web analytics

Boris the Spider

By Mahons On July 10th, 2018

Should be an interesting discussion on whether Boris Johnson is weaving a tangled web or drawing an important line in the sand. He is quite a character. Who are we Yanks to complain if a brash and unpredictible politician born in New York City is making news? His resignation probably pleases as many conservatives as it angers. He has that way. Whether it truly effects May or frees her remains to be seen. He had tied himself to a hard Brexit, and at his age men do worry about being soft. It will be interesting to watch it all play out.

62 Responses to “Boris the Spider”

  1. Principled politician or a rat off a sinking ship? The consensus from other threads is that it’s the latter. I personally like him for the same reasons I like Trump. You never know what’s going to come out of the man’s mouth, brash to the extreme, take no prisoners, with a shock of hair to boot.

    Paul said it best. I asked him if Boris was going to stand for election. Paul quipped that he would have to stand upright first!

  2. I can’t take anyone who looks like him and is named “Boris” seriously.

  3. Pity there isn’t a photo of the Blonde Brexiteer to match the photo below.

  4. PVR

    His real first name is, Alexander.

    It is not the man himself that Chairman May needs to worry about, but the support in the House of Commons he commands. If his supporters think he could be PM then they may help bring down the government. But with a Labour government in the offing they might just bottle it. Personally I think Chairman May has played a blinder. She has deliberately wound down the clock so that we have to face another TINA. There is no alternative.

  5. Mark B –

    There is an alternative, and it’s the sensible option. We’ve invoked Article 50 and Parliament has passed the EU Withdrawal Bill. There’s nothing more to do to leave the EU. As it stands, we leave the EU entirely on March 29th 2019. That’s it, Brexit done.

    What they are trying to do now is get us back into it.

    The sensible thing now is to do invite the EU’s offer to us, as an independent country and the fifth largest economy. We’re not the supplicants, they are, though Remainers cannot get this fact through their skulls.

    This is a Remainer PM, presiding over a Remainer government, in a Remainer Parliament. We’re out, as it stands. May’s policy now is to get us back in.

  6. Pete, what’s wrong with a stepping-stone approach? According to the Chequers deal, if accepted, you are out of the EU next March.
    If there are still certain EU trade laws remaining in effect, why can’t they be accepted as an interim measure and gradually dropped over the coming years as England finds its feet as an economically independent country after so many decades in the EU?

    That makes sound sense to me. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing next March, and by insisting on all you will probably ensure you get nothing.

    You are like DeValera at the Treaty. Try Collins instead: “This does not give us the freedom that all people aspire to. But it does give us the freedom to attain that freedom”.

    After the Treaty it took us another 26 years and a bloody civil war before full independence was gradually achieved. But the EU is not as tyrranical as Britain, and how fast the UK finally gets out will depend on how successful it is outside Europe and nothing else.

  7. Many posters struggle to grasp the fact that a Hard Brexit was always deliverable for the countless reasons given on this site over 2 years. Folks need to be sensible as Noel indicated, get what you can give what you can and see how it goes .

  8. *undeliverable*

  9. Noel –

    We’re out of the EU in March as it stands.

    May’s policy accepts the acquis communautaire. It promotes “ongoing harmonisation” with EU rules in an EU-UK “free trade area”, paying “due regard” to EU courts, and paying “appropriate contributions” to the EU.

    This is not Brexit, thank you very much. This is Remain by other means. It’s very simple: we voted to regain our independence and sovereignty. That’s the first stepping stone.

    People who laud 1916 really ought to support our cause.

  10. Of course we should remain as closely harmonised with Europe as possible. We have spent the last 50 years closely aligning our entire economic trade and regulatory practises with the EU and to abandon all that in one go is an act of fanatic recklessness that sensible pragmatic political leaders realise would be the real treachery. There is an argument to say we should never have joined Europe politically but we did and we have benefited hugely from being a large economy embedded within the worlds biggest single market. There is no rational argument for stupidly abandoning the economic trade model that we have been part of for nearly half a century and which has fuelled our prosperity and place in the worlds economic league.

  11. Colm –

    The EU Withdrawal Bill puts the standing body of EU law into British law. The idea that we’ll abandon the current common standards in one go is nonsense.

    The fastest growing economies, since we crashed into the European Community, have all been outside of it. Our share of exports to the EU, and the world, has declined in this time. The future depends on trading with the world, not a little protectionist block.

    Remainers don’t know what they’re talking about because they just assumed that the EU is a permanent fixture in our lives. Brexiteers know what we’re talking about, because we’ve studied the EU. That’s why we’re Brexiteers.

  12. Johnson is a pretty loathsome individual, naked, ruthless ambition masked with a Hugh Grantesque bumbeling ecentric English stereotype. A career politician who has nothing but self interest at heart.

    It seems like Brexit will be semi – detached at least in the interim as Noel suggests above. Until the economic viabilities become clear for the biggest political decision for at least the last fifty years in Brit politics it seems the sensible and cautious route to take.

    People who laud 1916 really ought to support our cause.

    Agreed. The solution to the problem is of course to partition Britain.

  13. If ever a referendum is held on the status of NI, I simply cannot wait for Noel and Paul McMahon to argue that “the economic viabilities must first become clear”.

    No, that was all done prior to the referendum. We voted to leave the EU. That’s it. I know the idea is extremely slow to permeate the minds of fans of supra-national, detached and undemocratic states, but that’s their problem.

    167 countries exist outside of the EU. The idea that the world’s fifth largest economy cannot do so is drivel.

  14. No, that was all done prior to the referendum. We voted to leave the EU

    Pete, I asked you recently if it was legitimate for Brexit to be reversed through political manifesto and you told me yeas however reintegration into the EU would first have to be negotiated. If reintegration into the EU must be negotiated before re – entry why shouldn’t it’s exit be negotiated before it actually happens? Prior to the referendum you were advocating joining the EEA as an alternative to the EU, oh yes you were.

    The fact of the matter is that most people, (including you), thought that Brexit wouldn’t happen happen and the UK was caught on the back foot.

    If ever a referendum is held on the status of NI, I simply cannot wait for Noel and Paul McMahon to argue that “the economic viabilities must first become clear”.

    Here you are:

    https://www.ft.com/content/457df810-f043-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386

    Having said that, I’d certainly have no problems with a transisition period pending reunification.

    The solution to Brexit is to partition the Britain. Good enough in 1921 good enough in 2018.

  15. Paul McMahon –

    Pete, I asked you recently if it was legitimate for Brexit to be reversed through political manifesto and you told me yeas however reintegration into the EU would first have to be negotiated.

    No I didn’t.

    I said that Brexit cannot be reversed. We cannot simply go back to where we were. That option is not available.

    I said that it would be legitimate for Parliament to attempt to join the EU after we have first left it. The position then can be put to the British people, including having to adopt the Euro, be in Schengen, be in the EU armed forces, no opt-outs in any area. We can vote on abolishing our nation for total submission to the EU.

    Glad to clear that up.

  16. Any campaign for Remain is illegitimate and immoral. When the UK leaves then ‘Rejoin’ becomes legitimate.

  17. I said that it would be legitimate for Parliament to attempt to join the EU after we have first left it.

    Which would be a reversal of Brexit no matter what semantic hoops you wish to jump through.

    If reintegration into the EU must be negotiated before re – entry why shouldn’t it’s exit be negotiated before it actually happens?

    Prior to the referendum you were advocating joining the EEA as an alternative to the EU, oh yes you were.

  18. Should Britain be partitioned to solve the unionist dilemma as Ireland was?

    Sauce for the goose and all that.

  19. FFS

    Paul, once Brexit is done it’s done. Re-applying to join the EU would be re-applying to join the EU. If it happened we would be joining on much different terms from those we’ve been on.

    Invoking Article 50 is an irreversible process. It cannot be “reversed”. You can be as dumb as jude sometimes.

  20. If Britain re enters the EU then of course it’s a reversal of Brexit and there’s really no need to be insulting about it. However, are you going to argue about semantics or answer the questions?

    If reintegration into the EU must be negotiated before re – entry why shouldn’t it’s exit be negotiated before it actually happens?

    Prior to the referendum you were advocating joining the EEA as an alternative to the EU, oh yes you were.

    Should Britain be partitioned to solve the unionist dilemma as Ireland was?

  21. Pete

    Article 50 is entirely in the control of the member state that invokes it. The member state remains in the EU for the 2 year period after the article has been invoked and they can unilaterally withdraw it at any time in that 2 year period as EU law mentions nothing specifically about any requirement of the other member states either to agree its invocation or it revocation. Only once the 2 years are up to we enter irreversible territory.

  22. And two more go……

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44785797#_=_

    The Tories implode. Magnificent chaos.

  23. Colm –

    ‘Fraid not.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-supreme-court-article-50-notice-cannot-be-withdrawn-2017-1

    You’ll remember when Gina Miller (her handlers and funders) went to court stating that Parliament must approve the triggering of Article 50. One of the outcomes was that the Supreme Court said that the notice, once triggered, cannot be withdrawn.

  24. However, are you going to argue about semantics or answer the questions?

    Looks like semantics it is then.

  25. Ask a question worthy of an answer.

  26. Yep, that’s what I thought.

    Sauce for the goose obviously isn’t sauce for the EEA gander.

  27. Stop trolling the thread.

  28. The Guardian could have been speaking about some of the Brexit cabal here:

    Never at any stage do the Brexiters ever accept the practical duty of producing a detailed post-Brexit plan. Instead, David Davis smirks through meeting after meeting, Boris Johnson gabbily chases cheap headlines, Michael Gove spins a wordy web of courteous waffle and Liam Fox insists that black is white and white black. Mr Davis said this week that Mrs May’s ideas would not work. So, what might work instead? There was, predictably, no answer from Mr Davis. There never is. The Brexiters created the mess and the burden with which Mrs May has to wrestle. But it is never, ever, their fault. Nothing ever is. It is only, ever, Mrs May’s fault – or someone else’s fault: the civil service, the judges, business leaders, the Irish, the liberal elites or Brussels.

    Before the Brexit vote and since, the Brexiters have never put forward a detailed plan of their own. They did not do so this week. They spent 12 hours at Chequers not doing it. They won’t do it next week either. They don’t do plans. They only do fantasy. They spun a fantasy of takeover by Brussels; now they spin a fantasy of liberation from it. They have held our country, its politics, its press and its shared life hostage to their lazy second-rate dreariness for too long. It is time to take the fight to them

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/06/the-guardian-view-on-the-cabinet-brexiters-vacuous-dreary-and-incapable-of-responsibility

  29. Wow, the NYT could also be writing about some of ATW’s sexy Brexis:

    Britain is in this mess principally because the Brexiteers — led largely by Mr. Johnson — sold the country a series of lies in the lead up to the June 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union. They did so because neither Mr. Johnson nor his fellow leader of the Leave campaign, Michael Gove, intended, wanted or expected to win.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opinion/boris-johnson-resignation-brexit.html

  30. An opinion piece by a ( London ) Times writer.

  31. Paul –

    The Guardian has lied to you.

    David Davis produced a White Paper, despite being sidelined over the last year. It was due to be presented to Cabinet at Chequers. It was pulled at the last minute by the PM, who had her Civil Service advisors produce one.

    We can see now that Davis was only a house brexiteer. The referendum was offered up y a Remain PM and government. Brexit was taken over by a Remain PM and Cabinet, who have stuffed it up purposely.

    Brexiteers have at no time been in control of the process.

  32. Mr. Trump has gotten his shirt tail caught in the ringer with the British government suggesting his friendliness with Johnson, while May is in turmoil. I hope this does not affect his trip.

  33. Charles –

    I hope it greatly affects his trip. I hope there’s a sodding great row about it. I hope that Trump lines himself up with Johnson and Brexit. Millions of people think likewise.

    The sooner May’s abysmal government falls the better. The sooner the Tory Party dies the better. I’ve been looking through Tory blogs and posts. The membership is as apoplectic as the rest of us.

  34. It was pulled at the last minute by the PM, who had her Civil Service advisors produce one.

    Yeah, it must have been the one when he was in favour of retaining the Customs’ Union? That one?

    What should be done? I believe that the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union – one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/liam-fox-speech-eu-customs-union-brexit-europe-trade-deal-a8230571.html

    I thought that ‘out meant out?’or possibly joing the EEA?

    But it is never, ever, their fault. Nothing ever is. It is only, ever, Mrs May’s fault – or someone else’s fault: the civil service, the judges, business leaders, the Irish, the liberal elites or Brussels.

  35. An opinion piece by a ( London ) Times writer.

    And?

    An OP by a British journalist writing for the NYT would be more accurate?

  36. Why are you quoting me Liam Fox? I was talking about David Davis.

  37. I wanted to emphasise the chicanery that ‘out means out’ hard Brexiteers such as yourself floated before the referendum. That’s why.

    And this, again,

    But it is never, ever, their fault. Nothing ever is. It is only, ever, Mrs May’s fault – or someone else’s fault: the civil service, the judges, business leaders, the Irish, the liberal elites or Brussels.

    – addTheresa May’s Civil Servants or something onto that list.

  38. Yes Paul, the civil service too, which is flat out pro-EU and is a chief Brexit saboteur.

    Ollie Robbins is the PM’s Brexit stand-in. He’s her chief negotiator, the man for whom she shoved aside David Davis. He’s a full-on pro-EU headbanger. He drafted the proposal which is now tearing the Tories apart. Yes, the civil service is up to its neck in this.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-urged-to-sack-brexit-negotiator-oliver-robbins-as-cabinet-revolts-over-customs-pnxpxjxjz

    Theresa May has been told she could be ousted like Margaret Thatcher unless she sacks her chief Brexit negotiator, Oliver Robbins, and ditches his plan to bind Britain into a customs partnership with the EU.

    David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has told May that she should ignore Robbins and start listening to her ministers instead — a move that the mandarin has interpreted as an attempt to get him fired.

    Paul, sincerely, guessing at what’s going on through the prism of your prejudices is bound to let you down.

  39. You’re hardly anyone to be giving lectures on prejudice Pete

    I’m guessing nothing, merely recapping the sophistry and cant spun by the Brexos here and further afield and savoring the delicious chaos it’s brought to the Tories.

  40. I’ve just shown that your rhetoric is nonsense, Paul. Be humble. Learn from this. I know much more about Brexit and British politics than you ever will.

    If I want to know about West Belfast or Pamplona I’ll ask you. When you want to know about Brexit, here I am.

  41. I’ve just shown that your rhetoric is nonsense, Paul

    Eh?

    Would you like me to retrieve some of the cant and sophistry from the threads prior to the referendim?

  42. Paul, you guffawed a the idea that the civil service has sabotaged Brexit. I showed you that the civil service has sabotaged Brexit.

    Please, just stick to what you know.

  43. You showed me a comment from a newpaper article where some bloke who resigned from the cabinet told May she should listen to him.

    It’s always someone elses’ fault as the Guardian OP pointed out. If you wish to contradict the Guardian piece please?, produce the White Paper so we can have a look at it.

    As for me, well,

    I’m guessing nothing, merely recapping the sophistry and cant spun by the Brexos here and further afield and savoring the delicious chaos it’s brought to the Tories

    Much like Liam fox and a few others……

  44. Paul

    You can learn nothing about Brexit from Pete. He is a deluded fanatic , so rosy eyed in his swivelling Puritanism that he can claim with a straight face as he did earlier on this thread, that the EU are the weaker supplicant party to the “divorce “who will suffer more than the U.K. from any harsh trade disruption caused by a no deal scenario. Such idiocy cannot seriously be believed by anyone of rational mind.

  45. Colm –

    You know nothing.

    At 5.19pm you said that the UK can withdraw the Article 50 notice. At 5.34pm I showed you that we cannot so do. The Supreme Court has ruled that it’s irreversible.

    If you had any integrity you’d acknowledge that I was right and that you – as usual – was wrong. You join Paul on the idiot step.

  46. If you had any integrity you’d acknowledge that I was right and that you – as usual – was wrong. You join Paul on the idiot step.

    Self praise is no praise Pete.

    I was going to ask you to contradict the Guardian by producing the White Paper again but your notion of intregrity died a few years ago, along with your honesty.

    Just like Boris:

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-boris-johnson-lied-about-eu-safety-regulation-in-his-resignation-letter

    Perhaps that explains the deceit and subterfuge spun here prior to the referendum.

  47. Pete – Paul wants minutes from meetings within the Civil Service which state that “we are going to prevent Brexit” and nothing less will do. Even if/when the Civil Service actually does sabotage Brexit, that won’t be sufficient because anybody could have done it – and there’s no plotting or conspiracy either. Meanwhile, here’s the Irish Navy (non-member of NATO) in action in the Mediterranean Sea which is not the sea that surrounds Ireland…….

    https://www.dw.com/en/italy-to-block-naval-vessels-carrying-migrants-from-docking-interior-minister-matteo-salvini/a-44579605

    Italy’s hardline Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini, vowed on Sunday to stop foreign naval vessels that have saved migrants in the Mediterranean Sea from docking in Italian ports, extending a ban first placed on ships chartered by charities.

    Foreign naval ships participating in European Union and NATO-sponsored search-and-rescue missions transfer many migrants to land at Italian ports. On Sunday, Irish navy ship Samuel Beckett landed in Sicily with 106 migrants on board.

    There are times when WTF!? is insufficient

  48. Pete

    You are wrong, The Supreme Court do not make European law. They adjudicate U.K. law and It’s application regarding Parliamentary authority only. If Parliament votes to withdraw article 50 that is all the authority required, The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament must approve decisions govt, make regarding article 50. Govt. cannot unilaterally invoke or revoke article 50 but Parliament can. There is no mechanism in international law or EU jurisdiction requiring lawful approval of that decision from any other body. Parliament rules, it’s the idiot step for you Pete.

  49. Colm

    You are wrong. The possessive pronoun of the neuter is its and not it’s. For the latter, the apostrophe denotes a deleted ‘i’ as in ‘it is’. I was unable to read beyond that error 😉

  50. Not my fault guv. Apple I Pad auto spellcheck. Pesky yank technology. Only the EU can save us from it 😜

  51. Colm –

    Read Article 50. It says:

    http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    We have done that. Along the way the Supreme Court stated that Article 50 is irreversible, that it cannot be withdrawn (link).

    This is the entire history of the EU arguments in a nutshell. EU extremists making up everything they say, getting everything wrong, having to be put right at every turn.

  52. //Along the way the Supreme Court stated that Article 50 is irreversible, that it cannot be withdrawn//

    So the UK government, parliament or people aren’t sovereign after all.

  53. I thought that no legislature can bind a future legislature to do anything

  54. Parliament isn’t binding Parliament. The Supreme Court is, and that’s not uncommon.

  55. The actual article talks about Supreme Court “assumptions” in situations where there is no legal clarity. Of course the actual legal ruling of the Supreme Court was simply that govt. could not decide matters relating to the use of Article 50 without Parliamentary approval. If the govt. offered to withdraw the triggering of article 50 within the 2 year period while the UK is still legally in the EU and Parliament ratified that decision with a vote, that would satisfy the stipulations of the Supreme Court and the UK would continue to be a member of the EU. There is no process within the EU whereby the other members have to accept or decline an Article 50 declaration by a member state. It is entirely a matter for the individual state member concerned. Pete is wrong and I am right as always 🙂

  56. So for the sake of argument, let’s say that 99% of the British public now clearly wishes to stay in the EU

    How would they be able to make this happen? What procedure?

  57. Parliament isn’t binding Parliament. The Supreme Court is

    What, those ‘enemies of the people’ Supreme Court?

    IIRC the SC ruled that the Government can’t enact Art 50 in the absence of a parliamentary vote? Remember the wailing cries and screams when the Leavers here and further afield thought that their Brexit would be frustrated?

    Phntom, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty states that the decisions of one administration aren’t binding on another:

    According to A.V. Dicey (Law of the Constitution, 1885), “In theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign.” Dicey’s view of parliamentary sovereignty consisted of four factors:

    Parliament is competent to pass laws on any subject;
    Parliament’s laws can regulate the activities of anyone, anywhere;
    Parliament cannot bind its successors as to the content, manner and form of subsequent legislation; and
    Laws passed by Parliament cannot be challenged by the courts.

    https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/parliamentary-sovereignty-.php

    This is the entire history of the EU arguments in a nutshell. EU extremists making up everything they say, getting everything wrong

    So what was it with your ‘EEA alternative’ and ‘acquired rights’ for EU / non EU citizens that you had to be put right prior to the referendum? Did you make that up or just get it wrong?

    As I said, self praise is no praise.

  58. Phantom –

    The UK is leaving the EU on 29th March 2019. Article 50 was invoked on 29th March 2017, and the EU Withdrawal Bill is law. This repeals the prior treaties. All legal steps have been taken to leave the EU. Nothing more needs be done.

    For the UK to end up back in the EU a new application would be required. The UK’s prior membership will be done, it will be history, after 29th March 2019.

    As I’ve generously and patiently explained to Remainers, we cannot go back to our prior relationship. If the UK applied to join the EU again, we would have to join the Eurozone, join the Schengen Agreement, opt in fully to every EU requirement, have no rebate on our contributions and also sign up to the EU armed forces.

    There is zero chance of the British people voting for it, but that assumes we were given a choice. I wouldn’t at all put it past the present generation of political and bureaucratic shysters to try to get us back in without a plebiscite.

  59. Paul –

    Parliament didn’t decide that Article 50 is irrevocable. The Supreme Court did. Is this so difficult to understand?

  60. Who’s suggesting they did Pete? The great British Constitutional exper A.V. Dicey states that:

    Parliament cannot bind its successors as to the content, manner and form of subsequent legislation; and

    Laws passed by Parliament cannot be challenged by the courts.

    I.e. the SC siad that the Government couldn’t invoke Art 50 without a parliamentary vote. Dicey states the SC cannot challenge Statute.

    Please read this full article Pete, paying particular attention to these points:

    Lord Kerr – the former British ambassador to the EU, who helped draft Article 50 – agreed.

    “You can change your mind while the process is going on,” he said

    And particularly this:

    Article 50 is a piece of European law, so the ultimate arbiter on this issue is the European Court of Justice

    The argument that Article 50 cannot be reversed once it has been triggered has not been tested in court

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39291512

    The usual mixture of half truths, missinformation, assumptions and wishful thinking from Pete.

  61. Paul, you’re talking about something completely different. This has nothing to do with Parliamentary supremacy. The Supreme Court simply said that Parliament must vote on whether Article 50 is invoked, and that if it did so it’s a one-way street,

    What Lord Kerr said is irrelevant. It was just opinion.

    Yes, Article 50 is European law. It wasn’t debated for one minute in Parliament. It was foisted on us, even though we didn’t want the Lisbon Treaty, when Gordon Brown signed it at the dead of night behind closed doors.

    Remainers didn’t complain about Parliamentary sovereignty then. So they can sod off when they bleat about it now.

  62. Pete, this is what the SC said:

    We are content to proceed on the basis that that, (the assumption that Art 50 is irreversible), is correct, without expressing any view of our own

    One of the drafters of Art 50, Lord Kerr and, more importantly, the legal authority of the British Constitution, A.V. Dicey, disagree with that assumption. The only way to definitively settle the query if Art 50 is irreversible is to test it through the Courts.

    As usual, much like your duplicity and mendacity prior to the referendum, you’re incorrect.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.