No, it seems they are very worried about the backlash and are desperately trying to mitigate it in anticipation of a general election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Printable View
No, it seems they are very worried about the backlash and are desperately trying to mitigate it in anticipation of a general election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Of course Hammond also vetoed spending on proper preparations for a no deal Brexit and voted with May to extend Brexit so it wouldn't happen. If a no-deal Brexit occurs and you haven't prepared for it then of course the damage will be worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Its interesting to see how much more is being done now, even down to the overhead boards on the Motorway are now giving advice on papers required for after Brexit. Much of the predicted disruption a no deal Brexit was meant to cause is because hauliers weren't prepared and didn't have the right paperwork but May's government weren't prompting what the right paperwork is and getting it to people - one thing you can pretty much guarantee with hauliers is they use the motorway network and the message is very much getting out there now.
What a shame we wasted the better part of three years with Hammond and May.
From today's ST:
Nothing to declare :haha:Quote:
Boris 'recommended Arcuri' for £100,000 quango job
INSIGHT Boris Johnson wrote a letter recommending his friend Jennifer Arcuri for a high-flying job as the head of a government quango reporting directly to Downing Street, according to emails passed to The Sunday Times.
The emails show that Arcuri listed the then London mayor as her reference when she was applying for the £100,000-a-year job as chief executive of the technology quango Tech City, for which she was woefully underqualified.
Arcuri was a 27-year-old student when Johnson is said to have endorsed her for the post, which was intended for "proven business leaders". Arcuri later wrote of the episode: "I still have the letter of rec from Boris. Hahaha. To think that we asked him to write us a recommendation for the CEO of Tech City is just hysterical."
The job application was made in 2012, weeks after Johnson began lobbying the government for City Hall to be allowed to take control of Tech City, set up to help the cluster of start-up technology companies in east London.
The revelations add to the mounting questions about the prime minister's failure to declare the conflict of interest when offering favours to the American ex-model and businesswoman while he was alleged to be in a relationship with her. Six people in Arcuri's circle of friends have separately claimed she told them she was having an affair with him.
Last night, senior MPs called on Johnson to address the latest "serious" disclosures. Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney-general, said Johnson should now answer "legitimate" questions about his conduct.
He said: "The fact that Boris Johnson was apparently prepared to provide a letter of endorsement for an extremely important job to somebody who didn't have anything remotely approaching the necessary qualifications is astonishing. It's all the more astonishing if, as is being widely suggested, he was having a personal relationship, which he didn't disclose."
Four official investigations have been initiated following this newspaper's revelations two weeks ago about Johnson and Arcuri. The American received public money in sponsorship from a body Johnson was responsible for as London mayor. Johnson and his team also overruled officials to take her on two overseas trade missions although she was not eligible for either of them.
Last week Arcuri told reporters that all public money she had received in the UK had been legitimate and denied that she was Johnson's lover. She said of the prime minister: "If I was banging the dude and there was some kind of like trail or sex tape, but there's nothing."
Johnson has declined to answer direct questions on the alleged affair but has said he acted with propriety.
[...]
"As well as explain I need no official public endorsement as long as he helps me by writing the letter. (which of course I said we would do.)" She was backed by Milo Yiannopoulos, the far right commentator, who said he had done so as a way of exposing the shallowness of the government's approach to technology.
Drafts of her application and a copy of her CV show that she used the mayor as her reference, and that she talked up Johnson's appearance at her Innotech networking summit as an example of her commercial abilities.
[...]
:bored:
Boris defeated on getting Brexit through on 31st October.
Boris defeated again on calling an early election.
It's just loss after loss after loss with this loser. Has he even had a single thing pass since he came to power? :down:
We'll see how the election goes, it can't be put off forever no matter how much the cowards opposite want to keep their cushy jobs without facing the electorate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Boris inherited this Parliament from May who lost the majority after her disastrous campaign. You can see from the abject fear in the Labour benches they don't really think Boris will be a loser.
Lie after lie after lie. It's quite a legacy Johnson's going to have.
And now he's blocking Brexit -again- but pulling his deal away from a second reading.
The hypocrisy and irony is beyond measure.
What lie? There haven't been any lies I see.
He's not blocking Brexit, Parliament has been singularly incapable of doing anything for years and he has no majority so he has seeking one from the people and then Brexit can be implemented. He already has a deal so if you want Brexit complete and us to move on with our lives then vote Conservative and you'll get Boris's deal implemented. Job done.
It looks like Labour have realised they are in a checkmate position and have no choice but to go to the polls.
He lied about leaving in October.
He lied about creating a border in the Irish sea.
He lied about securing a trade agreement before triggering the process to leave.
He lied about checks needed between NI and GB.
He lied twice about examples of EU regulations we could scrap.
Whether you consider them lies or not is down to your own conscience. Regardless, they are broken promises, mis-truths or ridiculous promises. They all add up to a PM and cabinent that has zero credibility and simply cannot be truated.
And he is blocking Brexit. If he really wanted it, or believed in it (lol), he'd take his "fantastic" deal to parliament for a second reading, as per parliament's wishes.
He was defeated on leaving in October.
He hasn't created a border in the Irish Sea
He didn't trigger Article 50.
I am not an expert but I believe checks won't be needed between NI and GB beyond those pre discussed and agreed with DUP etc regarding agriculture. There will be a bit more paperwork but AFAIK no extra checks.
Parliament already gave the Withdrawal Agreement a second reading but have made it clear they
dont want to pass it unamended and will kill it with wrecking amendments.
He made a childish promise no PM should never have made. It was still within his power to leave by tomorrow and he completely messed it up with his own incompetence and ridiculous strategy.
Tell that to the DUP.
He voted to trigger A50 when he pledged not to untill we had a new deal in place.
No, new checks are needed. Spin that all you want, but the Brexit secretary himself admitted it.
And that's parliamentary process. It's called scrutiny. It's essential and I'm surprised you're arguing against it.
Boris sat in his hands for weeks and months wasting time. If he'd got his deal earlier, parliament would have had time to scrutinise and amend, and we'd be out.
It's literally all on him. All of it. The man doesn't even think Brexit is a good idea.
1: It wasn't within his power, he did everything within his power.
2: Happily.
3: He voted to give authority to the PM as did almost all of Parliament. It was Theresa May that chose when to exercise that authority.
4: IANAE but I think the Brexit Secretary said some declarations would be needed, not checks.
5: I'm not against scrutiny.
6: Boris didn't sit on his hands, he negotiated and got a deal in a timely fashion. His opponents in Parliament with the Benn Act chose a deadline to get a deal by, he got the deal by that deadline but then Parliament decided not to vote on a Meaningful Vote or ratify the deal.
Boris lied—on camera!—about lying about Turkey. He lied about the Arcuri business. He attempted to mislead the queen re. his reason for proroguing parliament. The man is an inveterate liar, and it's pathetic to see RB defending him so ardently.
He didn't and the Supreme Court didn't rule he attempted to mislead the Queen so you are lying in saying that which is pathetic. The Supreme Court created a new law where none previously existed and voided the PM's decision because it violated their new principle and law, they specificially didn't get into as not relevant what the PM did or did not say to the Queen.
1. This simply isn't true. There's plenty more he could have done. He -could- have started negotiating from day one. He could have left Parliament open to scrutinise the deal weeks and weeks ago. Additionally, even No 10 confirmed that there were ways round the Benn act that meant we didn't need to extend.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
3. May brought a motion to initiate A50. Johnson voted in favour of that motion, despite pledging not too.
4. Argue semantics all you want, but the PM is either purposefully not explaining his deal transparently or he doesn't understand it. I'd wager both.
5. Good. Put the deal to parliament and follow the process then.
6. Yes he did. He didn't start negotiating proper until the last minute, giving no time for parliamentary scrutiny. I would have expected him to have known how he wanted to amend May's deal before he became PM, so the intense round of negotiations could and should have started in his first week. He did not get a deal in sufficient time to be passed through parliament, and that's his fault; not parliament's. And the deadline was chosen because that was the date Johnson promised we'd leave by - perfectly reasonable.
They created that new law because the Government could provide no compelling/sensible reason, or evidence, as to why they prorogued parliament for so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Boris lied—on camera!—about lying about Turkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
He lied about the Arcuri business.
He attempted to mislead the queen re. his reason for proroguing parliament. The courts saw no need to call him a liar explicitly (only implicitly), but we don't generally determine whether or not someone lied by dragging them before a judge; the vast majority of lies are never judged in a court of law. For example, Trump lies constantly—dozens of times a day. Is it your belief that, just because none of his thousands of lies have been deemed as such by a judge, that they are not lies?
He's also backtracked/broken promises/lied about the Islamophobia investigation he was hilariously cornered by in the Tory leadership debate. He sat in front of the nation and nodded along, and said yes to Javid's pledge for an independent inquiry in Islamophobia.
Now it's just a diluted "general investigation" which Johnson says it'll be independent.
Can we believe him?
No.
It takes some effort to overcome our innate dislike and distrust of habitual liars. That so many people all over the west have so thoroughly suppressed this healthy instinct... is a sign of major dysfunction at both the individual and societal level.
You guys stretch the definition of "lying" to mean "I don't like or agree with this person".
Try showing some actual lies. :rolleyes:
Interesting scenarios: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...election-study
Where to start?
Here?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8929076.html
Twitter LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Lying. On. Camera. Just like he lied about the Arcuri business, on camera, when he said there was no conflict of interest to declare when his office gave her undeserved advantages—the public record shows the exact opposite, that there was indeed a conflict of interest due to their friendship. You have defined truth as lies told by someone you like, but that someone is in fact an inveterate liar, and your defense of such a liar reflects poorly on your judgement.