Westminstenders: Brace Yourself It's Gonna BeBoris

[RedToothBrush]

It seems inconceivable that Hunt can beat Johnson. And whilst we are all considering the horrors that Prime Johnson can bring...

Let's not forget Brexit, whats Brexit?

Already there is talk that Boris has gone soft on 31st Oct as an absolute. But he's also promised the earth to the ERG.

So what suits Boris best?

What does his ego demand?

What does Boris want his legacy to be?

Our fate rests on Boris's whims and personal desires.

And if you are Scottish, Muslim or otherwise not rich, white and male you might have reason to be concerned.

It's interesting this intensive discussion on a PV wording. I wonder if there have been roomfuls of civil servants/ SPADs deliberating on this very issue for months? If it was straightforward, maybe they'd have given in to a PV by now...

Ultimately my personal feeling is that I wish we could avoid a PV. I hope there is another way. I don't even want to think about the bad atmosphere that would be engendered. Online abuse, the press going into overdrive with propaganda, Russian/US interference, mendacious politicians, families and friends falling out, the cost...

It could be worse than 2016.

I suppose I'd hope that some adults would appear to tell us the truths about the options and say we aren't going to take this decision right now.

Well, I can dream...

Pro-Johnson Priti Patel on R4 Today just now.

Slippery Slithering Snake, lying and lying and lying and lying and lying some more.

Lordy, listening to Priti Patel on R4 failing to actually answer any questions on Johnson wanting to negotiate during an implementation period or how GATT XXIV could apply.

And can someone tell her there are 26 letters in the alphabet.

X post with MockerstheFeManist we are of the same opinion

Leavers voted to leave with a deal. That is what they were promised. No deal is an entirely different ball game to 'a' deal, not least because of the transition period.

Leavers voted to leave with a deal. That is what they were promised

Generally speaking, people voted to halt immigration, take away the % who voted on that issue and remain would have won easily - most people couldn't care less about trade deals, they don't know what they are/how they work or their scale, hence the support for no-deal now.

Yes, Priti Patel did a spectacularly bad job on Today prog, spouting nonsense lies at every opportunity and repeating said nonsense ad nauseam when (very ably) challenged by Nick Robinson.

And aside but DH and I caught up with the first husting between Johnson and Hunt last night.

Pleased to note (Not) that Zac Goldsmith is credited as having sponsored the entirety of the Johnson promotional film. Not listening to your constituents in one of the largest remain constituencies there Zac.

I guess because he only won with a narrow majority of forty-five votes last election that he knows he will lose to a LibDem next time. So he's better off writing off his loses and ingratiating himself by funding Johnson. Thereby he's more likely to secure cabinet experience and a more safe seat.

Generally speaking, people voted to halt immigration, take away the % who voted on that issue and remain would have won easily - most people couldn't care less about trade deals, they don't know what they are/how they work or their scale, hence the support for no-deal now.

Well, yes. But the literature was quite clear that we would not leave without a deal. Therefore, even if they weren't motivated by that, it is what they were voting for.

They weren't offered no deal; it's the HoC which has led to it even being an issue, as they could have avoided all of this by voting for the WA. But it's been a shit show from the word go, so now we are where we are.

I'm confused why any remainder would argue so vociferously about having no deal on a ballot paper. Why would we care what - some - leavers want when they don't give a shit about the 48%?

Because ignoring people is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I think one of the downfalls of the PV campaign is the inability to clearly state what options would be on the ballot. It all just adds to the mess, confusion and division. Can see on this thread of mainly like minded people how there is no consensus. There seems to be no detail or clarity from politicians on anything whether it be no dealers, those who want a deal or those who want a second referendum. It's a disgrace.

US came into WWII after Germany declared war on them. Which Germany did after Pearl Harbor. It didn't "need to" but followed its Axis ally, Japan. Just for a bit of clarity there, @Peregrina .

I have read that the US knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. The point I was making was that they didn't come into the war in 1939. Europe endured six years of war, America didn't.

{Removes sovereignty, we accept rules on which we have no say, Blind - in that anything could be the end result. }
There are of course many 'shades' to the loss of sovereignty but if the transition period were entered, yes the sovereignty lost currently would not be regained immediately, however if the end game of the transition period is to be totally out of the EU, all the 'lost' sovereignty would be regained, or most likely handed to the USA when the fabulous deals that 'The Wherrity' is working on come into fruition. Interesting that they had to be kept secret for 4 years, of which over 1 has already elapsed. 4 is a 'funny number' to have picked, I wonder why 4?

mathanxiety
There are so many 'issues' that could and probably are being thought about at 'micro' level using latest technology to enhance or make possible principles used in the past. Impossible to make a legal ruling but 'banning' air conditioning for say domestic dwellings, and heating beyond a certain power usage, would encourage/force humans not to live in places that are stupidly hot or cold 'just because we can'. People do live in the Sahara and other very hot places, and the majority do not use air conditioning to survive.
Insulation to keep heat out, and possibly buildings below ground level (Coober Pedy in Australia in the early mining period).

I have read that the US knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Technically not inaccurate but essentially dishonest.

The raw intel was intercepted and in the process of being decoded. There was also a cock-up with the warning sent from Washington to Hawaii by Western Union Telegram because the radio link was down.

Watch the Original Tora! Tora! Tora!

With apparently 3 months of rain to fall on UK over the next couple of days before a heatwave hits, I suspect the two candidates will be asked a lot of questions on climate change. Having read about UK's first climate change refugees I think that alongside Brexit this will be where the public wants the most forward thinking answers. If only it were actually up to the public, of course...

US came into WWII after Germany declared war on them. Which Germany did after Pearl Harbor. It didn't "need to" but followed its Axis ally, Japan.

It was Japan that formally drew the US into WW2, although the US had been aiding the UK and its Allies by various means, and by September 1941 was involved in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Japan attacked on Pearl Harbor on 7th December 1941. Eisenhower requested Congress to declare war on Japan on 8th December. On 11th December, Germany and Italy declared war on the US, with the US reciprocating within hours.

{I'm confused why any remainder would argue so vociferously about having no deal on a ballot paper. Why would we care what - some - leavers want when they don't give a shit about the 48%?}

Since there are those shouting about 'Democracy' the CHOICE should be made available but the extreme likelihood of taking this choice will be that EVERYONE will be considerably poorer, hundreds of thousands are likely to lose their jobs, and most of the things that have been labeled as 'project fear' WILL come into effect. The problem being that so many are in denial that this WILL happen, and others are deliberately playing it down. It would have been better if the Bank of England had not made the various adjustments to keep the UK economy somewhere like on track immediately after the referendum 'crash', to at that point people would have actually suffered the consequences of having voted to leave. If your child deliberately smashes a toy, do you say 'there there' and replace it, or do you say 'tough, it's broken now' and not replace it?
Osborne (or others) were branded liars because the economy did not crash overnight. this is due to massive financial jiggery to prevent the worst effects, and instead we have had a gradual slide.
In some ways it would have been better if he had not intervened, with companies folding, homeowners losing houses, people losing jobs. It would certainly have taken the shine off the 'we won get over it' brigade.

President Roosevelt was waging an illegal unconstitutional war against Germany in the North Atlantic that must have helped to provoke Hitler into his unecessary declaration of war on the US on Dec 10.

What bugs me, simultaneously making me , and , is that Brexit has morphed seamlessly from being "the easiest deal in history" , "No-one is suggesting that we would be leaving the Single Market" , "They need us more than we need them" , "We can have Norway+" to "We voted for No Deal" , We always knew it would be difficult" or "We don't need the EU"

We "joked" 3 years ago about the Brexiters' Schrödinger's Immigrants - simultaneously coming here and taking all the jobs and coming here to live off benefits Now, more seriously for the economy, we have Schrödinger's No Deal: one that the Brexiters apparently simultaneously actively want and voted for, so that they can be "free" and that the pain is a price worth paying, while claiming that the UK will not be harmed and that we can still have the exact same benefits (eg through GATT A24)

My point about the US and the War wasn't to stimulate debate as to why the Americans entered when they did, although it's interesting to read. It was more to highlight that the 'Special' relationship is only special in so far as it promotes American interests.

I have read that the US knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. The point I was making was that they didn't come into the war in 1939.

I know it's astonishing - and a tad hypocritical in hindsight - but US foreign policy 1900 onwards was to not get involved in European wars that had dogged the continent since before 1776. It was an over political statement that the US was a "New World" and not allied to the ancien regimes of Europe.

Lasted until 1915 when the Germans sank a US registered passenger ship (that we learned nearly a century later was carrying explosives and therefore the legitimate target of war the Germans always claimed).

Following that the US was pretty loath to re-enter a European war again, and Roosevelt risked a lot to provide aid to Britain when a lot of Americans wanted to stay neutral. Obviously Pearl Harbour changed that.

The US was the only country to make a profit from WW2, I believe.

There's also the disgusting behaviour of one Joseph Kennedy as ambassador to the Court of St. James. Although it has to be noted his eldest son died as a pilot over the skies of Britain.

Peregrina
I don't know why you sneer at the US contribution to WWII.
Well over 400,000 US soldiers died a very long way from home. Many more were horribly injured. When you've got a minute, look up Omaha beach, the Battle of the Bulge, Operation Marketgarden, Iwo Jima, Midland etc etc.
Who do you think comes out of the war with better credentials? Our EU friends and neighbours maybe: Italy? Spain? Portugal? Germany? Austria? Why bring the war into the Brexit boards anyway? I thought that was a Gammon tactic.
You might not approve, but the UK does have a special relationship with the US.

You might not approve, but the UK does have a special relationship with the US.

Had.

Past tense.

There's no sneering involved . It's a matter of historical record that the US only formally got involved once the War was directly involving them No-one is decrying the sacrifices made by US service men both in Europe and the Pacific

Now it is indeed arguable that some of the US politicians would have liked to get involved earlier and did all the could to support the UK and its allies in advance (eg Lend Lease which profited the US anyway ) but the formal agreement for the decision to enter the War only came after the direct attack on the US.