Boris is NOT running

[carlzeiss]

Copied and pasted from Facebook, but it amused me.

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

Clear?

as mud

 

[vegster]

Where are all those that said Boris only went with Leave to further his career by going for PM. Egg on face.

That's what he wanted at the time, surely you could have seen that at the time ? Now of course your view is obscured by egg..

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I read in The Times yesterday that there are no more than 20 individuals in Whitehall with any experience of trade expertise needed for negotiating all these wonderful new free global trade deals we're going to have.

Experts. Had enough of them.

 

[Gwylan]

The only winners of all this will be the civil servants in UK and EU, with further £millions of political hours wasted on a red herring instead of concentrating on modernising the union.

I don't know about that. I had a conversation with a City lawyer, an expert on European contracts, and he was looking forward to plenty of work

 

[symyjym]

Whoever wrote Yes Minister/Prime Minister, was very astute.

Yep, there is also an added reality TV element to this as well. Politics is starting to mirror Big Brother

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Ah, Gove, the educationalists favourite friend. If, like me, you were worried before, then God help us now.

 

[symyjym]

I don't know about that. I had a conversation with a City lawyer, an expert on European contracts, and he was looking forward to plenty of work

Yep, he will do very well too. Lawyers and legal advisors etc make very good money out of chaos. The average working person who voted to leave will not see any benefits.

 

[ManOfSussex]

To think there's people in Westminster who still don't know why The Scots switched to SNP.

 

[Soulman]

Could the result be disregarded?
Yes - in theory, at least. The referendum result is not legally binding and the government is under no legal obligation to follow through with its outcome. "The referendum is advisory rather than mandatory," says the Financial Times. "What happens next is therefore a matter of politics not law."
http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/73775/eu-referendum-is-the-brexit-result-legally-binding

I suppose by keep whinging and bleating and stamping the feet wailing it's not fair....then the Remainers might get the 2nd referendum.

 

[biddles911]

Copied and pasted from Facebook, but it amused me.

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

Clear?

Convoluted but pretty accurate in my view... and very sad.

Hard to think of one politician on either side of the debate that had the guts and the honesty to put the good of the country before personal and political gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I suppose by keep whinging and bleating and stamping the feet wailing it's not fair....then the Remainers might get the 2nd referendum.

There will be no second referendum.

 

[ManOfSussex]

People in this country have had enough of referendums.

 

[sten_super]

I would have thought, if anything, it would be the other way round. It's the City and financial services that really want access to European markets. As I said the other day, the banks want the European passport and the indications are we'll only get that by signing up for free movement

It depends where you think the powers lie in negotiations. Yes banks and financial services want "passporting" - but I agree with you that only happens with free movement, and it would take monumental chutzpah for either Gove or May to say that they were taking notice of the electoral will in triggering article 50 and then accepting free movement of labour in the negotiations. Johnson probably would have delivered that, though.

I think it more likely that they start negotiating from an EEA position, and then the UK has to ask for a hard migrant cap (rather than the soft one that is included in EEA membership). The EU says, as above, that you can't have the free market without free movement of labour, and since the EU exports more goods to the UK than vice versa, they want to keep free trade in goods but are more willing to lose it in services (where the UK is the net beneficiary), so that's what they propose (alongside payment from the UK for EEA participation). The UK baulks at the suggestion, but since Article 50 has been triggered they are on a strict timetable, and as time runs out they are faced with accepting that, relenting on migrant caps, or accepting no deal and going to WTO rules (which would be much, much worse for all parts of the economy). Then it depends where the political pressure lies, but at the moment I think accepting some limitations on trade in services is less politically sensitive than accepting free movement.

Just a best guess at the moment, and things are liable to change (understatement of the week!), but I could see something along those lines developing.

Article 50 still needs a parliamentary vote before our "unknown" future PM can trigger it.

I thought that no-one was quite clear whether the power resides with the "executive" (i.e. the PM or at a stretch the Cabinet) or the House of Commons? Either way, if May and Gove both stand on a platform of triggering it, and they are voted by MPs as the top two, I can't see that the Tory MPs will be able to then vote against it if it went before them for a vote.

 

[The Birdman]

They say a week is a long time in politics I think it should be changed to a day.

 

[symyjym]

I thought that no-one was quite clear whether the power resides with the "executive" (i.e. the PM or at a stretch the Cabinet) or the House of Commons? Either way, if May and Gove both stand on a platform of triggering it, and they are voted by MPs as the top two, I can't see that the Tory MPs will be able to then vote against it if it went before them for a vote.

This was what I heard on Aljazeera yesterday, but it isn't exactly clear as you said. I would have thought that this would be the most important detail to be exact and precise on right now.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

What I can't quite get my head around is if the EU wants to impose tariffs on our exports to Europe, why can't we impose our own tariffs on them to effectively cancel each other out? I haven't seen this issue covered in any of the discussions - anyone got a sensible answer?

 

[Seagull58]

For some it was purely sovereignty and nothing to do with immigration.

You have 48% happy to remain, you only need 3% of the Leave vote to be happy with free movement and you have a majority.

That's not how it works. The majority voted for Brexit and immigration controls was part of the Brexit platform. Cameron agrees, May agrees, Gove agrees, Leadsom agrees and I'm sure Crabb agrees too..

 

[Seagull58]

The referendum was on nothing other than membership of the EU. What either side campaigned for is meaningless and most likely all complete bullshit (as we have seen).

Not meaningless at all, as has been clearly stated by the politicians tasked with delivering Brexit n accordance with the result of the referendum.

 

[Seagull58]

I voted 'remain' but I never thought for a second that a 'leave' win was impossible though. I did however naively assume that we would just take The EEA route and the arrangements Norway have though. I'm living in blind hope of that scenario now in my opinion.

Obviously as I'm British I'm not an expert though, so like the rest of us I don't know anything.

The problem with that, as I keep on saying and as Cameron, May et al have confirmed, is immigration controls.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

What I can't quite get my head around is if the EU wants to impose tariffs on our exports to Europe, why can't we impose our own tariffs on them to effectively cancel each other out? I haven't seen this issue covered in any of the discussions - anyone got a sensible answer?

We can.

Doesn't help us with the banking passport though, and the savaging of our tax revenues if we don't get it.