution to be found. This is absolutely not about renegotiating - it's about continuing existing negotiations as previously arranged.
Secondly, note that *from day one* if was acknowledged that disruption could only be avoided by coming to a deeper arrangement, and that the UK's position was for a Free Trade agreement recognising agri-food issues.
Unfortunately the same die-hard Remainers are spinning this desperately to present an entirely different narrative that suits their agenda of forcing alignment by the back door. Not only is that wildly dishonest, it shows incredible naivety. Alignment with a third party standards over which we have no control is absolutely the worst deal the UK could make - by definition it benefits the EU and harms the UK.
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 13th June 12:47
Tuna said:
Alignment with a third party standards over which we have no control is absolutely the worst deal the UK could make - by definition it benefits the EU and harms the UK.
In the case of NI that is exactly what the Government signed up to as it was the only way for their version of Brexit to happen. It was explicitly known at the time, and why the DUP couldn't support the deal presented. As you may know, that paper you quoted is a UK briefing paper, and not the agreement signed between the UK and EU.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff