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.

The USA did indeed make a profit out of WW2. We finallly paid them off in 2006.

But that sum was dwarfed by Marshall Aid, without which this country would still be a steaming pile of rubble.

I wrote this 3 years ago today. Nothing had changed

What's on my mind?

The sadness that a Right Wing coup has been enacted on the backs of a (conned) Left Wing protest vote.
Pride that Scotland was not conned.
Anger that the young will have to pay for the selfishness and short sightedness of the old.
Fear of a de-stabilised Europe, a rise of extremism and a risk to the peace not just of Europe but of the world.
A sense of "I told you so" to those who voted No in the Indyref because they believed in Europe.
Annoyance that the Remain campaign didn't challenge the immigration arguments when they were conflated with the Refugee crisis.
Annoyance that they didn't challenge the lies about the lack of democracy.
Annoyance that it wasn't explained to the electorate what a tiny proportion of overall government spending the EU "takes".
Annoyance that the journalists and Main Stream Media didn't do their jobs so that this was exposed, so it was left to the keyboard warriors on Social Media to do this - meaning a reduced reach, especially to the old.
Anger that the poor will pay for this while the rich will profit.
Fear that the EU protections (of the environment, of workers' rights, of consumers' rights, of public safety) will be diluted or removed.
Irritation that some people didn't read beyond the (misleading or downright lying) headlines and check out the facts and figures that were being quoted.

All of this tempered ever so slightly by a glimmer of hope that this might leave to Scottish Independence - but I don't think as a nation we're ready yet for yet another referendum too soon, much as I'd like one. But here's hoping.

I don't see any sneering.

The "special relationship" is largely a question of language and (more distant) history. I don't see it as particularly relevant to Brexit.

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

Rubbish, the uk is a handy ally for the USA in its various military adventures but anyone who thinks the US would put the UKs interests ahead of its own is deluded, its purely political and vice versa.

The americans did indeed make huge sacrifices in WW2 but it as self interest, by the time D-Day came about, the battle ws to limit Russia from controlling Europe.

Despite not assisting the US in Iraq, the french got the majority of the post war contracts, of the euro nations.

Thread is almost over, so may as well argue about the USA :)

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

The bottom line is the US historically has detested, and disliked the British Empire. Roosevelts ability to help the UK prior to Pearl Harbour was severely hampered by a general feeling that the US could not help Britain retain her empire. It was one of the hardest pills Churchill had to swallow, as it was effectively the price of US aid. It was most apparent after VE day when the war in the Pacific turned into an unholy race between US troops - who liberated territory - and British troops who did not.

It's interesting how the narrative in the UK over the US entry to WW2 seems to paint them in a bad light while forgetting the sheer fucking scale of the BRITISH EMPIRE which dwarfed the US in size and reach. On of the most successful pieces of shit history a lot of people in Britain have absorbed (some more than others) is this fiction that we were somehow a little nervous country shaking in our underpants while the nasty Nazi bully took our lunch money.

The reality was quite different. Britain commanded an Empire which circled the globe and could call on the resources and citizens of 50 or so countries to take on Germany. At the outbreak of WW2 the Royal Navy was bigger than the next two navies combined - as had been the case since Pax Brittania nearly two centuries previously.

Obviously there are legions of books that can be read to flesh out the above assertions, but hopefully anyone who made it to the end will be redefining the "special" in "Special Relationship". Yes, it is special, as in unique. The US doesn't have the same history with any other country in the world.

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

I agree. The issue is that historically it has often been in favour of the US but also at the detriment of the U.K.
If it doesn’t work for the US, they won’t have the uk. Back

David Henig reporting the first flicker of realism on cross border Irish trade from the no-deal head-bangers.

twitter.com/davidheniguk/status/1143037912130494464?s=21

I think that this - plus Hunt's "350 job losses at this one company but we're going to do it anyway" threat at the weekend - suggests that we are finally seeing some evidence that people are beginning to think about trade offs.

To my knowledge Hunts' intervention is the first time a politician has said "we are going to no deal and this is what the specific consequence will be". I think it was an important moment and I think he did it with his eyes open.

I don't like Hunt at all but he may turn out to be craftier than Johnson...

To be fair no country in the world is ever going to put another nations interests above their own, unless it is ultimately beneficial to them. No such thing as national altruism. That is why Trump's whole "i'll not get involved anywhere else" was so odd. No country does (partake in wars/provide aid) if it doesn't also benefit their own country in some way. Be it preventing deaths, providing $ for military and the jobs that come as well as national pride, aid workers being allowed to poor countries to "help" while some dubious companies cling to their shirt tails.... international relations were only being held together by globalisation and consumerism.

@Mistigri yes I approved of the way he did that. Better late than never.
I've not seen many "project fear!" comments about it either which is new - usually gets shut down before common sense makes the news.

I think TM came closes to that when she apparently said "they voted for pain!" or something along those lines. Sadly she was too chicken to do it directly to the MSM and then follow it up as Hunt has.
Maybe realism is returning to our news!

Lonely yes Hunt got a lot of stick for that but I think that it was a significant moment for which he deserves some credit.

Telling people that we shouldn't no-deal because of x or y doesn't work - we know this.

Telling them that we're going to no-deal DESPITE x and y is subtly different, and maybe Hunt is onto something here.

To be fair no country in the world is ever going to put another nations interests above their own, unless it is ultimately beneficial to them.

You realise that is exactly the attitude Brexiteers are hoping will prevail with Ireland and the EU

Hunts in an interesting - and novel - position. The first time in 3 years what he says - no matter how it reads - has to be reported. Not only reported, but reported against whatever Basher Boris is saying.

It could be the first time "the truth" can be said unvarnished, brutal and unarguable and get a fair hearing.

Which may already be getting through to Tory voters.

DGR - EU is a bloc, with trade and free movement at it's heart. No singular country can do what it can. Hence the idiocy in leaving.

I actually don't think there are that many no dealer leavers around

Interesting thinking as polling over the weekend shows No Deal as the most popular option at 48%. (40% want to have a bit of a think and 12% are beyond caring)

The Guardian article and pp suggesting a time limited backstop make perfect sense - essentially the Malthouse compromise which Parliament has already approved. Unfortunately TM refused to dig her heels in to get this out of the EU as she and they were using the WA to reverse into BRINO. Whether the EU can be persuaded to "save face" along with the UK in the manner suggested is an open question, but it is in fact the Boris approach. (if they wanted No Deal they would have been Ready for Raab)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3620479-Westministenders-The-start-of-our-fourth-year-of-fun?watched=1

DGR - EU is a bloc, with trade and free movement at it's heart. No singular country can do what it can. Hence the idiocy in leaving.

(bites tongue)

Just noting that currently, one of the reasons Ireland is able to take it's current position is due to the support of 26 other countries that are supporting it even if it could be seen as against their national interests. If you are saying that all countries only prioritise their interests over all others, it potentially doesn't square with how the EU26 are supporting Ireland

Of course a lot depends on how a nation defines it's own "greater good". I suspect the US dictionary has a different definition than a European one. Again geography is key.

Not caught up on thread yet so sorry if repetitive:

Listening to Priti Patel this morning defending 'poor Boris' and the 'intrusion into his private life' I wonder if it was a high stakes smoke and mirrors excercise to deflect from his reluctance to answer Qu's about his political intentions re Brexit 'when he becomes PM'?

Or, he is also simply a bully whose private life is out of control?

Yes, let's hope he uses his powers for good.
Then Boris might get a "Jeremy, I am your father!" moment just before he is smote of his Johnson hand...
OK, bit too far there. Off out, catch up later!

DGR - but the bloc is preserving it's own interests by upholding it's pillars. Outwardly not in own interests but ultimately keeps them all safe.

{Britain commanded an Empire which circled the globe and could call on the resources and citizens of 50 or so countries to take on Germany}

Put in this context it makes me wonder why Britain came off so badly. Germany should have been a push over. Maybe it was because British politicians couldn't get their act together and organise something better?
Since Mr Hitler had been 'on the rise' for about 6 years (history fail) before the hostility to Poland surely the UK should have fared better?
Maybe 'control of Empire' fails when it gets above a certain number unless you have a totalitarian regime?

The Malthouse compromise is just a backstop renegotiation alongside a magic unicorn tech solution to the Irish border. The EU has said repeatedly this is not feasible.

Put in this context it makes me wonder why Britain came off so badly. Germany should have been a push over.

The usual. Old-boys "in charge" thanks to birth not ability ?

Plus the fact that (whispers) not all the Empire was quite as keen to help as you would have thought. India (for example). Who given the choice might have not only not helped Britain, but allied with Germany if it had bought Indian independence - remember they were a colony to us.

{The Guardian article and pp suggesting a time limited backstop make perfect sense}

A time limited backstop is by definition not a backstop.
A backstop is for when all else fails.

I have never been able to understand the concept of a "time limited backstop"

As leClerc points out, a backstop is a failsafe - for where all else fails

It's only in place unless and until a trade deal or magical unicorn technological solutions are invented created.

Having a time limited backstop is like saying we only want to pay for house insurance (or perhaps a more appropriate analogy from the olden days, access to the local fire brigade)for our tenanted house for 3 years but after that, even though it's got dodgy wiring, has a thatched roof and flammable cladding and we might not have got round to putting in sprinkler systems or replacing the cladding, it's not fair of you to demand that we do so. And bugger the tenants and their safety