[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2016-June-29, 10:35, said:

You are blaming the wrong side. I certainly have the impression that some of the Brexit voters were motivated by racism. But that has nothing to do with anything the Remain campaign said. It has to do with the fact that Nigel Farage was one of the most prominent campaigners for the Leave campaign; I haven't heard many complaints from his fellow Leave campaigners when his disgusting Breaking Point campaign poster came out, which obviously played to racist sentiments. It has to do with the fact that fromageGB uses blatantly racist language ("parasites") and makes other xenophobic posts here, yet noone among those here favouring Leave seem to care.

Look, I know that there are more than 17 millions who voted "Leave", and that their reasons are complicated. My first post on facebook on the topic on Friday was to complain about one-sentence-explanations for the Brexit vote. But if you want to complain about the impression that racism and xenophobia played a big role in the vote, then that complaint should be targeted to the right address.

Then you weren't listening. Farage was campaigning for exit, but was NOT part of the official exit campaign (there were two exit campaigns, Farage's was the one that didn't get official status). Plenty of members of the official campaign criticised Farage's poster.

What I was complaining about was the patronising tone of the remainers, that they were inherently better educated and superior, and that we should ignore the "great unwashed" and allow the elite who actually have a clue to decide this despite the referendum result.

[Cyberyeti]

It amuses me that somebody uploaded Boris's speech to pornhub with the title "Dumb British blond £$%^s 15 million people"

[onoway]

Why are all the pundits and many of the establishment politicians so afraid of Boris Johnson? Some one sent me a cartoon comparing him to Trump which as far as I can see is extraordinarilly unfair and based almost entirely on the hair and his vivid response to life, but his scandals are more in the style of Clinton than any of the sort of shady financial deals Trump is known for. By all reports London did well when he was mayor,even though he had a bit of a rough start he certainly didn't take that responsibility lightly and he was not only reelected as mayor but he is said to be highly popular with Londoners.

He has written a bunch of books including one (which he was apparently asked to write) about Churchill who was also a bit of an unorthodox character who had a mind of his own. He is fluent in at least three languages. As far as Brexit is concerned, he has been very consistent about his opinion of the EU since the time he was covering things going on there years ago as a reporter. He also has a very definite sense of humor and is tolerant of people taking pot shots at him. He went to bat for the poor of London when it meant taking on his colleague and friend David Cameron and his policy regarding housing, for sure in less than tactful terms but the point was he went to bat for the poor, not for the rich.

As far as immigration, he has always been in favor, which only makes sense..he himself was born in the US and his family comes from a very diverse set of nationalities. He is totally the opposite of Trump in almost every way as far as I can see. So why is there being such a rush to "stop Boris" in his own party?

[NickRW]

 onoway, on 2016-June-29, 22:34, said:

Why are all the pundits and many of the establishment politicians so afraid of Boris Johnson?

Because, quite independent of any similarity with Trump, he has a reputation for buffoonery.

IMO, I'm prepared to ignore that, and, in any case, we need a PM who has their heart in the Brexit agenda - which makes all the Bremainers who are going to stand non starters (not that I have a vote in it!)

[Zelandakh]

 onoway, on 2016-June-29, 22:34, said:

By all reports London did well when he was mayor

By all Tory reports yes. By all Labour and Liberal reports quite the reverse. Perhaps you only get your news from right-leaning sources?

 onoway, on 2016-June-29, 22:34, said:

As far as Brexit is concerned, he has been very consistent about his opinion of the EU since the time he was covering things going on there years ago as a reporter.

Are you sure about that? There have been plenty of references suggesting otherwise, for example.

 onoway, on 2016-June-29, 22:34, said:

it meant taking on his colleague and friend David Cameron

Friend?!!?

 onoway, on 2016-June-29, 22:34, said:

So why is there being such a rush to "stop Boris" in his own party?

The parliamentary Conservative party values loyalty and togetherness very highly. Historically, those that have rocked the boat to put themselves forward have fared badly once the leadership election comes around. Michael Heseltine is a good example of this. Many are putting Boris in this camp now. The issue is that the main alternative is on the Remain side and essentially has no mandate going forward. My prediction is that an alternative Leave candidate will emerge during the leadership fight and will have a decent chance if polls show that they resonate with voters. But Conservative leadership elections are notoriously difficult to predict. In the end, they will vote for the candidate that they feel gives them the best chance electorally. I find it difficult to believe that will be with Theresa May so it is probably either Boris or someone new on the scene.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-30, 03:15, said:

By all Tory reports yes. By all Labour and Liberal reports quite the reverse. Perhaps you only get your news from right-leaning sources?

London has done very well on average, but the main gainers have been those who were already doing well. Hence the split in opinion.

Quote

Friend?!!?

Yes Boris and Cameron have been friends for many years, since school/university although whether this is still the case I have no idea. Little known fact, they are also very obscure cousins.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-30, 04:50, said:

Yes Boris and Cameron have been friends for many years, since school/university although whether this is still the case I have no idea. Little known fact, they are also very obscure cousins.

Well they have been rivals for many years. Most reports seem to suggest that extending that to real friendship would be something of a stretch but you may well be better placed to judge this than I am.

Oh yes, and I forgot to include the best example of Boris's consistency towards the EU, Turkey. Of course everyone can change their mind and that is no bad thing in politics, showing flexibility in facing difficulties can be a useful trait when things turn sour.

[helene_t]

So Boris is out. This is good news since May will lose votes to UKIP while Gove will lose votes to LibDem.

Of course the Tories will win the next election but at least there is hope of a hung parlament.

[NickRW]

 helene_t, on 2016-June-30, 06:02, said:

So Boris is out. This is good news since May will lose votes to UKIP while Gove will lose votes to LibDem.

Of course the Tories will win the next election but at least there is hope of a hung parlament.

It is rather difficult to predict what will happen tomorrow in politics at the moment, never mind what will happen in what will probably be 2020!

[onoway]

Helene was right, and rather sooner than later. I can't imagine anyone voting for Gove, such an unattractive pompous treacherous little man, that whole scenario was clearly planned from the beginning. He knew he hadn't a hope of getting Brexit through without Boris so he played his role well, then tossed him. Sort of like how Harper got into the Conservative leadership in Canada originally, that also relied on an absolute betrayal of trust.

Judging from here, Gove hadn't much success reforming the education system when he was in charge of it, what with parents and teacher rebelling and all, so it's difficult to see what possible reason anyone would have to vote for him. May will likely benefit from the fallout of people feeling outraged at how he treated Boris and turning it around to "anyone but Gove." Politics is an ugly business sometimes, no wonder there's no honor when they get to the top echelons.

[Aberlour10]

Alea iacta est ....but what will happen?

!) GB will become relationships with EU like...a Norway

2) Like a Switzerland

3) Like Montenegro or Azerbaijan

4) Exiitus interruptus.....nothing happens (its possible for 2 years due to Art. 50 about exit, overtimes are still possible)

What do you think?

[Aberlour10]

dbl

[shyams]

 Aberlour10, on 2016-July-01, 14:39, said:

Alea iacta est ....but what will happen?

!) GB will become relationships with EU like...a Norway
2) Like a Swiss
3) Like Montenegro or Azerbaijan
4) Exiitus interruptus.....nothing happens (its possible for 2 years due to Art. 50 about exit, overtimes are still possible)

What do you think?

Probably none of the above, or something akin to #4.

• Based on what I read, EU folks suggested that a UK<-->EU trade deal is not part of separation negotiations -- i.e. the non-trade portion takes precedence and is chronologically ahead of any trade agreement.
  
• However, the UK political class has steadfastly believed that a trade deal will be the core of the exit negotiations. So we are likely to see a stumbling block even before we set-off on our journey.

[1eyedjack]

I see that people are taking to the streets in London to protest at Brexit. "Several thousand" turned up. Given that we already know that 15 million voted to remain, I am not quite sure what they hope to achieve by turning out in their thousands to re-affirm their vote. Same with the 4 million Bremain voters who have signed an online petition for a re-run.

I suppose that if either attempt manages to drum up 18 million supporters it will be time to take note.

[helene_t]

By that argument you could say that any manifestation of less than 50% of the population is a waste of time.

[1eyedjack]

Don't quite follow your point. We have just HAD a vote. It was split almost down the middle, with about 15m to remain and 17m to leave. Of the remainder of the population (total about 65m as recently measured) presumably some did not vote who were registered. Presumably some did not register to vote who were eligible to register. And presumably some were not eligible to register. I have no idea where you pick up 50% of the population from, but it is reasonable to presume, I think, that the only protesters after the event would be those on the losing side of the exchange as canvassed as recently as a week ago. And as we already know their views, the only point in voicing them would be to add some information to the mix that was not already known. All I ask is, what is that information?

[helene_t]

Yeah I suppose it doesn't add new information other than how passionate they are about it. But that is almost always the case with manifestations.

[Vampyr]

 NickRW, on 2016-June-29, 09:54, said:

That was indeed the case. Indeed it is one of the reasons why I have been itching to correct that wrong my entire adult life.

But isn't an exemption from "ever closer union" one of the concessions Cameron actually got? It makes me wonder whether a gradual pulling away would have been possible.

[onoway]

exemption for "ever closer union" may sound fine but what did it actually mean when push came to shove? apparently not much in terms of the things the people considered to be important. Now reports are saying that people are angry with Merkel for being so intransigent and everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else for not taking Cameron's situation more seriously.

In the meantime, I'm waiting to see how Gove is rewarded and by whom.. seems to me the Conservative power structure was horrified at the idea that someone who could ride the line waving Union Jacks ( that example has been mentioned more than once, I guess it wasn't dignified enough) would actually possibly become Prime Minister. May has apparently said she won't be doing the negotiating with the EU re the terms of going so who? Is that going to be the reward for Gove, with the justification that he was a Bexiter? Lord help Britain if so.

[NickRW]

 Vampyr, on 2016-July-02, 21:21, said:

But isn't an exemption from "ever closer union" one of the concessions Cameron actually got? It makes me wonder whether a gradual pulling away would have been possible.

Supposedly so. However:

1) There is already far too much political union for my taste and certainly far more than was envisaged back in the early/mid 70s. Saying that there won't be more of what I've already got too much of is hardly reassuring. This wouldn't be so much of a problem is the EU was governed by a democracy, but it only pays lips service to that.

2) Regardless of the above, "every closer union" is not something that the Europeans just trot out to wind up the Brits - they need it because of their inherently unstable currency that will not become stable until the Euro zone as good as becomes one country. Whatever concession Cameron achieved on this subject is not worth the paper it is written on because EU countries that are not in the Euro will become satellite states to the centre and be ungovernable as independent democracies. At that point we need to either 1) be in the Euro and enthusiastically joining in with the European project (not on the table and didn't look like it will ever be), or 2) get out of it, preferably sooner rather than later.

Nick