Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Prime Minister Boris Johnson tries to lead the UK (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879601)

Baron Greenback 08-02-2019 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21785542)
It amuses me to consider that were Sinn Fein to change their minds about being seated, they could simultaneously bring down the Government and undermine the DUP.

They won't do it. But they could.

Fintan O'Toole, writing for the Irish Times, has a - somewhat fanciful - plan where Sinn Fein can achieve those ends without taking their seats:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...-how-1.3972121

Ultimate banter timeline if that happened. I doubt I would ever stop laughing.

Elendil's Heir 08-02-2019 12:55 PM

Never happen, but an interesting proposal!

CarnalK 08-02-2019 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback (Post 21785565)
Fintan O'Toole, writing for the Irish Times, has a - somewhat fanciful - plan where Sinn Fein can achieve those ends without taking their seats:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...-how-1.3972121

Ultimate banter timeline if that happened. I doubt I would ever stop laughing.

There's a lot of moving parts in that plan. To simplify it, I wonder if it could be arranged to have some mini-referendum(s) to cover Sinn Fein dropping their absentee pledge solely for Brexit matters then vote as described in the article.

Oswald Bastable 08-03-2019 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 21785765)
There's a lot of moving parts in that plan. To simplify it, I wonder if it could be arranged to have some mini-referendum(s) to cover Sinn Fein dropping their absentee pledge solely for Brexit matters then vote as described in the article.

I always thought the main sticking point for Sinn Féin taking their seats was the the Oath of Allegiance. I can’t see any way round that.

OB

wolfpup 08-03-2019 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steophan (Post 21782859)
Neither party leaders nor Prime Ministers are ever selected by the electorate in the UK.

True, but voters pass judgment on those party leaders at election time. The ballots may only have the names of candidates for local MP, but voters tend to be heavily influenced by party and party leader and that they are, in effect, electing a Prime Minister. Most voters couldn't tell you squat about the MP candidate whose name they are checking off, who to them is just a proxy for party and prospective PM.

This is a test that Boris has not yet passed. If he does manage to get elected to a majority, or pulls off a no-deal Brexit without a new election, then as CNN has speculated, he may go down in history as the last PM of the former United Kingdom.

MichaelEmouse 08-03-2019 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 21787196)

This is a test that Boris has not yet passed. If he does manage to get elected to a majority, or pulls off a no-deal Brexit without a new election, then as CNN has speculated, he may go down in history as the last PM of the former United Kingdom.

What do they think would happen if he pulls off a no-deal Brexit without a new election? That's what seems the most likely because it only requires the people involved to keep aboard the train for in-fighting purposes as it races towards the cliff.

wolfpup 08-03-2019 12:58 PM

There's no difference in the consequences, with or without an election, it's just that right now he has a super-fragile majority of just 1, and that's with the DUP coalition. But the article was about the possibility of the breakup of the UK over Brexit, especially a "hard" no-deal Brexit. Here is the article.

PatrickLondon 08-04-2019 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse (Post 21787232)
What do they think would happen if he pulls off a no-deal Brexit without a new election? That's what seems the most likely because it only requires the people involved to keep aboard the train for in-fighting purposes as it races towards the cliff.

He doesn't need to "pull it off". It will happen automatically if nothing else changes (i.e. some agreement he can persuade parliament to accept - no chance, no time, or a further extension agreed by the 27, which hardly seems likely, given the way the party leaderships are frittering away the current one, or a new government revoking Article 50 and calling the whole thing off).

Or if you mean if a no-deal Brexit that turns out not to have too serious consequences... I doubt any government could manage that, and certainly not this shower. Those that know what they're doing (and they're gey few) actively want a future for this country that would horrify me (and I think most of us). Chlorinated chicken and smashing up the Union might be the least of it.

Baron Greenback 08-04-2019 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatrickLondon (Post 21788269)
(and they're gey few)

:cool: Not seen that written down for, well, a gey long time...

Elendil's Heir 08-13-2019 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback (Post 21788574)
:cool: Not seen that written down for, well, a gey long time...

We'll have a gey old time!

Walken After Midnight 08-14-2019 06:45 PM

Corbyn outlines plans to defeat no-deal Brexit
Quote:

Jeremy Corbyn aims to stop a no-deal Brexit by leading a "time-limited" caretaker government after winning a no-confidence vote in the government.

The Labour leader then plans to delay the UK's exit from the European Union to make time for a general election.

Tatterdemalion 08-14-2019 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir (Post 21785617)
Never happen, but an interesting proposal!

You might even call it a "modest" proposal

Sage Rat 08-14-2019 09:07 PM

Late to the thread but I'll just throw in what I've said before: The only way to achieve a deal with the EU is to form a pro-Brexit party. So long as half of every party wants to stay - including the party in the majority - there is no path forward internally and that negates all work done externally.

As to Boris, my expectation is that he's smart enough to realize that there's no way to win the negotiations - and certainly there's no use telling the EU, "You better make a deal with me or I'm going to punch myself in the nads! Just you watch!" They'll just tell him to go ahead.

He's banking on there being no genuine calamity from a no-deal Brexit. So long as he can give companies enough forewarning to know that it's coming, they'll adapt and be ready and there won't be any major financial issue.

Ireland will be a problem, of course, but that's Ireland's problem. Your average voter just cares about the economy.

Properly telegraphed, Brexit is a long-term path to economic, political, and cultural unimportance on the economic stage. It's not a short term calamity.

Demonstrating that Hell on Earth doesn't unfold on day 1 of Brexit is likely enough to see Boris achieve recognition as having been "right all along".

Assuming that he doesn't get booted from the PM position between now and Brexit, I would say that you should expect Boris to come out looking like roses, even if he's taking things in a direction that is ultimately harmful to the country. The average populace thinks short term and the media has sold Brexit as the Apocalypse. Failing to deal in the land of reality is harmful over the long run. That's as true for the BBC as it is for Boris Johnson.

Walken After Midnight 08-14-2019 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sage Rat (Post 21806706)
The only way to achieve a deal with the EU is to form a pro-Brexit party.

There are already two completely pro-Brexit parties: the Brexit Party, founded by Nigel Farage in January 2019, which got 30.52% of the vote share in the 2019 European Parliament elections; and there's also Farage's old party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

UDS 08-14-2019 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight (Post 21806720)
There are already two completely pro-Brexit parties: the Brexit Party, founded by Nigel Farage in January 2019, which got 30.52% of the vote share in the 2019 European Parliament elections; and there's also Farage's old party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

Yes, but neither of them wants to achieve a deal with the EU.

The only way to achieve a deal is to have a pro-deal party that's realistic about what deal is attainable. (Labour may be attempting to fill this slot.) The problem here is that a great many Brexit supporters are not realistic about what deal is attainable, and it will be difficult to get them to vote for a party that is. And since Brexit voters, if they are a majority at all, are a very, very narrow majority, any split in the Brexit vote between different parties is a serious problem for the Brexit cause.

Gyrate 08-15-2019 05:09 AM

There is no way the government can force the EU into further negotiations. The EU's view remains "We agreed a deal. We are not going to renegotiate it. It's not our fault the UK is so fundamentally incapable of sorting out its internal issues. If you don't like the deal you agreed, it is within your power to either crash out with no deal or to put a stop to the whole thing, but it's your choice."

Boris can stamp his little feets and lie about how anti-Brexit people and the EU are "collaborating" but the reality is that his choices are few.

PatrickLondon 08-15-2019 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 21806754)
The only way to achieve a deal is to have a pro-deal party that's realistic about what deal is attainable. (Labour may be attempting to fill this slot.) The problem here is that a great many Brexit supporters are not realistic about what deal is attainable, and it will be difficult to get them to vote for a party that is. And since Brexit voters, if they are a majority at all, are a very, very narrow majority, any split in the Brexit vote between different parties is a serious problem for the Brexit cause.

Both major parties are splitting three ways on this, in different proportions and along slightly different faultlines, which makes problems for all points of view.

The Tories split between the loyalists who accepted the deal (the biggest group in Parliament), the "nothing is good enough" Brexiteers (smaller in Parliament but noisy enough and well-enough supported among party members to get Johnson in) and those (probably fewest, but in the current Parliamentary arithmetic, enoough to put plenty of spanners in the works) who would rather stick as close to the EU as possible if they can't get Article 50 revoked.

Labour on the other hand is just about holding together a fudgy compromise position between those who would really rather revoke Article 50 (probably the majority of party members), those who fear the political consequences of not coming up with some sort of exit deal as long as it preserves at least something like the customs union (a fair number of their MPs, even if in their heart of hearts they'd rather revoke, or at least put it back to the people), and their own small minority who are fundamentally Brexiteers from a left perspective (many of whom are in Corbyn's inner circle).

Which leaves both Brexit and anti-Brexit voters equally at sea as between the major parties; remainers have the choice of voting LibDem or Green (or for the SNP or PC in Scotland/Wales), so their votes could well split that side of the argument. It's like trying to decide what colour to paint the living-room by using a kaleidoscope.

Elendil's Heir 08-28-2019 04:25 PM

Boris has the Queen ensure that Parliament won't have as much time as it thought it would to handle the most consequential issue in years: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/o...%20B.%20Edsall

Inner Stickler 08-28-2019 05:22 PM

Certainly I think suspending parliament is. . . (how to put this politely) a dick move. But I can't help wondering exactly what parliament thinks it would do in the next month that it hasn't had ample opportunity to do already.

Baron Greenback 08-28-2019 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler (Post 21830674)
But I can't help wondering exactly what parliament thinks it would do in the next month that it hasn't had ample opportunity to do already.

It has possibly provided motive and cover for the various remain and anti-no-deal groupings to unite, and force the issue once and for all.

Elendil's Heir 08-28-2019 10:31 PM

I suppose the Speaker could just invite all current MPs to meet in the Commons chamber for informal discussions every day during the suspension. Boris wouldn't lock the doors or send in troops, would he?

Would he...?

DrDeth 08-28-2019 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir (Post 21831099)
I suppose the Speaker could just invite all current MPs to meet in the Commons chamber for informal discussions every day during the suspension. Boris wouldn't lock the doors or send in troops, would he?

Would he...?

Maybe he has a little plaque "WWTD?" (what would trump do?)

Novelty Bobble 08-29-2019 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler (Post 21830674)
Certainly I think suspending parliament is. . . (how to put this politely) a dick move. But I can't help wondering exactly what parliament thinks it would do in the next month that it hasn't had ample opportunity to do already.

My thoughts as well. I've not heard anything from Parliament that resembles a coherent alternative that commands an overwhelming majority. Without that (and there has been ample opportunity and multiple indicative votes to develop one) then just choosing to kick the can down the road is unproductive. Seeing as the 31st October represent "no deal" by default and the troublesome backstop goes out of the window, it does little to progress things in a positive way.

AK84 08-29-2019 05:29 AM

Maybe just. annex the Republic? Declare it Southern Ireland......
Or nuke Brussels and Warsaw.
Or get annexed by the Irsih Republic ( we are now East Ireland).


Or, just cancel the whole thing...

Novelty Bobble 08-29-2019 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 21831374)

Or, just cancel the whole thing...

That last point is the tricky thing though. On what grounds do you cancel it? The assumption seems to be that there is no democratic fallout from doing so. Cancelling it does not mean that those who voted for it will shut up and go home.

If you are saying that leaving the EU is now impossible then people will quite rightly say "when did we agree to give up all possibility of leaving the EU?" To me, such a situation would have been the greatest democratic outrage.
If it is still possible then the problem has not gone away and will resurface with renewed force whenever the E.U. program overreaches itself or stumbles......and it will.

Regardless of any of the above, If a second referendum were held it would have to be on the basis of a remain vote representing a de-facto confirmation that the UK can never leave in the future. It is a pretty sure thing that the EU will never allow this situation to arise again. Expect a new treaty in the aftermath of this whatever happens to Brexit.

ElvisL1ves 08-29-2019 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback (Post 21830711)
It has possibly provided motive and cover for the various remain and anti-no-deal groupings to unite, and force the issue once and for all.

This same Parliament already voted against hard Brexit. Have they no authority to ban the PM from implementing it anyway?

Dr. Drake 08-29-2019 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble (Post 21831391)
That last point is the tricky thing though. On what grounds do you cancel it?

On the grounds that it is a terrible idea which will do short-, medium- and long-term damage to the country, and that the people democratically elected to represent the majority sometimes have more time to devote to these questions and access to better information, and thus a better idea of how things might pan out than the electorate en masse—which is why said electorate delegates governance in the first place. On the grounds that this is a whopping great decision to be made by a tiny majority of those who even bothered to vote on the question, in a referendum that was meant to be advisory in the first place, and whose campaigns involved disinformation. On the grounds that EU citizens resident in the UK didn't get to vote in the referendum [I'd have to double-check that point: going from memory] and perhaps should have been allowed to.

Inner Stickler 08-29-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21831489)
This same Parliament already voted against hard Brexit. Have they no authority to ban the PM from implementing it anyway?

Shades of Canute commanding the tides.

Brexit is a logical consequence of invoking A50, not something Boris Johnson is implementing.

Steophan 08-29-2019 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21831489)
This same Parliament already voted against hard Brexit. Have they no authority to ban the PM from implementing it anyway?

The biggest problem with that is that a hard Brexit doesn't have to be implemented, it will happen by default, and it will require positive action to prevent that. The current PM has indicated that he will not do that, that he will let it happen if no alternative is accepted by the end of October.

So, the main way Parliament can change that is to replace the government via a vote of no confidence. The problem is, what happens after that? There needs to be a majority of Parliament who will accept the consequences of that, which will almost certainly include an early General Election and the strong probability of Corbyn as PM for a time (who, apart from anything else, also wants to leave the EU) and/or a series of weak coalitions. It's not obvious that there's a majority for that, or that a majority would form behind an alternative government.

So, in short, yes, Parliament have that authority - but they need to have the will to do it, and accept the consequences.

kevlaw 08-29-2019 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble (Post 21831391)
Regardless of any of the above, If a second referendum were held it would have to be on the basis of a remain vote representing a de-facto confirmation that the UK can never leave in the future.

I don't agree. I think it would require that, if we ever go through this again, we have to think it through a bit more carefully next time. We have to define what we mean by "Brexit" before we vote on it.

I think, politically, if remain wins next time around, it would be hard to muster up the enthusiasm to go through all this again any time soon but it wouldn't mean that we could never leave.

My personal wish is that parliament does away with referendums. They don't seem to be compatible with a parliamentary democracy.

PastTense 08-29-2019 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21831489)
This same Parliament already voted against hard Brexit. Have they no authority to ban the PM from implementing it anyway?

All Parliament has to do is to revoke the A50 Brexit withdrawal resolution. The European Court of Justice had made clear that the U.K. Parliament can do this without any agreement needed from the European Union.

But there are not the votes to do this. So instead everyone is talking about a new Referendum or new General Election or getting another postponement from the EU.

Stanislaus 08-29-2019 11:55 AM

The fact that we're finding it difficult to leave has very little to do with the EU. They agreed a date on which we would leave and a deal by which we would do so. It's the UK Parliament who have refused to ratify that deal. And a decisive chunk of the MPs who voted against that deal were pro-Leave. We would be out now if it weren't for Steve Baker and his "Spartan" ERG chums.

The truth is that the UK badly mishandled the negotiation by setting itself contradictory red lines and starting the clock ticking on A50 before it had actually worked out what it wanted in a deal. A more competent government could have organised cross-party consensus for a soft Brexit that would have pissed off the ultras on both sides but had c.450 MPs lining up behind it.

So the answer to the question "When did it become impossible to leave the EU" would be "When we left Theresa May, Boris Johnson and David Davis in charge of getting us out".

ElvisL1ves 08-29-2019 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastTense (Post 21831869)
All Parliament has to do is to revoke the A50 Brexit withdrawal resolution. The European Court of Justice had made clear that the U.K. Parliament can do this without any agreement needed from the European Union.

Could the EU also rule that the vote against hard Brexit meant no hard Brexit, and refuse to implement it?

Steophan 08-29-2019 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastTense (Post 21831869)
All Parliament has to do is to revoke the A50 Brexit withdrawal resolution.

Can Parliament do that, or does it have to be the Government? Mors specifically, the PM?

CarnalK 08-29-2019 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21831917)
Could the EU also rule that the vote against hard Brexit meant no hard Brexit, and refuse to implement it?

I'm not sure what a one sided "refuse to implement" would even mean.

ElvisL1ves 08-29-2019 12:43 PM

Neither am I. Something like pretending nothing had changed, hoping the UK would do likewise, maybe?

I really meant "Is there anything the EU can do to apply some adult supervision here?"

PatrickLondon 08-29-2019 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21831917)
Could the EU also rule that the vote against hard Brexit meant no hard Brexit, and refuse to implement it?

In the absence of any deal, a "hard Brexit" is the inevitable legal consequence. The UK has given notice of leaving. That (after extensions) falls due on October 31st. At that point all the legal and administrative frameworks tied up in EU membership cease to have legal force. If both the UK government and the EU tacitly agree to pretend nothing has changed (but what then would have been the point of "taking back control" anyway?) things might totter along without too much difficulty; but any dispute between any trading partners across the UK/EU boundary will have nowhere to go for resolution.

Plus there's the point that, absent a specific agreement, AIUI, under WTO rules neither party can give the other favourable terms as hoc unless it does the same for all WTO members. So there's another slew of international legal cases.

Novelty Bobble 08-29-2019 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake (Post 21831743)
On the grounds that it is a terrible idea which will do short-, medium- and long-term damage to the country,

speculative, especially the "long-term". no-one has done this before nor even anything like it.

Quote:

and that the people democratically elected to represent the majority sometimes have more time to devote to these questions and access to better information, and thus a better idea of how things might pan out than the electorate en masse—which is why said electorate delegates governance in the first place.
on this question they don't though, the projections are all worst-case that rely upon no-one taking mitigating actions (which won't happen). How it pans-out it unknown, anyone who tells you otherwise with certainty is lying. Beyond short-term upheaval, no-one knows. These are the same experts who saw nothing and said nothing in the run-up to the 2008 crash.

Quote:

On the grounds that this is a whopping great decision to be made by a tiny majority of those who even bothered to vote on the question,
history is made by those that turn up
Quote:

in a referendum that was meant to be advisory in the first place,
the pledge that went along with the referendum, that was re-inforced by both major parties at the subsequent GE, was that the result was going to be respected and enacted.
Quote:

and whose campaigns involved disinformation.
show me a political campaign that doesn't or an electorate gullible enough to think eveything they are promised will come to pass, they don't do so in a GE and there is no reason to think they did so to any greater degree in the referendum. Given that a promise was made to enact.......are the electorate guaranteed to believe promises or not?
Quote:

On the grounds that EU citizens resident in the UK didn't get to vote in the referendum [I'd have to double-check that point: going from memory] and perhaps should have been allowed to.
They were allowed to.

look, I deal with pretty high-level people in major coprporations. A really good rule of thumb for major executive decisions is that if you aren't prepared to to accept the answer you don't ask the question in the first place. Once you do it is a major issue if you don't implement and not to be taken lightly. All the points you make have merit but even were any of them used as justification for revocation you would still have to deal with the fallout from a large group of people clearly denied their freely-taken, explicitily promised, democratically expressed wish. By all means say "whoopsy, my bad" but the aftermath may be even uglier that what you think you are avoiding.

Novelty Bobble 08-29-2019 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevlaw (Post 21831837)
I don't agree. I think it would require that, if we ever go through this again, we have to think it through a bit more carefully next time. We have to define what we mean by "Brexit" before we vote on it

No, the horse has bolted. There won't be an "again".

It is an absolute certainty that a failure to follow through on this now will see the E.U.make it pretty much impossible to do so in the future. They won't write it in so many words but the effect will be to ensure it is impossibly punative for any country to do so.

So that is the practical outcome of chosing not to do it now, in effect it becomes a decision to bind to the E.U. forever. If that's the democratic will of the people to do so then I'm happy to go along with it but it would be honest to admit that this is the case.

Northern Piper 08-29-2019 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steophan (Post 21831924)
Can Parliament do that, or does it have to be the Government? Mors specifically, the PM?

The European Court of Justice said that a country can revoke its Article 50 notice "in accordance with [that country's] constitutional requirements."

Parliament is supreme over the executive. Parliament could pass a law declaring that Parliament has revoked Britain's Article 50 notification, and direct Speaker Bercow to deliver that notification to the EU.

UDS 08-29-2019 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Piper (Post 21832879)
The European Court of Justice said that a country can revoke its Article 50 notice "in accordance with [that country's] constitutional requirements."

Parliament is supreme over the executive. Parliament could pass a law declaring that Parliament has revoked Britain's Article 50 notification, and direct Speaker Bercow to deliver that notification to the EU.

And any dispute about whether that (or any other procedure that might be adopted) was or was not "in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements" would be resolved by the UK courts, to whom the Court of Justice of the EU would defer.

UDS 08-29-2019 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble (Post 21832597)
They were allowed to.

Nitpick: EU citizens resident in the UK were not permitted to vote in the referendum unless they were either UK citizens (obvously), Irish citizens (because Irish citizens have full voting rights in the UK) or Maltese citizens (because Malta is a Commonwealth country, and Commonwealth citizens were allowed to vote).

Gyrate 08-30-2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble (Post 21832597)
the pledge that went along with the referendum, that was re-inforced by both major parties at the subsequent GE, was that the result was going to be respected and enacted.

show me a political campaign that doesn't or an electorate gullible enough to think eveything they are promised will come to pass, they don't do so in a GE and there is no reason to think they did so to any greater degree in the referendum. Given that a promise was made to enact.......are the electorate guaranteed to believe promises or not?

So what you're saying is that pledges to leave the EU should be enacted because pledges to the people should be honoured, but the utter failure to honour any other pledges can be handwaved away without consequence as "politics as usual". Got it.

BTW, during his leadership campaign, Boris promised not to prorogue Parliament. Perhaps he should honour that one first?

Novelty Bobble 08-30-2019 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21833441)
So what you're saying is that pledges to leave the EU should be enacted because pledges to the people should be honoured, but the utter failure to honour any other pledges can be handwaved away without consequence as "politics as usual". Got it.

No that's not what I'm saying. You are assuming I'm on Boris's side but I'm very much not.

However, I don't see that enacting a "no deal" Brexit as substantially more anti-democratic than reneging on a political promise clearly made, restated by the two main parties. and voted for. I may be personally contented that we do go back on that but I honestly think that people who voted for Brexit should quite rightly be very angry about it and it will not be the end of the matter, not by a long shot.

PatrickLondon 08-30-2019 05:06 PM

As ever, cassetteboy sums up Johnson

SciFiSam 08-30-2019 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern (Post 21778589)
That's why he will make impossible promises to everybody about everything, try to appear strong and decisive, take a hard line with the EU... and call an election.

He will come to an agreement with Farage, and hope that he gets a decent majority. Then he will try to force through no-deal, by fair means or foul.

Farage? How will Boris coming to an agreement with Farage do anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 21778943)
I had only a vague idea of who Boris Johnson really was. I mean, I know who he is, but not what kind of person. I keep hearing that he's another Trump - a low intelligence populist rabble rouser. So I did a little research on him, and I'm not seeing it.

Apparently he went to Eton, where he was considered a bit of a prodigy. Then Oxford, where he graduated with second class honors. He speaks Greek and Latin fluently. His politics are said to be more David Cameron style center-right orthodoxy, other than Brexit.

So what am I missing? Sure, he has goofy hair and a penchant for theatrics, but I'm not seeing the dumb drooling Trump clone.

Yeah, he's not an idiot. Going to Eton doesn't mean you're not stupid, but Boris did get a scholarship based on an entrance exam. Not the kind any random kid could have known about, let alone taken, but yes, his early years were marked by cleverness.

But now he sustains himself on a persona of being an idiot, much like Trump pretends to be a man of the people despite being a millionaire by birth. They both act like bumbling idiots now - for Boris, it's probably more of an act than a reality, but it's still what makes him appeal to people.

Boris says so many stupid things that it's hard to keep up, same as Trump does. Boris has lots of scandals that seem not to touch him, same as Trump does. It's not even clear how many children he has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo (Post 21785562)
I'd like to thank everyone participating in this thread; it's been a huge help to me as I try to understand what is happening in the UK politically right now. I knew Boris Johnson's name and a few things about his time int he government and that he was part of the Brexit campaign, but little else. After watching John Oliver's piece about him, I knew that I was missing a lot of information and have been actively seeking to correct the deficiency since.

Y'all have been a big help; thanks again.

Oh, trust me, a lot of people in the UK are also baffled. It's been a rollercoaster ride in the UK these last few years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 21832905)
Nitpick: EU citizens resident in the UK were not permitted to vote in the referendum unless they were either UK citizens (obvously), Irish citizens (because Irish citizens have full voting rights in the UK) or Maltese citizens (because Malta is a Commonwealth country, and Commonwealth citizens were allowed to vote).

I wouldn't call that a nitpick. It's pretty important.

Baron Greenback 08-30-2019 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SciFiSam (Post 21834217)
Oh, trust me, a lot of people in the UK are also baffled. It's been a rollercoaster ride in the UK these last few years.

It's been endless and exhausting in real life. It's not even just been Brexit for some of us. It's been, what, nearly six years since the #indyref process started in Scotland? Just been constant since then - toxic arguments about identity and belonging. :o

Northern Piper 08-30-2019 11:00 PM

David Cameron has much to answer fo.

Not as much as Tony Blair, but definitely a strong runner-up.

GreenWyvern 08-31-2019 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SciFiSam (Post 21834217)
Farage? How will Boris coming to an agreement with Farage do anything?

The post you quoted is a month old, but it's proving to be true. Johnson is clearly gearing up for an election, and he will need to come to an arrangement with Farage's Brexit Party not to split the right-wing vote.

Nigel Farage warns Boris Johnson ‘honeymoon is over’ and says Brexit Party ready to wipe out Tories at next election

The Brexit Party has already chosen candidates for every seat in Britain.

Quote:

Mr Farage added does not think Mr Johnson will win a majority in a general election.

He said: “If Boris goes with this awful, miserable European treaty even without the backstop, we will fight against him in every seat in the country and he will not win the election.
Nigel Farage offers no-deal Brexit election pact to Boris Johnson

Johnson is unlikely to make a public response to this, since he is not talking about an election yet. But there is no question that if the Brexit Party were to stand against the Tories, it would be a disaster for the Tories.

PatrickLondon 08-31-2019 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern (Post 21834445)
But there is no question that if the Brexit Party were to stand against the Tories, it would be a disaster for the Tories.

On present form, that's not so clear. They might suck up Labour votes in leave-voting Labour constituencies more than Tory votes in Tory constituencies. They might have a spoiler effect on the distribution of seats as between the established parties without actually winning any themselves.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.