UK Politics - BoJo and chums

Status
Not open for further replies.
Funnily enough, Theresa May warned Johnson that this would happen, but he was having too much fun tearing her down to get the job he always wanted but was manifestly unsuited for.

As it happens, we left and thus the Holy Grail of Democracy Forevermore has been sated. Just because *you* don't agree with what happened, it doesn't mean that the nebulous Will of the People was thwarted. I suggest you actually start enjoying your victory in 2016, because it's not getting any better any time soon.
 
The 2016 Referendum vote was for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Leave the European Union.
Yes, but this is like saying ‘we agree to divorce’ (it's a metaphor that's been used a lot) and then not assigning custody of children, division of property, or whether the spouses get to use their now former partners' surnames.
 
It was deliberately lengthy and more importantly drafted in such a manner to be
incomprehensible to anyone other than teams of solicitors, so it was not read.
Unlike all those other international trade deals that are best selling bedtime reading...
 
Government handling of the cost of living crisis, for me and for thee

Me (ie. the govenment):

Restaurants and bars in the House of Commons cut prices for MPs, as they were bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of £17 million
The House of Lords has spent £8m of taxpayers' money subsidising its own bars and restaurants in the last three years, openDemocracy can reveal.​

Thee (ie. everyone else):

1. Learn how to cook/budget

According to Lee Anderson, if you’re facing food poverty and having to rely on food banks, it’s probably because you don’t know how to cook.

“I think you’ll see first-hand that there’s not this massive use for food banks in this country.

“You’ve got generation after generation who cannot cook properly. They can’t cook a meal from scratch. They cannot budget.”​

2. Work more hours or get a better-paid job

Safeguarding minister Rachel Maclean has cracked the cost of living crisis.

The solution, Maclean says, is to earn more. Easy! Why are people wasting time choosing between heating and eating, when they could just take on more hours or better yet, get a higher-paying job?

“Over the long term, we need to have a plan to grow the economy and make sure that people are able to protect themselves better, whether that is by taking on more hours or moving to a better-paid job,” she told Sky News.

Simple enough. Maclean would know, before becoming an MP, she worked in Hong Kong, Sydney and Tokyo with HSBC, then set up Packt Publishing Ltd with her husband. The IT publishing company reportedly recorded £1.8m operating profits in 2020.​

3. Put the name-brand products down

When Sky News asked the environment secretary, George Eustice what advice he would give to people who want to have a family Sunday roast with a chicken but can’t afford it, Eustice suggested that shoppers should buy supermarket own-brand products.

“Generally speaking, what people find is by going for some of the value brands rather than own-branded products – they can actually contain and manage their household budget.”​

4. Rent out your granny annexe

Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price, thinks we should all make use of our granny annexes, the self-contained flats we all have just off of our main homes.

Speaking in the Queen’s Speech debate, Doyle-Price told MPs that the government should be “encouraging people to make better use of their housing asset for the whole of their family”.

“We can incentivise granny annexes, we can make sure that young people have got some hope by having greater access to the wealth in their parents’ home.

“And I tell you, if we can do that, we will actually save money in the health service because unnecessary hospital stays are much more expensive than dealing with the little inheritance tax problem, which might unlock some investment.”

And, if you don’t have a granny annexe, don’t worry, just move to a house that has one.​
 
Exactly.

The 2016 Referendum vote was for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Leave the European Union.
The 2016 Referendum never specified what kind of Brexit people were voting for or against.
Boris Johnson himself advocated for the UK to stay in the EUs Single Market and EUs Customs Union in the years prior to the Referendum; it was the political union he wanted away from then. After the Leave campaign won, the hardcore Brexiters changed the narrative and pursued a Hard Brexit. Boris Johnson saw this as an opportunity to dethrone Theresa May and position himself as the new leader replacing her, just as joining the Leave campaign was an opportunity for him to dethrone David Cameron.

Here is imo the crux of the UKs current selfmade political entanglement: The Brexit Referendum result provided Johnson with a mandate to 'leave the EU'; it did not also provide Johnson with a mandate to leave the Single Market and Customs Union as well. Brexiters do not agree among themselves on what Brexit actually means and how Brexit should be implemented. Leaving the EU Customs Union in incompatible with the GFA as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The GFA is not up for negotiation (the dealmakers made sure there were no legal opt outs from either the Irish or British side), therefore Johnson's Brexit interpretation and implementation must yield wherever it collides with the GFA in legislature and legal application.

And by the way - the Protocol is not just an International Treaty; it is also British Law. It goes without saying that Johnson's Government cannot breach British Law. Any court in the UK will rule in favor of the Protocol, because it is the law. Only the UK Parliament can change the law and there exists no majority in Parliament to change or overthrow the Protocol as it stands. You would need the EU Parliament to overthrow it as well, but some Brexiters don't seem to register this irreversible fact.
 
Last edited:
The 2016 Referendum never specified what kind of Brexit people were voting for or against.
Boris Johnson himself advocated for the UK to stay in the EUs Single Market and EUs Customs Union in the years prior to the Referendum; it was the political union he wanted away from then. After the Leave campaign won, the hardcore Brexiters changed the narrative and pursued a Hard Brexit. Boris Johnson saw this as an opportunity to dethrone Theresa May and position himself as the new leader replacing her, just as joining the Leave campaign was an opportunity for him to dethrone David Cameron.

Here is imo the crux of the UKs current selfmade political entanglement: The Brexit Referendum result provided Johnson with a mandate to 'leave the EU'; it did not also provide Johnson with a mandate to leave the Single Market and Customs Union as well. Brexiters do not agree among themselves on what Brexit actually means and how Brexit should be implemented. Leaving the EU Customs Union in incompatible with the GFA as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The GFA is not up for negotiation (the dealmakers made sure there were no legal opt outs from either the Irish or British side), therefore Johnson's Brexit interpretation and implementation must yield wherever it collides with the GFA in legislature and legal application.

And by the way - the Protocol is not just an International Treaty; it is also British Law. It goes without saying that Johnson's Government cannot breach British Law. Any court in the UK will rule in favor of the Protocol, because it is the law. Only the UK Parliament can change the law and there exists no majority in Parliament to change or overthrow the Protocol as it stands. You would need the EU Parliament to overthrow it as well, but some Brexiters don't seem to register this irreversible fact.

I suspect both threatening to invoke Article 16 and the law to unilaterally rewrite the NI Protocol are just negotiating tactics on Bojo's part. Hes not one for thinking ahead, just for getting through the current crisis. The UK government has been threatening to invoke Article 16 for so long it became a pretty empty threat, hence the new law but although both the UK and EU would be hurt by a trade law the UK would be hurt worse.

The other benefit for Bojo is keeping Brexit and the evil EU in the news as it distracts from his corrupt government, mishandling of Covid and our dire economic situation. The problem he has is most people just wanted what Bojo promised, Brexit done, and not a neverending saga.
 
Bojo is really stuffing it all up. I don't know how much he is paying attention!
 
The other benefit for Bojo is keeping Brexit and the evil EU in the news as it distracts from his corrupt government, mishandling of Covid and our dire economic situation. The problem he has is most people just wanted what Bojo promised, Brexit done, and not a neverending saga.

Well, Europe has always been a neverending saga for the Tories: Cameron's unforgiveable action was to make it a British saga too.
 
The 2016 Referendum never specified what kind of Brexit people were voting for or against.
Boris Johnson himself advocated for the UK to stay in the EUs Single Market and EUs Customs Union in the years prior to the Referendum; it was the political union he wanted away from then. After the Leave campaign won, the hardcore Brexiters changed the narrative and pursued a Hard Brexit. Boris Johnson saw this as an opportunity to dethrone Theresa May and position himself as the new leader replacing her, just as joining the Leave campaign was an opportunity for him to dethrone David Cameron.

Here is imo the crux of the UKs current selfmade political entanglement: The Brexit Referendum result provided Johnson with a mandate to 'leave the EU'; it did not also provide Johnson with a mandate to leave the Single Market and Customs Union as well. Brexiters do not agree among themselves on what Brexit actually means and how Brexit should be implemented. Leaving the EU Customs Union in incompatible with the GFA as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The GFA is not up for negotiation (the dealmakers made sure there were no legal opt outs from either the Irish or British side), therefore Johnson's Brexit interpretation and implementation must yield wherever it collides with the GFA in legislature and legal application.

And by the way - the Protocol is not just an International Treaty; it is also British Law. It goes without saying that Johnson's Government cannot breach British Law. Any court in the UK will rule in favor of the Protocol, because it is the law. Only the UK Parliament can change the law and there exists no majority in Parliament to change or overthrow the Protocol as it stands. You would need the EU Parliament to overthrow it as well, but some Brexiters don't seem to register this irreversible fact.

Firstly, there is almost certainly a majority in the House to change the law – it’s just in the Lords there is no majority. The latter can delay the new law but not stop it.

Secondly, Article 16 specifically provides for action by one or other party:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

(And let’s not forget, the EU came within an inch of carrying this out themselves regarding vaccinations possibly crossing the border).
 
Firstly, there is almost certainly a majority in the House to change the law – it’s just in the Lords there is no majority. The latter can delay the new law but not stop it.

Secondly, Article 16 specifically provides for action by one or other party:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

(And let’s not forget, the EU came within an inch of carrying this out themselves regarding vaccinations possibly crossing the border).

Article 16 doesn't end the protocol though, it suspends some or all of it, but not permanently.
 
This is all just more examples of Brexiteers thinking they can have their cake and eat it. And why stop there? Seems they want Irelands and the EU's cake as well.

As @Arakhor points out though, none of this should come as any sort of surprise. Theresa May knew exactly what the score was and the implications. Because she actually read documents and understood them. It is a strange world when i yearn for a Tory government like Mays. At least they were mostly honest. Boris signs up to agreements he doesnt understand. And then lies about it in order to sell it. And then lies about it afterwards when he wants to get out of it.
 
Interesting piece in the Mail today written by Peter Hitchens.

Essentially he is calling for the independence of England (or ‘Restoration’ as he calls it). He adds:
Have a referendum if you must, but I reckon that any party that puts an English secession from the UK in its general election manifesto will win a smashing majority.

Well, I would certainly vote for this. Sometimes you just get so fed up of the three tails wagging the dog.

PETER HITCHENS: Why England should leave the UK instead of persuading the others to stay and embrace a golden future

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...S-England-leave-UK-embrace-golden-future.html
 
Interesting piece in the Mail today written by Peter Hitchens.

Essentially he is calling for the independence of England (or ‘Restoration’ as he calls it). He adds:
Have a referendum if you must, but I reckon that any party that puts an English secession from the UK in its general election manifesto will win a smashing majority.

Well, I would certainly vote for this. Sometimes you just get so fed up of the three tails wagging the dog.

PETER HITCHENS: Why England should leave the UK instead of persuading the others to stay and embrace a golden future

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...S-England-leave-UK-embrace-golden-future.html
Hahahahaha :D
 
Interesting piece in the Mail today written by Peter Hitchens.

Essentially he is calling for the independence of England (or ‘Restoration’ as he calls it). He adds:
Have a referendum if you must, but I reckon that any party that puts an English secession from the UK in its general election manifesto will win a smashing majority.

Well, I would certainly vote for this. Sometimes you just get so fed up of the three tails wagging the dog.

PETER HITCHENS: Why England should leave the UK instead of persuading the others to stay and embrace a golden future

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...S-England-leave-UK-embrace-golden-future.html

Good, go.
 
I don't really understand Peter Hitchens. I want to say he is from a bygone era. But I'm not sure he is. I think he is a 100% individual. And there's few people like him. His brother is also another interesting one. You wouldn't know they are related politically. They are like chalk and cheese. I greatly respected Christopher Hitchens. Even though he did support the Iraq war. I used to watch all his lectures and debates.
 
Interesting piece in the Mail today written by Peter Hitchens.

Essentially he is calling for the independence of England (or ‘Restoration’ as he calls it).
I would love for Peter Hitchens (I'm quite familiar with both his and Christopher's writings and opinions) to enlighten us on, what exactly would change in and for England, if it divorced itself constitutionally from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A 'golden future' is such a banal expression that it doesn't mean anything.
 
Stirring Stuff. So it wasn't the EU holding England back all these years, it was the British.
That explains it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom