Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[The Don]

This seemed like more remain plotting to me from the moment I first heard it. Why would he do that? It would be contrary to the very clear Conservative manifesto, for which the voters have just delivered a strong mandate.

Their argument (it's not mine, and I don't believe it) is that Boris Johnson is an old-fashioned one-nation Conservative who, if his pronoucements over the years are to be believed, isn't actually anti-European and only jumped on the Brexit bandwagon as a means of becoming PM. Now that he is PM he'll revert to type.

My view is that Boris Johnson is cut from the same cloth as President Trump. He's a proven liar who will say or do anything to get what he wants. He has no fixed values or ideals and will assume whatever policies will deliver the biggest benefit to him on any given day.

Remainers never give up. Some remainer thought, "Let's spin the idea that now we've lost, we'll get what we wanted - and see if we can make the public believe that lie."

Even a "soft" Brexit is a million miles away from what this Remainer wants. For both personal and business reasons I want the free flow of capital and people within the EU and even a "soft" Brexit would see an end to that.

 

[ceptimus]

Politicians should be honourable enough to stick to their promises without any additional theatrics - and when they're not, it's the job of voters to throw them out of office.

This is partly the reason why Labour has just suffered a big defeat - they promised to respect the referendum result and then broke that promise - and their voters rightly punished them for that.

 

[Pixel42]

My view is that Boris Johnson is cut from the same cloth as President Trump. He's a proven liar who will say or do anything to get what he wants. He has no fixed values or ideals and will assume whatever policies will deliver the biggest benefit to him on any given day.

"No morals, no principles, no beliefs" was apparently how one of his former colleagues described him during the leadership campaign. To which I would add 'no scruples'.

 

[The Don]

Imagining that Johnson would pivot now he and his backers have got exactly what they schemed and paid for is wishful thinking at its most desperate.

It really is remarkable how closely Conservative reaction to Boris Johnson echoes GOP reaction to President Trump.

Before he got into power, so many were saying how comically unsuited he was to the role, how he is a liar and how he couldn't be trusted. As soon as he was in place, they then said how he would pivot from his extreme campaigning position to a more moderate one.

I expect that we'll now have the next stages. Conservatives will have to defend Boris Johnson at every turn. Every lie will be spun into the truth, every gaffe overlooked or portrayed as cunning and an alternative reality will be created where he is a great leader and statesman and not the bumbling buffoon the world sees him as (and as they saw him before they had a good slurp on the Kool Aid. In a year or so, they will have convinced themselves that Boris Johnson is greater than Thatcher, the Robert Peel (who not a lot of people know was a Conservative) or Churchill and is in fact the greatest leader this country has ever had.

 

[LondonJohn]

Politicians should be honourable enough to stick to their promises without any additional theatrics - and when they're not, it's the job of voters to throw them out of office.

This is partly the reason why Labour has just suffered a big defeat - they promised to respect the referendum result and then broke that promise - and their voters rightly punished them for that.

Erm..... and Johnson promised in his election campaign not to allow any extension to the process.

I find it interesting, illuminating and somewhat amusing that inbred left-wingers and/or anti-Johnson-ers are still seeking to rationalise things to fit with their own prejudices. The sort of knee-jerk thinking that helped Labour get walloped at the ballot box.

(For reference, I'd describe myself as a liberal, libertarian cautious-free-marketeer with a keen eye on social conscience. And I'm certainly not instinctively a fan of Johnson. But I at least try to see things for what they are and what they imply, and not try to shoehorn things into my own preconceived agenda/bias.)

 

[LondonJohn]

It really is remarkable how closely Conservative reaction to Boris Johnson echoes GOP reaction to President Trump.

Before he got into power, so many were saying how comically unsuited he was to the role, how he is a liar and how he couldn't be trusted. As soon as he was in place, they then said how he would pivot from his extreme campaigning position to a more moderate one.

I expect that we'll now have the next stages. Conservatives will have to defend Boris Johnson at every turn. Every lie will be spun into the truth, every gaffe overlooked or portrayed as cunning and an alternative reality will be created where he is a great leader and statesman and not the bumbling buffoon the world sees him as (and as they saw him before they had a good slurp on the Kool Aid. In a year or so, they will have convinced themselves that Boris Johnson is greater than Thatcher, the Robert Peel (who not a lot of people know was a Conservative) or Churchill and is in fact the greatest leader this country has ever had.

Hahaha we'll see, eh? Wishful thinking, maybe.....?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's worth remembering that some of them - e.g. Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke - did eventually grow a spine when faced with Johnson and the far right crackpots he fronts for. Which must be an indication of how much further right than Thatcher the current bunch are.

Heseltine stood up to Thatcher too. I still don't agree with him on most of his politics but he does have principals.

 

[The Don]

Erm..... and Johnson promised in his election campaign not to allow any extension to the process.

And there's a difference between ensuring that a process is expedited and passing legislation which delivers a specific result regardless of circumstances.

I find it interesting, illuminating and somewhat amusing that inbred left-wingers and/or anti-Johnson-ers are still seeking to rationalise things to fit with their own prejudices. The sort of knee-jerk thinking that helped Labour get walloped at the ballot box.

Well that's an interesting rhetorical device, seizing the high ground by suggesting that all left wingers are inbred

There are many reasons why Labour got walloped at the ballot box - Jeremy Corbyn is a prime one IMO, but the SNP showed that left wing policies are no barrier to being elected.

(For reference, I'd describe myself as a liberal, libertarian cautious-free-marketeer with a keen eye on social conscience. And I'm certainly not instinctively a fan of Johnson. But I at least try to see things for what they are and what they imply, and not try to shoehorn things into my own preconceived agenda/bias.)

Well so far Boris Johnson's actions seem to align with my views/prejudices. He's looking to force a no-deal Brexit and to erode workers' rights.

 

[The Don]

Hahaha we'll see, eh? Wishful thinking, maybe.....?

Well if chatting to people in the pub is anything to go by, we're well under way. The same people who were mocking Boris Johnson a few months ago are now treating him like the Messiah.

Mind you, these are the same people who had clearly reasoned economic arguments for Remain but who now believe that Brexit will usher in a new economic golden age for reasons that they aren't quite able to explain.

 

[LondonJohn]

And there's a difference between ensuring that a process is expedited and passing legislation which delivers a specific result regardless of circumstances.

He didn't promise that "the process (would be) expedited". He promised that there'd be no further delay. Which is exactly what the proposed legislation would do.

Well that's an interesting rhetorical device, seizing the high ground by suggesting that all left wingers are inbred

Well that's an interesting strawman you've created there. Where did I state or imply that "all left wingers are inbred". (Hint: if I wrote "I find it.... amusing that small dogs are the most yappy", would that be me stating or implying that all dogs are small?)

There are many reasons why Labour got walloped at the ballot box - Jeremy Corbyn is a prime one IMO, but the SNP showed that left wing policies are no barrier to being elected.

Agreed. But again, you've strawmanned me. My claim was that self-righteousness and the good old "Tories are evil, Labour are the only ones who care" rhetoric was contributory factor in Labour's rejection at the ballot box.

Well so far Boris Johnson's actions seem to align with my views/prejudices. He's looking to force a no-deal Brexit and to erode workers' rights.

Well then I suggest you're only tending confirming my own argument. If Johnson wanted to force a no-deal Brexit there's plenty more he could have done in order to make that happen already. I don't see any credible evidence whatsoever that he is "looking to force" such a thing. Not to mention that he himself has stated numerous times that he absolutely does not want a no-deal Brexit (though those special spectacles no doubt view that as a misdirectional lie as well....). And likewise, there's absolutely no evidence that Johnson is "looking to.... erode workers' rights". Yes, one might argue that this might end up being a consequence (though I do not take that position), but it's a rather large leap to claim that it is a deliberate and desired outcome. Again, those magic spectacles can work wonders.

 

[The Don]

He didn't promise that "the process (would be) expedited". He promised that there'd be no further delay. Which is exactly what the proposed legislation would do.

He's entirely in control of the process, the legislation is unnecessary.

Well that's an interesting strawman you've created there. Where did I state or imply that "all left wingers are inbred". (Hint: if I wrote "I find it.... amusing that small dogs are the most yappy", would that be me stating or implying that all dogs are small?)

You said " inbred left-wingers and/or anti-Johnson-ers are still seeking to rationalise things". Unless you meant to suggest that all left wingers and anti-Johnson-ers (hmmm shades of never-Trumpers there ) are inbred then you probably need to work on you phrasing.

Agreed. But again, you've strawmanned me. My claim was that self-righteousness and the good old "Tories are evil, Labour are the only ones who care" rhetoric was contributory factor in Labour's rejection at the ballot box.

Were the SNP any less dismissive of the Tories ?

Well then I suggest you're only tending confirming my own argument. If Johnson wanted to force a no-deal Brexit there's plenty more he could have done in order to make that happen already. I don't see any credible evidence whatsoever that he is "looking to force" such a thing. Not to mention that he himself has stated numerous times that he absolutely does not want a no-deal Brexit (though those special spectacles no doubt view that as a misdirectional lie as well....). And likewise, there's absolutely no evidence that Johnson is "looking to.... erode workers' rights". Yes, one might argue that this might end up being a consequence (though I do not take that position), but it's a rather large leap to claim that it is a deliberate and desired outcome. Again, those magic spectacles can work wonders.

What further steps could he take ?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well if chatting to people in the pub is anything to go by, we're well under way. The same people who were mocking Boris Johnson a few months ago are now treating him like the Messiah.

Really? Or is that just sour grapes? Or (un)intentional hyperbole?

Mind you, these are the same people who had clearly reasoned economic arguments for Remain but who now believe that Brexit will usher in a new economic golden age for reasons that they aren't quite able to explain.

Again, hyperbole much? But it does at least raise an interesting point: nobody with any kind of sound grasp of economics would say anything other than that - all else being equal - remaining in the EU would appear to deliver more economic benefit to the UK than leaving the EU. But..... the corollary to that is not that leaving the EU would cripple the UK economically. There are ways of leaving the EU that are likely to have only a low negative economic impact on the UK relative to remaining (just as there are ways of leaving the EU that are likely to have a much higher negative economic impact on the UK relative to remaining).

I was, and am, in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. I am also of the opinion that there was a sound rationale for holding a confirmatory referendum, on account of the fact that nobody knew what leaving the EU would look like in practice at the time of the 2016 referendum. But I can also see the argument against a second referendum. And, like it or not, a majority voted to leave in 2016. The tragic error was Cameron's, in putting this matter to a referendum in the first place. But he did, and there was overwhelming support in parliament (from all sides) for the referendum. And the Great British Public voted by majority to leave. Once that happened, the pragmatic and sensible thing to do was/is to try to find the "best" way to leave.

 

[McHrozni]

Just a quote from Nigel Farage from 18 months ago that I had somehow missied.

"Look, I never said being outside the EU would be better than being inside it"
-- Nigel Farage, on NPR Radio, 29th May 2018

It encapsulates Brexit perfectly, I think.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

Erm..... and Johnson promised in his election campaign not to allow any extension to the process.

You're missing the key difference. Johnson's promise was stupid, over ambitious, and unbelievable, but it was broken because his opponents prevented him from delivering it. In contrast, Labour politicians breaking of their promise to respect the referendum, was just because they changed their minds - or were lying when they made the promise in the first place.

Voters will forgive (to an extent) the first type of broken promise, but not the second kind.

 

[LondonJohn]

He's entirely in control of the process, the legislation is unnecessary.

What if the purpose of the legislation is to say to parliament and to the EU that urgency and efficiency in sorting out the withdrawal agreement is now both paramount and unavoidable?

You said " inbred left-wingers and/or anti-Johnson-ers are still seeking to rationalise things". Unless you meant to suggest that all left wingers and anti-Johnson-ers (hmmm shades of never-Trumpers there ) are inbred then you probably need to work on you phrasing.

Illogical nonsense. Again, if I wrote something like "tall women have problems in finding a wide choice of formal clothing", how on Earth could/would that imply that I think "all women are tall". I think you probably need to work on your logical deduction.

Were the SNP any less dismissive of the Tories ?

No. But again, this is a logic fail. Labour would - and did - (almost) always retain seats in its high-majority hearlands. Just as the SNP did. Irrespective of what the SNP had to say about the Tories Conservatives. And (ironically for your argument) most of the SNP's gains were from Labour. The votes that actually mattered for Labour in this election were those of the swing voters in key marginal constituencies, most of which were in England.

What further steps could he take ?

What do you mean? Do you mean: what further steps could Johnson take to force a no-deal Brexit? Or: what further steps could he take to deliberately erode workers' rights?

(And what are your views on Johnson's repeated statements that he does not want a no-deal Brexit? Do you indeed view those statements as deliberate and misdirectional lies?)

 

[The Don]

Really? Or is that just sour grapes? Or (un)intentional hyperbole?

Literally the Messiah, hyperbole, but they are suddenly talking in glowing terms about what a great Conservative leader he is having mocked him right up until the date of the election.

Again, hyperbole much? But it does at least raise an interesting point: nobody with any kind of sound grasp of economics would say anything other than that - all else being equal - remaining in the EU would appear to deliver more economic benefit to the UK than leaving the EU. But..... the corollary to that is not that leaving the EU would cripple the UK economically. There are ways of leaving the EU that are likely to have only a low negative economic impact on the UK relative to remaining (just as there are ways of leaving the EU that are likely to have a much higher negative economic impact on the UK relative to remaining).

That's why I think they find it so difficult to say why Brexit will be so great for the UK economy. These are (four) smart people, generally (retired) senior managers or directors in multi-national companies so they're aware of the difficulties of doing business outside the EU rather than inside the EU. That's why they had clearly defined economic reasons for Remaining.

What has been very surprising to me is that over they have pretty much done the same thing over the last few weeks - suddenly decided that there is a strong economic case for leaving the EU and that business with the rest of the world will easily compensate with any new difficulties dealing with the EU. In contrast to their previous position however, they are unable to provide specifics about how this might happen.

I was, and am, in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. I am also of the opinion that there was a sound rationale for holding a confirmatory referendum, on account of the fact that nobody knew what leaving the EU would look like in practice at the time of the 2016 referendum. But I can also see the argument against a second referendum. And, like it or not, a majority voted to leave in 2016. The tragic error was Cameron's, in putting this matter to a referendum in the first place. But he did, and there was overwhelming support in parliament (from all sides) for the referendum. And the Great British Public voted by majority to leave. Once that happened, the pragmatic and sensible thing to do was/is to try to find the "best" way to leave.

Best for whom ?

It seems to me that there are very few people who stand to gain from either Boris Johnson's deal (which is the same as Theresa May's deal but with a hard border in the Irish Sea, not on the island of Ireland) or no-deal.

Indeed the key players, including Boris Johnson have seemed to do everything they can to prevent a deal which is least damaging to the UK and its electorate and instead move towards a position which benefits their backers most.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a quote from Nigel Farage from 18 months ago that I had somehow missied.

"Look, I never said being outside the EU would be better than being inside it"
-- Nigel Farage, on NPR Radio, 29th May 2018

It encapsulates Brexit perfectly, I think.

McHrozni

Well yes indeed - to a degree. However, was Farage talking about purely about the economic impact? After all, one might still make the argument (though it's one with which I'd disagree) that it would be worth suffering a relative negative economic impact in return for regaining control of UK borders/immigration and laws etc.

And again, at the end of the day, the question was handed to the people (which was IMO the one huge mistake in this whole process), and a majority of votes cast was to leave.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're missing the key difference. Johnson's promise was stupid, over ambitious, and unbelievable, but it was broken because his opponents prevented him from delivering it. In contrast, Labour politicians breaking of their promise to respect the referendum, was just because they changed their minds - or were lying when they made the promise in the first place.

Voters will forgive (to an extent) the first type of broken promise, but not the second kind.

Ah but this is something different. What you're talking about is the Brexit date, whereas this latest issue is around the length of the transition period.

But aside from that, I agree in principle with what you've written.

 

[McHrozni]

Well yes indeed - to a degree. However, was Farage talking about purely about the economic impact? After all, one might still make the argument (though it's one with which I'd disagree) that it would be worth suffering a relative negative economic impact in return for regaining control of UK borders/immigration and laws etc.

And again, at the end of the day, the question was handed to the people (which was IMO the one huge mistake in this whole process), and a majority of votes cast was to leave.

How many voters were persuaded by those 350 million pounds a week for the NHS, that will now have to be cut from it instead?

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

What if the purpose of the legislation is to say to parliament and to the EU that urgency and efficiency in sorting out the withdrawal agreement is now both paramount and unavoidable?

The UK already had the ability to prevent a further extension. All Boris Johnson is seeking to do is to prevent parliament, with a huge Conservative majority, from taking action should it become apparent that ending the transition period is disastrous.

Illogical nonsense. Again, if I wrote something like "tall women have problems in finding a wide choice of formal clothing", how on Earth could/would that imply that I think "all women are tall". I think you probably need to work on your logical deduction.

What proportion of Left-wingers and anti-Johnson-ers are inbred by your estimation ?

No. But again, this is a logic fail. Labour would - and did - (almost) always retain seats in its high-majority hearlands. Just as the SNP did. Irrespective of what the SNP had to say about the Tories Conservatives. And (ironically for your argument) most of the SNP's gains were from Labour. The votes that actually mattered for Labour in this election were those of the swing voters in key marginal constituencies, most of which were in England.

I don't see how it's ironic. Rather, it clearly shows that a left-wing, anti-Conservative message wasn't a barrier to being elected.

The key differences between the SNP and Labour IMO were a leadership which wasn't an electoral liability and a clearly defined, and easily understood Brexit policy.

What do you mean? Do you mean: what further steps could Johnson take to force a no-deal Brexit? Or: what further steps could he take to deliberately erode workers' rights?

(And what are your views on Johnson's repeated statements that he does not want a no-deal Brexit? Do you indeed view those statements as deliberate and misdirectional lies?)

...a no-deal Brexit

No, I do not believe Boris Johnson's repeated statements about not wanting a no-deal. He is both a liar and a political opportunist. During the Leave campaign he assured us that we'd be in the EEA and immediately reversed that position when it was clear that a hard Brexit created a path to 10 Downing Street.

OTOH Dominic Cummings has been very consistent about wanting a no-deal Brexit. Given that he is the one who actually does all the planning and work, and that Boris Johnson is famously lazy and ill-prepared, I'm confident that Dominic Cummings will prevail.