BREAKING NEWS: Boris Johnson is the new British PM.

This is a dark time.

Who would have thought I’d do anything to have Bush and Blair back.

He is a total idiot. If he gets his way, UK will be out of EU this autumn with or without a deal. Chaos will continue.

If we can't have anything nice here in the End Times, at least we can still have Schadenfreude.

R3...

But he will surely enjoy a company of another idiot, Donnie

MARY!!!!!!!

Who are the Brits responsible for this path? City dwellers, rural voters, north, south -- who?

Trump will post an ass licking tweet in 3..2..1..

R8 Conservative party members. Boris got 66% of the ~140,000 votes. Hopefully he and his party gets voted out in the next general election in 2022. Although Corbyn isn’t much of a better alternative.

R8: he's the new PM as he was voted to be the new leader of the Conservative Party but only party members could cast a vote. Of registered members, 38% are over 66 years of age, predominantly male, affluent, and overwhelmingly white.

66% of the party members opted for Johnson. This represents 0.35% if the UK electorate. He has absolutely no mandate, especially as he's leading a minority government.

Also: fuck Boris.

No need to get hysterical.

Things will proceed in an orderly way if we don't get hysterical.

The poor Queen.

[quote]The poor Queen.

Boris Johnson is gay?

I watched that Brexit movie on HBO and it portrayed uneducated white Brits as being afraid of the newcomers. They used to be afraid of the Irish during the Troubles, now it's foreigners taking over.

This is why all governments of the world should fund education for free, no paywalls. Educated populace votes better.

[quote]the next general election in 2022.

That's a long time to wait.

[quote]He has absolutely no mandate, especially as he's leading a minority government.

If it's a minority then can't the government be voted down by the opposition parties before 2022?

R14 Britain already has a well-funded education system but some of their schools have to bear an added burden.

I read there could be a general election soon way before 2022

Brits are suicidal. Why they keep trying to destroy their country, I don’t know.

[quote] Who would have thought I’d do anything to have Bush and Blair back.

Us too, R2!

Sincerely yours, 500,000 killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (Not counting survivors with face blown off, missing limbs and perforated lungs).

[quote]@realDonaldTrump Congulations to Boris Johnson on becoming the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He will be great!

He is so eloquent.

Boris Johnson promises to DELIVER Brexit, UNITE the country, DEFEAT Corbyn and ENERGISE Britain as he is crowned new Tory leader by two to one majority

Yeah, R21.

Trump always tweets like he's a little boy speaking. I sometimes wonder if Barron is posting on his Dad's account.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] The Guardian, 2016: "Boris Johnson has won a £1,000 prize for a rude poem about the Turkish president having sex with a goat."

Oh well, one must at least admit that Johnson's Prime Ministership is not going to be BORING.

Congratulations to our British friends for replacing Theresa May. Nothing could be worse than her weakness and stubborn bumbling.

I wouldn't really call that guy hot, R24.

R26 = Trump

[quote] 500,000 killed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Comfort yourself with the wisdom and compassion of Madeleine Albright,

R14 - thank you for making me laugh. Given my total exasperation, even disgust, at what is happening in my own country you can probably not quite imagine how much I needed that.

I now live in a country I barely recognise other than as a depressing, toxic echo of the 70s when I was a teenager. Given I see virtually no politicians I feel are capable and am witnessing the rise of the Right wing here and elsewhere I’m going to make a probably failed attempt to detox. Art, books, music. Exercise, long walks in the countryside. Work on the house. Retreat into a bubble. At least for some time as the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

We are fucked.

I also refuse to call him ‘Boris’, like some loveable character out of a kid’s book and I simply can’t listen to his infantilised Churchillian bloviation.

Right, got to go get some fresh air.

r21 in fairness to Trump, it's difficult to be eloquent when your vocabulary consists of 32 words.

Yes, in theory, R16. There is speculation that if Johnson pursues a No-Deal Brexit, enough Conservative MPs will vote to bring down the government.

It should be added that they currently have a majority if two MPs. It was three until yesterday, when the whip was removed from an MP after he was charged with three counts of sexual assault. (Yeah, just even writing that sentence is crazy....) Their majority will likely go down to two following a by-election next week, where it is anticipated that the Liberal Democrats will win the seat.

And R30, do you want to come over to mine to get drunk?

Tory scum :). They can't be trusted to do anything properly these days that doesn't involve Croquet on a lawn, Oxford secret club dinners with bottomless Bollinger champagne, or a Chrysanthemum garden in Chelsea. They can't even appoint a Foreign Secretary who can spell "Colombia" (and, yes, Johnson was that imbecile Foreign Secretary).

R30 You say you now live in a country you barely recognise other than as a depressing, toxic echo of the 70s when you was a teenager.

How did that change happen? Who is responsible for that change? Who do you blame ?

The face of a nation.

I predict he won't be in the position long. He'll lose confidence rather quickly because he is certifiably insane, just like his pal Trump. And the discontent will grow like wildfire.

Yuck, R35.

It's going to be difficult to tell Boris & Trump apart from certain angles.

Personally, I blame Meghan Markle.

I think to commemorate this historic occasion & celebrate our new superior Leader, we should all break into patriotic song over a pint! I'll start - join in:

"Rule Britannia! / Britannia rule the waves / Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

The nations, no-o-o-o-ot SO BLESSED as thee, / Must i-i-i-i-in their turn, to ty-y--yrants fall,

While thou shalt FLOURISH, shalt flourish GREAT and free, / The dread and [bold]e-e-e-e-nvy of them ALL."[/bold]

[bold]Translation to DL vernacular: "Jealous, bitches?"[/bold]

The official end of the UK. At this point, you’d be lucky if the Queen just kicked all those dumbasses out and took over the country.

Byeeeee Britain!

As long as Corbyn is the head of Labour the Tories will stay in power.

Now we have Dumber & Dumberer on either side of the Atlantic. It would be funny, except it's not.

Damn Chavs.

It's interesting how easily the far-right political parties in the West can take control of their respective governments without having to go through a public vote.

[quote] It's going to be difficult to tell Boris & Trump apart from certain angles.

R37, it’s generally a challenge to tell Johnson apart from most non-human primates.

Billy Bunter's novelty and entertainment value will have a very short and finite end point.

You can study the first stages of human evolution by observing Johnson in action.

[quote] The official end of the UK.

It's the end of the UK if they don't remain a vassal state of Germany's EU ?

Someone pass me a beer to help wash down the shame and regret.

Thank god this thread is bringing out the pro-Boris trolls so I know who to block.

The idiots over at the Conservative party have voted for the biggest clown in modern day politics to navigate us through the biggest crisis since WW2.

Mark my words, we are not leaving the EU on 31st October. He will fail just as May failed. They will all continue to fail until Brexit is defined and the public have an opportunity to vote on that definition.

And Scottish independence referendum in 3...2...

Boris? That's the name for a cat.

I hear he's already making plot to steal secret plans from Moose and Squirrel.

Here’s a link to an excellent article by Fintan O’Toole about Boris. Such a depressing political time we find ourselves in.

Boorish Johnson: Fool or Knave?

congrats Little Britain (aka United Kingdom of England, Wales, Jersey, Sark and Man)

Join the club

Shit got real folks.

Why can’t the Queen do something about this?

Fear politics. We live in the age of Fear Politics. If we want progressives to win, we have to start playing the same game, I'm sorry to say. What's that saying....."the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"?

We need to get on board with fear politics. Not to mention fake religiosity.

Years ago lovely and sharp Dame Edna predicted dummy Boris’ future as a PM. It starts at 35.46. He was idiot already back then and Dame Edna showed it with her loving caring way.

In the 1940's, we fought so hard and sacrificed so much to save the United Kingdom.

And now they go and do something like this. Why did we bother?

Get ready for Scottish independence and a reigniting of the powder keg in Northern Ireland.

We’re fucked, indeed.

Trump is worse than Boris r61, we really aren't one to talk.

R60 41.26 is the moment and the stupid idea from the book is just before it. Just look at Alan Alda’s face! Priceless moment

Yes, it's not like Boris has some plan of dealing with Brexit that is better than what May had r51. He is going to fail just like she did.

It's the dog that caught the car problem. He wanted to be Prime Minister but now that he has achieved it, what is he going to do? There is no easy way to deal with Brexit.

He's the Original Feckless Cunt.

What does Prince George have to say about this?

A man who referred to gay men as bum boys, Muslim women as letter boxes, and stated that black people have a lower IQ than white people, is now our PM. The Tories have ripped the heart out of this country and shat it in a bin.

The Bullingdon Boys Club's back in charge.

He must have some dirt on those fuckers to rise so high so quick.

Has the Jane Goodall Monkey Institute confirmed the relation between Boris Johnson and Alam Wernick?

Not one mention of his racism on the news ....imagine if it was Jeremy Corbyn.....but they do emphasise his unconventional style. This is the media managing consent.

Lol mmmmkay R48.

Who will the Brits blame when the disaster known as Brexit is complete?

Is he with the 4 star party?

[quote] Get ready for Scottish independence and a reigniting of the powder keg in Northern Ireland.

You can’t call yourself independent when you leave one country and then sign up for the EU. Scotland also offers nothing and there’s the issue over oil. They wouldn’t last two seconds on their own.

Unlike Trump, Brexit is forever.

Nice title, R76. Can't wait to hear Shirley Bassey sing "Brexit is For-evah!"

[quote]He wanted to be Prime Minister but now that he has achieved it, what is he going to do? There is no easy way to deal with Brexit.

Fortunately for him, Brexit is already scheduled to happen. His challenge will be to find a way to keep the Remainers from interfering with it.

Prime Minister to be! I haven't asked him yet!

As an American I'd just like to reach out and say:

[quote]Unlike Trump, Brexit is forever.

That’s not true. If in the future the UK decides they don’t like being an independent country, they can apply to rejoin the EU and relinquish their sovereignty.

So at his first job after graduating from university, he was sacked by the Times for manufacturing lurid quotes in a story, all in good fun, I'm sure. But failing upwards, as one does when one is overpriviledged, he got a job at the Telegraph. Sent to Brussels as the EU correspondent, he coped with the boring subject by playing up outrageous stories of EU regulations, inventing click bait as it were, and laying the groundwork for Brexit. I'm sure he is shocked, SHOCKED that anyone took those articles seriously.

Yes dear , A hard brexit r78. A worse deal than May actually offered.

What a win if that happens!

You know things are bad when I'm actually starting to miss Theresa May.

Stupid American here so how exactly he became the new pm?

A hard Brexit is only temporary. The EU and UK will complete a trade agreement in the future after Brexit. If anything, a hard Brexit will push both sides to come to an agreement sooner.

He'll be made fun off every day in the media and by many in the populace. His time in office is not going to be a breeze. He's just another Trump, after all.

R87 Yup and sadly I think he's going to be around for a while. Labour needs to fucking ditch Jeremy Corbyn and get someone electable STAT!

elect a clown, get a circus

R85, he wasn't elected by the country, it was from within his own party, to replace May. So we've had two unelected PM's on the trot, now.

Bastard. But I guess every saga needs its final chapter.

R90 May became Tory leader unelected, but she held a general election in 2017 to which she lost her majority but was given an elected mandate by voters. The rumours are Boris is planning a snap election after Brexit.

That's insanity, R86, but keep repeating it to yourself. A hard Brexit creates no incentive for the EU to negotiate any agreement with the UK. A hard Brexit is the first step toward the UK's collapse.

Scotland will leave. Northern Ireland might, too. If it doesn't, it will be rendered useless and unproductive when they once again start shooting each other and bombing their own homes.

There will be nothing for the EU to cannibalize from the impoverished England and Wales, as all the corporations will have decamped for the Continent and taken their wealth with them. Whatever is left will be bought at fire sale prices.

You will be free of the EU, because the EU will want nothing to do with you. Nor will anyone else, as no one will forget how this has been handled. This is the last gasp of the moneyed-classes and they're talking all down with them.

The pro-Brexit campaign has never cared about any actual facts r93, why start now.

YouGov has published some polling today. Ouch.

I love how he's pushing the UK out of the EU and on the other hand begging the EU to send a naval expedition to the Strait of Hormuz to protect their oil tankers after the US refused.

And here come the memes to at least give the 99.86% of us , who didn't have a say in any of this , a wry smile.

I knew it! The Brits copy everything Americans do. We have Trump so they wanted their own lame British version. Them let them see how well that works out for them.🙄

I'll say...

Both born in NY too, R97.

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the German Bundestag, already throwing shade:

[quote]What a historical coincidence: The day #BorisJohnson is elected, it becomes evident that experiencing an international crisis, the #UK, like any other small and middle power, depends on #European solidarity to defend its security interests internationally. #Brexit #Hormuz

What scares me most about Boris is the people who will be pulling the strings - IDS and Rees-Mogg.

"The United Kingdom is truly fucked after a horny bumbling man-child who swallowed a thesaurus somehow found himself in possession of the keys to number 10 Downing street."

Yep.

LOL this is what the UK deserves!

Europeans always copying Americans...right into a mass grave.

Way back, when he was mayor of London and before Trump was a serious candidate for president, I thought of Johnson as "the British Trump" jokingly, mostly because they both had crazy hair and were political and over the top figures. But you know, mostly the hair. It was a silly comparison. But now he actually is the British Trump.

These fucking New Yorkers....

Young Boris looks straight from the devil's nutsack.

But.....he isn't devious enough to be a prince of evil, what you get with Boris is 100% pure unadulterated IDIOT.

R101, Rees-Mogg has never washed his own clothes. The Conservatives are 45% privately educated. These are the people that the electorate believes will take care of their interests.

[quote] barely recognise other than as a depressing, toxic echo of the 70s when you was a teenager. How did that change happen? Who is responsible for that change? Who do you blame ?

R34 - I'm not R30, but I'll chime in and try to answer: This will be a long post, so anyone not interested - skip this post.

On a macro-scale, I mostly blame the recklessly fast and poorly-planned introduction of Globalism (economic, political and socio-cultural). Globalism includes: open borders, pan-national bureaucracy, outsourcing labour-intensive industries to foreign lands with cheaper workforce, multiculturalism (often without enough vetting or assimilation into local culture), allowing more foreign workers (both blue-collar & white-collar) to come in and compete for local income and local benefits (free hospital care, free schools, etc), allowing foreign companies to come in and out-compete or price-undercut local self-employed businesses (e.g. Amazon, Aldi, etc).

A few decades ago, politicians & economists were swooning & drooling over the economic opportunities / upsides of Globalism (potentially bigger profits via outsourcing, higher local employment rates (in foreign companies' new local branches), bigger workforce (thanks to constant migrant in-flow, etc). But they forgot to plan for the big downsides that invariably come with Globalism. No economic tool can be just beneficial - it can be hugely detrimental to many groups as well, if not controlled & managed properly. But no one planned for those negative side effects: Local self-employed people / small businesses being outcompeted by foreign self-employed workers, who are more willing to work like slaves and who are willing to accept worse, more dangerous work conditions. This might sound good for an employer, but it's hell for the local workforce's bargaining power. Or a mom&pop Fish&Chip shop seeing revenue drastically fall because in addition to local competition, they now also have to survive against 20 more business on their street, operated by migrants.

No one prepared, warned or safeguarded citizens from Globalism down the line. No one explained the risks they'll be facing. Of course it didn't affect the upper classes as much (they're generally the employers, and so they welcome an influx of cheaper labour - it works to their benefit). But it affected lower-class people predominantly (the mom&pop shops, the independent labourers, the self-employed taxi drivers, the unskilled workers, etc). The ones closer to the poverty line who have to fight with migrants for an already shrinking pool of state benefits like housing assistance, places for kids in non-private schools, and rooms in state hospitals. The more rich go to private hospitals, so they’re not affected - while the more poor are now treated on beds in hospital corridors, because often there aren’t enough free hospital rooms for everyone. The infrastructure to accommodate everyone (locals + foreigners) was often NOT built due to not enough budget or budget planning.

The working class (especially those closer to the poverty line) is the class that historically voted for Labour (Left). The class that now feels BETRAYED, substituted by foreign imports (both by people & goods), not cared for enough, and WITHOUT a party that safeguards their livelihood. A party-less, ignored, pissed-off population is a problem - it creates a vaccuum and rising discontent, like a wave. So the lower classes decided they will NOT be ignored, even if it means doing the unthinkable and switching party loyalty. They voted for a more new party, UKIP (far Right), they even voted for Tories whom they hate (centrist-Right) (who wooed them with promises they’ll at least address some of their concerns and tighten up borders + remove power over making UK laws from foreign, anonymous bureacrats in Brussels, etc). The lower class punished their own party, Labour (Left), for not LISTENING to them, and not WARNING them that Globalism can have such dangerous side-effects, and not helping SAFEGUARD them from those.

...Basically, politicians prioritised short-term accelerated economic profit over long-term socio-economic stability and sustainability. A rushed Globalist strategy without thorough checks, balances & controls was a narrow-sighted vision. It was fated to be a clusterfuck. We’re reaping the problematic fruit of blinkered decisions made 23+ years ago (with the ignored double-edged-sword effects of Globalism piling up & increasing every decade, along with the civil discontent about it). As usual, the elite forgot to think how smthg would affect the poor - and it blew up in their face. One can’t ignore the poor - that leads to revolutions or pushback via voting. It's the same problem in many European countries affected worst by Globalism. It's a widespread trend now.

On second thought: I don’t blame just Globalism - I blame the Labour party for not looking enough after their own loyal voter demographic. Blair should have seen the growing discontent and semi-countered Globalist policies or at least addressed people's concerns, while there was still time. But he was too busy lining his pockets with Globalist corporate cash, invading foreign countries for oil, and gradually alienating his own working-class voter base, pushing them further to the right, and handing over the election to the Tories.

Have fun with Brexit, Brits...

But as much as I've always thought this guy was pretty ridiculous, he has never come across as far-right. Brexit seems dumb AF at this point, but at least it doesn't seem like Boris wants to turn the UK into fascist paradise. If anything I always thought he was a little more liberal than much of his party. (I'm an American and pretty much know jack shit about this though.) And unlike Trump, at least he has actual political experience.

[quote] depends on #European solidarity to defend its security interests internationally.

NATO is hardly a new idea. And attacks on the flow of oil affects the mainland European countries regardless where the cargoes go..

In the US the conservatives deregulated markets with the promises of increased competition and decreased prices. Instead we got shit services, explosive healthcare costs, huge wealth gaps, corporate welfare and an overall race to the bottom. I do blame liberals as well for the "third way" or Republican light.

Can’t wait for Boris and Donald’s first Combover Convention.

Can’t you all just have Nicola Sturgeon take over?

That meme is moronic, R49. Bush was a governor in the 1990s, he was elected in 2000 and inaugurated in 2001. Obama was also an unknown in 2000 and didn’t actually become President until 2009, so labeling him as representing “2000” is absurd.

[quote] And unlike Trump, at least he has actual political experience.

Johnson's "actual political experience", R111, boils down to insulting A LOT of countries. He has a 'special gift' for that. He has a totally unprofessional, immature mentality. He speaks before he thinks, he speaks when he shouldn't speak, and he doesn't know how to keep his cards close to his chest in the nuanced game of international politics.

He became Foreign Secretary without ever being qualified as a diplomat, and without even possessing a diplomat's frame of mind:

[quote] "Boris Johnson suggests 'part-Kenyan' Obama may have 'ancestral dislike' of UK."

Oscar Wilde's quip is very apt in Johnson's case: "Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes." Well, if one goes by mistakes - Johnson has a lot of them. Problem with Johnson is he does not seem to learn much from his mistakes. He just keeps making them again and again… He needs Special Ed.

R109, change the characters and a few of the details and you'll be telling our story as well.

Does anyone know much about and/or have an opinion on Jo Swinson, the new female head of the Liberal Democrats?

Bye Bye NHS.

The Queen has a lot of experience with Prime Ministers during her long reign.

1- Churchill 2 - Eden 3 - Macmillan 4 - Douglas-Home 5 - Wilson 6 - Heath 5 - Wilson (2nd term) 7 - Callaghan 8 - Thatcher 9 - Major 10 - Blair 11 - Brown 12 - Cameron 13 - May 14 - Johnson

^ Sorry for the bad formatting. Wilson gets the No# 5 twice because he had two terms.

[quote] Can’t you all just have Nicola Sturgeon take over?

Sturgeon is a fish. Alex Salmon(d) is also a type of fish.

Sturgeon is also a wacky 3rd-wave feminist, R115, who created division in her OWN party by pushing the idea that if women attach fake cocks to themselves and insist they are 'gay men' - they are then 'gay men'.

Putin must be jumping for joy first the US now Britain.

[quote]Can’t wait for Boris and Donald’s first Combover Convention.

Boris probably can’t wait to suck Donnie’s dick since that’s his role model.

Oxford educated Boris is nowhere near as controversial and right wing as Trump, nor is he a childish and vindictive Twitter hoe. Boris was a batty but much loved Major of London during a period that Labour were still in government.

Oh jesus, the anti trans trolls are trying to turn THIS into a trans thread.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] Oxford educated Boris

R126, "Oxford-educated Johnson" doesn't even know how to spell "Colombia”. We need to drop the pretence that Johnson is intelligent. He's a direct product of nepotism and elitism. He can give Trump a run for his money in that department.

[quote] Metro, 2016: "[Johnson,] our Foreign Secretary can’t spell "Colombia" and now the whole world knows."

[quote] "Tweeting his congratulations to Colombian president and Nobel Peace Prize winner [!] Juan Manuel Santos, Johnson – our FOREIGN SECRETARY - wrote: "I called @JuanManSantos to congratulate him on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to end conflict & secure peace in #Columbia."

[quote] "#Columbia. With a U. In a tweet sent directly to the president of Colombia. Please join us in collectively dying of shame. We’re not sure if he thinks Santos worked to secure peace at the Ivy League university in New York, or in Miles Davis’s record label, or if he just cannot spell the name of a major country (and also can’t be bothered to Google it beforehand)."

R109, I've never heard the term 'globalism/globalist' used without soaking in anti-semitism by far-right/fascist "news", sources or conspiracy theorists.

Furthermore, the EU works on the basis of shared sovereignty, under pre-agreed terms written into all the treaties the UK has signed. The laws made in Brussels are made along rules the UK help make and shape. The EU isn't some malevolent overlord.

You made some good points. But mixing conspiracy theory far-right terms, along with distortions is like the devil mixing lies with the truth to be more believable.

He has only one job to do, to get Brexit across the finish line. It doesn’t matter what happens to him on November 1st.

I think Columbia instead of Colombia is more of a spelling error and therefore more understandable than Kingston for Kingdom. The latter is just plain dumb.

OMG, this old cunt right here.

How does Kingston even come up instead of Kingdom? How many times has she typed the word "Kingston"?

I'm going to London at the end of the year, Looking forward to the Pound being in the toilet so I will get great exchange rates!

I assume she'd consumed one too many champagne popsicles, r128.

Ha. The Brits have been snickering about us for 3 years regarding Trump. Now they have their own.

They have, R137, which was always ironic because it was the Brexit vote winning in 2016 that first made me really nervous about the possibility of a Trump win. Now they have Brexit and their own little Trumpish to lead them through it.

USA: we have the dumbest, right wing ugly president.

UK: hold my tea.

[quote] I think Columbia instead of Colombia is more of a spelling error

By the Foreign Secretary, R132? The main person whose TOP-PAID JOB is to know (or at least check) such things! And in a tweet directly to a President, no less.

If diplomats can’t spell in official, external communication and aren’t arsed to even double-check - they shouldn’t BE diplomats.

Memo: “Ok, let’s bomb Iraq!”. 2nd memo, 18 min later: “Oh, wait, are you bombing them already? I meant IraN! Silly me, butterfingers :)”.

r133 Thanks, I fucking hate Joan Collins now.

[quote]How does Kingston even come up instead of Kingdom? How many times has she typed the word "Kingston"?

I bet it’s the silly, bougie name of one of her friend’s kids.

“Would your precious little Kingston like to come over to see our adorbs new White Supremist puppy?”

I knew it was coming, but still. Ugh.

I've spent three years complaining about what an awful PM Theresa is, and now I'm already starting to miss her even though she hasn't officially gone yet. It's like an accelerated version of how some Americans think George W Bush doesn't seem that bad in comparison to Trump.

I saw Boris once a couple of years ago. He was at my local train station, waiting on his own on the platform. Just me and him, nobody else around. I had a chance to push him in front of the train but I never took it. Now I regret it.

R140 - I said in my post @R132 that Columbia/Colombia was "understandable" because it's only one letter. I didn't say it was "forgivable" offence for a Foreign Secretary. However, Ivanka's is way off the mark on the stupidity scale.

The horror. The horror.

Do people want to be Prime Minister these days with this Brexit mess? Seems like an impossible task.

You’re welcome.

I also saw Boris about 20 years ago. He was taking part in some kind of charity marathon, and what I specifically remember was how fat and out of shape he was.

All he did while I watched him was talk to some tv reporter.

I also saw Boris about 20 years ago. He was taking part in some kind of charity marathon, and what I specifically remember was how fat and out of shape he was.

All he did while I watched him was talk to some tv reporter.

R133 Joan Collins has always been a right-wing cunt. I also remember when gay marriage became legal in the UK, she stayed completely silent about it. I’ll never understand why gays like her. And don’t give me the “Because she’s fabulous!” bullshit.

[quote]Ha. The Brits have been snickering about us for 3 years regarding Trump. Now they have their own.

Are you kidding? In comments on the Daily Fail, there are always plenty of Brits praising Trump, and since they copy everything Americans do, I knew they’d want their own. Now they got their wish. Hope they have fun!

Trump's latest remark. The absolute delusion of it all.

[QUOTE] Oxford-educated Johnson" doesn't even know how to spell "Colombia”. We need to drop the pretence that Johnson is intelligent. He's a direct product of nepotism and elitism. He can give Trump a run for his money in that department.

Do you know how difficult it is to get into Oxford? It's not a shoe in just because you went to a private school or know a few minor aristocrats. 70% of undergrads are like that. If it was all down to nepotism, Prince William would have attended, but he didn't because he was too dumb.

Johnson was a decent journalist. Trump is just a spaz.

Oh shitttt

That crazy Essay Troll from the BRF threads is here.

R145, “Kingston” was obviously an auto-correct change. For a nepotistic inflatable bimbo like Ivanka not to bother double-checking her tweet is actually more “understandable”.

But for a Foreign Secretary not to even give his tweet a second glance (or not to know the difference, which is worse) is not “understandable” at all. He has a whole Department under him: expert geography aides, secondary advisors, etc. For him not to engage them in double- and even triple-checking every public Twitter communication he issues directly to a foreign Head of State is not just not “understandable” - it’s mind-bogglingly reckless and stupefying.

[QUOTE] For him not to engage them in double- and even triple-checking every public Twitter communication he issues directly to a foreign Head of State is not just not “understandable” - it’s mind-bogglingly reckless and stupefying.

Are you sure you indulged in enough hyperbole there, naive one? Colombia/Columbia, nobody in the UK cares which.

Will the UK exist 20 years from now? The empire is crumbling.

R156 - we obviously have different standards of what is acceptable or "understandable". Keep calm and carry on.

Oh, you poor Brits! You have your own Trump to deal with. Did Russia help him as well?

Oh the Queen will be fine with Boris. She's best friends, after all, with a man who has drugged and imprisoned his daughters and allows foreign workers to be treated like chattel.

And it's not just that she is being a good head of state - she sure loves those wonderful gifts of horses and jewels.

R156 is the Angry Troll from the brf threads. She gets similarly enraged when Meghan Markle wears a 20k dress.

I'm hoping Sinn Fein turn up for work tomorrow. What would that give Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson - minus 5 seats?

[QUOTE] Oh the Queen will be fine with Boris. She's best friends, after all, with a man who has drugged and imprisoned his daughters and allows foreign workers to be treated like chattel.

Agree, Boris has a basic charm that will appeal to the doddering old queen. As long as he keeps giving her money, she's fine with whatever, and she much prefers a Conservative goverment to a Labour one. Corbyn hates the money hungry royals, especially the life long unemployed like Kate.

Boris' real name is Alexander. He changed it to the more distinctive Boris as there were way too many Alexs around at Oxford.

well now the UK is in as shitty of a political state as the US

who knew that Rob Ford being Toronto mayor was a preview of things to come?

the shit is going to hit the fan big time

with Brexit I bet that will cause an economic downturn

Someone tell Ivanka Kingston is about 10-15 years from being the next Hudson.

The UK will be in a much worse political state than the US. The US isn't actually doing that poorly all things considered.

What exactly happens to all of those oligarchs from the Mid East and Russia who bought mansions in London as investments if the UK leaves the EU and the UK goes down the crapper?

Her Majesty The Queen will definitely have to hold her nose when she's forced to give her weekly audience with that clown. It'll be like she's presented with Donald Trump over and over and over again.

Did anyone watch his sister on Celebrity Big Brother UK? That was last year, the Courtney Act season. I thought she was entertaining and evicted far too early. My favourite moment was when she thought the mics were turned off during live eviction and she told one of the guys she might have a wank in the bathroom during the next break. Unfortch, she was evicted that night.

And her bangs were to die for.

What do you suppose David Cameron is doing now?

Do we think BoJo has a big cock?

Ask the rest of the Bullingdon boys R173

[quote]Did Russia help him as well?

Who can say?

No, R173. We do not!

R10 the Lib Dems are. But 2022 is too far. I am counting on a vote of no confidence for Boris

R172, he's certainly not unemployed and starving

R169, they just sell and leave. They have nothing to lose...

Brits online have been so busy being smug and up their own ass about how 'superior' they are to Americans and how we (Americans) need to be more like them, that they didn't realize they were following us straight down the shitter. Haha, assholes!

You twittering fools didn't carry on like this when I was voted in as PM

This will be so confusing for the people who accuse posters of being Boris. Now they will have specify which one.

He was born in NYC in 1964. He'll have had a nice American circumcision.

R34 - You mean, am I willing to shoulder some of the blame ? Yes, of course. Just as I think the majority of us should. But I suspect you might want it to be laid firmly at the feet of us Boomers and I think that is often somewhat disingenuous when cited in any argument.

At some point the over reliance on certain technology and social media led the majority of people to willingly give up their privacy and personal data in exchange for almost nothing. Facebook and Twitter, rather than encouraging meaningful communication, led to a breakdown of a social contract that was based on civility and truth. People allowed themselves to be manipulated, not least by preferring to get their information fed to them through FB and Twitter while having no interest in reading or researching anything in depth. The technology made us lazy, incurious and easily led.

I grew up with working class parents and relations who read widely. Literature, poetry. Television, and by extension I would say technology now, was not as central to an ordinary person’s life. People engaged with each other in ways that were less easily influenced by outside parties. That has become less true decade after decade. Obviously there are many advances that have improved our lives. But, along the way, corporate bodies gained control while most people were distracted by the new and shiny objects making their lives easier. Everything was increasingly monetised and marketed, sold to us as advancement and improvement.

The tech boom and social media allowed that distraction technique to fully explode. People stopped reading extensively and in depth, preferring to have information fed to them online in small, easily manipulated sound bites. Initially it appeared that personal engagement could be more immediate through social media. Instead, it balkanised us and we saw the rise of trolling and the decline of civility and mutual respect. Everyone shouts at each other but rarely engages.

Meanwhile, of course, certain huge corporations mine and monetise our data but continually take no responsibility for the abuse of their platforms by themselves and others. Allowing Apple, Facebook et al to become so huge, so powerful, so untouchable and so woven into the fabric of almost all daily lives has marshalled us like sheep.

And behind all that, as we now see, the class system remained. Those in power now are the same as then. Johnson literally proves this. As does Farage. Trump does too, albeit in a particularly American way. The idea that these people, who come from privileged backgrounds and have taken that privilege for granted all their lives, are men of the people beggars belief.

Each generation has passively allowed this to develop because people are mostly just trying to pay the rent. The National Front rose in the late 70s. The Greenham Common protests began in the early 80s. Orgreave was in 84. Now we have Exctinction Rebellion, for example.

But also, another Etonian as PM.

It seemed things had changed. Clearly not. If anything, the scourge of social media has damaged democracy possibly irreparably. No one knows what is true so no one has to speak the truth.

We need to put down the phones.

tl;dr r184

[quote] I've never heard the term 'globalism/globalist' used without soaking in anti-semitism by far-right/fascist "news", sources or conspiracy theorists.

R130, if you’ve “never heard it” used in a professional economic science context, then I advise you to listen more and start reading academic economic-science journals (and regular mainstream news citing those journals). I’m sorry, but whomever you’re reading instead does not have a ‘monopoly’ on the academic term “globalism”. “Globalisation” is a socio-economic phenomenon and “Globalism” is a political-economic policy that embraces or promotes that phenomenon:

Forbes, 2014: “Why Globalization is Good”. “Capitalism alone, however, isn't enough to remake third world economies - Globalism is the key.”

The Washington Post: “Globalism is under siege. Here’s how to save it - and why.”

The Independent: “Localism vs Globalism: 2 world views collide.”

The American Prospect [a liberal source, btw]”: “How to Judge Globalism” [an interesting article about the pros and cons of globalism].

Various academic social science articles: “Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal”. “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy”. Etc.

If you’re still confused about the terminology, here’s an Encyclopedia entry that explains it in more detail:

[quote] “Furthermore, the EU works on the basis of shared sovereignty, under pre-agreed terms written into all the treaties the UK has signed. The laws made in Brussels are made along rules the UK help make and shape. The EU isn't some malevolent overlord.”

No one said it was “malevolent”, R130. But one doesn’t need to be “malevolent” to be inefficient / overly bureaucratic and non-transparent / not fully accountable, etc. The truth is many people don’t even know who their MEP(s) are or what main issues / policies are going to be voted on. Do you know? List me the main issues that will on the agenda this year… Most people are left in the dark. And if you don’t know what the main issues are - how can you choose a representative who shares your view on those issues? Answer: one can’t.

That’s why turn-out for EU elections has mostly, historically been low. And (until recently, when it was too late) people weren’t even widely encouraged to vote. Resulting in an organisation that doesn’t have a full moral democratic mandate.

As for “overlord” - of course it is in some aspects. The EU works as a supra-national organisation. It constantly makes new regulations (called “Directives”), which the UK is obliged to implement into local law. If it doesn’t - there can be punishment. Recently, Hungary revolted against the EU and almost got slapped by sanctions (except their ‘buddy’, Poland, blocked the sanctions).

Sovereignty is not exactly shared - it’s divided up & partly given up to the EU. The UK has “reserved matters” (generally, local criminal law, local national defence, etc) over which it kept full sovereignty. But other matters (e.g. workforce regulations, health & safety regulations, etc) are relinquished to the EU’s jurisidction (which means the UK doesn’t have full sovereignty over them anymore, for as long as it’s part of the EU).

May god have mercy on our souls...

[quote] naive one … Colombia/Columbia, nobody in the UK cares which.

R157, unfortunately, you’re the “naive one”, if you think someone elected you to speak on behalf of everyone in the UK. The Foreign Department said they were mortified by Johnson regularly making imbecilic mistakes.

R127 is the same poster who threw a hissy-fit on another thread, fulminating why DL is becoming so “anti-Muslim and anti-T”. According to R127, if you’re gay and not pro-Muslim, etc, you’re a “bigot” now.

Newsflash, R127 - the core principles of Islam are not gay-friendly. And that’s putting it mildly. And I’m telling you this as someone with partial ancestral Muslim heritage, whose family thankfully abandoned Islam. Name me a Muslim country that’s gay-friendly. I’ll wait. Ironically, Islam by design is deeply homophobic, but more T-adjacent (because many Muslim Imams have a kink for eunuchs & castration). Is that why you support Islam?

And I love how the mention was about [italic]Sturgeon[/italic] and her creating problematic party division in the Scottish National Party due to her wacky ideas (I repeat: one mention) - and you immediatley got triggered and started squealing how the [italic]whole[/italic] thread is an attack on the Ts. Quit being so hysterical, you’re hollering about the ‘poor Ts’ on 2 threads already.

[quote] Do you know how difficult it is to get into Oxford?

There are actually quite a few strange people in Oxbridge in terms of very limited, non-transferrable skills, it would surprise you, R154. Their “intelligence” and skill-set are often limited to their field of study (e.g. Ancient poetry) and does not necessarily translate to other fields (e.g. Modern Economics, International Law, Diplomacy). The problem is some choose a degree in Art / Classical Literature - and then try to make a career in Politics. That doesn’t always work - and they are exposed as severely UNINTELLIGENT and lacking in ther chosen profession.

Also, he is 55 years old. He was in college ca. 37 YEARS ago. Judging his [italic]current[/italic], often malfunctioning and soon-to-be senile ‘state of intelligence’ based on his college admission 3 decades ago is just silly.

[quote] If it was all down to nepotism, Prince William would have attended, but he didn't because he was too dumb.

Except it was recently exposed that Prince Harry was helped by school staff to cheat on his A-Level exams, in order to get him into the prestigious Sandhurst Academy (the UK equivalent of West Point). If William Mountbatten-Windsor wanted to - he likely could have received ‘assistance’ as well. But the question is if he wanted it. He was reportedly quite happy with his St Andrews choice.

[quote] It's not a shoe in just because you went to a private school or know a few minor aristocrats. 70% of undergrads are like that.

It’s not a complete shoe-in, but statistically predominant, R154. The BBC released an exposé on Oxbridge admissions: the 2 richest social classes get ca. 80% of Oxbridge places:

[quote] “The sheer dominance by the top 2 social classes of Oxford and Cambridge University admissions has been revealed in newly released data. [4/5ths] of students from England and Wales accepted at Oxbridge ... had parents with TOP professional and managerial jobs, and the numbers have been edging upwards.

[quote] The data, obtained by David Lammy MP, also shows a "shocking" regional bias, with more offers made to Home Counties [i.e. counties that surround London] pupils than the WHOLE of Northern England. Unveiling the data, he described the universities as the "last bastion of the old school tie" and highlighted stark regional divisions.

[quote] Nationally about 31% of people are in the top 2 social income groups … The data reveals these top 2 social classes cleaned up in terms of places, with their share of offers rising from 79% to 81% ...

[quote] [The MP] said the scale of the regional divide went far beyond anything he could have imagined. He accused Oxbridge of failing to live up to its responsibilities as NATIONAL universities, saying: "Oxbridge take over £800 [million] a year from the Taxpayer - paid for by people in EVERY city, town and village. Whole swathes of the country … across the North and the Midlands are basically invisible. If Oxbridge can't improve, then there is no reason why the Taxpayer should continue to give them so much money”. “

[quote] Johnson was a decent journalist.

A “decent” journalist who got SACKED from his job TWICE for lying, R154? He was sacked from The Times for FABRICATING a quote in an article, and made up express lies when reporting from Brussels:

[quote] The Independent: [bold]“His former editor at The Telegraph, Max Hastings, has declared Johnson "unfit for national office."[/bold]

[quote] Peter Guilford, who worked alongside Johnson as a Brussels correspondent: “He would write outrageous stories with only slenderest connection of truth in them.”

[quote] James Landale, who worked with Johnson in Brussels and is the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, wrote a poem to mark Johnson's departure from the EU capital in 1995: "Boris told such dreadful lies / It made one gasp and stretch one's eyes”. “

Johnson is easily the most reviled PM in history and he’s only taken office today. There will be no honeymoon period. And the knives are out for him in Fleet Street and they are very long.

He’s the perfect symbol of the folly of Brexit and will very quickly make such a hash of things he will unite a majority of otherwise disparate factions against him. Once he fails at Brexit, he’ll have to call a GE and a coalition of support against him and Farage will vote to have a 2nd Ref. People will be so tired of this nonsense by then, the result will likely be Remain and the UK govt will continue in coalition for many years until it locates a political voice again.

But the Tories are over, consumed by the Brexit party, which will never come to power.

How many PMs do you know, R194? How can you make the foolish prophetic judgement that the current one is the most reviled PM in history?

What did you think of William Pitt and William Gladstone?

What about Robert Peel and Robert Walpole?

On the other hand, there's Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson?

R187, I agree with your first point.

And in terms of the idea of shared sovereignty, I stand by it as a concept, what you've described is the method.

Does he really hate the gays, or does he just make stupid remarks?

May just finished her final Pmqs session. When you thought things can’t get worse in walks Boris with worse plans than May had.

The 99% are not happy.

[quote]Only 160,000 members of the Conservative Party will vote for Britain’s next leader because under the parliamentary system, the prime minister is elected directly by the governing party. And that is not going down well among the 99 percent of the population who feel shut out of the process. The reality that less than 1 percent of registered voters will make the consequential decision at such a critical time has left many questioning the very foundation of their democracy.

What makes you say the Tories are finished, r194? I can’t stand the Conservatives but if anything Labour seems to be in as much disarray - especially with Corbyn as leader.

From what I can see the one major fallout will be Boris having one of the shortest stints as PM in British Political history. He’s always coveted the job, and he was extremely jealous of his old Bullingdon chum David Cameron when he became leader of the Party.

I think he finally saw his chance to finally become Prime Minister, and even though it’s a poisoned chalice, he knows he’ll never get another chance.

[quote] The reality that less than 1 percent of registered voters will make the consequential decision at such a critical time has left many questioning the very foundation of their democracy.

The UK has a "Parliamentary democracy" model (by intentional design), whereby you choose the overall party and the party chooses the leader (and can substitute the leader, if they wish). In such a model, the electorate has now way of directly choosing the party leader.

I love that some folks only woke up now, when things went belly up ("Oh, wait... So we have a parliamentary-model democracy? Not a presidential-model democracy? Oh my, why did no one clue me in about that before! That's not the type of democracy I want!").

The irony is that if the Tories scraped the barrel a bit more & managed to find a more popular substitute, many would probably keep on ignoring this established framework and not "question the foundations of democracy".

Oh ffs - he was twice elected as Mayor of London, one of the most diverse cities on the planet, the city didn't collapse and he didn't do any worse than his acceptably BAME successor, Sadiq Khan.

He isn't Trump by a long shot and his "righwing racism" is being hugely exaggerated by those who cannot stand the fact that he's out of Eton by way of Oxbridge, white, male, and conservative.

Sunny Jim Callaghan and several other Labour PMs I can recall did massive damage to Britain - the adored Tony Blair hooked his wagon to the wagon of that moron George Bush and got this country into Iraq, knowing full well that the information was dodgy, Gordon Brown was a disaster.

Grow up, get over yourselves. Neither Britain nor the West are going to collapse because Boris Johnson got into #10.

[quote] he was twice elected as Mayor of London, one of the most diverse cities on the planet, the city didn't collapse and he didn't do any worse than

City mayor is not a top gov't position. It's not even a Cabinet position. A Mayor's powers are far more limited. The worst he could do as Mayor is screw up roadwork plans and bus timetables, or perhaps mismanage a fire disaster (like the Grenfell Tower under Khan). But the worst he could do as PM (with a bigger international stage and broader jurisdiction) has far more consequences.

Though I tend to agree it will likely not be a catastrophe. Just a few clusterfucks here and there. We'll see.

I'm shivering with antici.....PATION for the moment the Tweedledee and Tweedledum memes arrive when he and Trump first meet and are pictured together.

They've got a point...

Why wait, R204?

Haha

R203 - Running London is like being president of a small country. London is one of the most diverse cities in the world and a Labour stronghold where Johnson twice defeated the quite disastrous Ken Livingstone, a darling of the left.

And given how badly the nice safe vicar's daughter did on the international stage, I don't see how he could do worse. The fact is, the real danger isn't Boris Johnson, but the extraordinary divisions not only within the country, which has always been a place of fierce regional division, but the division with his own party.

He has held a top government position - he was Foreign Secretary from 2016-2018, and he's been in Parliament for years - we're not talking Barack Obama here who leapt to the White Hosue after a year in the Senate. Johnson was the MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008. He's an experienced hand in Parliament. Theresa May had been Home Secretary before stepping in, and a very bad one at that. Why is Johnson any less qualified?

Johnson isn't nearly the hidebound far right racist he's being portrayed as, it's nothing less than character assassination in the hysteria surrounding a possible No Deal. In truth, Johnson has been associated with both liberal and one-nation conservative views.

All that said, I would be curious as to who in the contest you would have thought would do a better job given what's on the table? Leadsom? Javid? Stewart? Raab?

That's not sarcasm, that's an honest question. In my view, at this point in time, for better or worse, Johnson's hour has come, and whilst hardly thrilled at the state of things generally, and not sanguine about how long it will take for BREXIT to do in its third PM in three years, I do think the rhetoric around Johnson is absurd.

Resignations ongoing, I see - Hammond, Lidington, Stewart . . .

May's just arrived at Buckingham Palace to give the Queen her resignation as I type. The end of a seriously rubbish era, and the beginning of an even worse one.

Poor Liz just wants to get to Balmoral.

I see the resignations have started, apologies if anyone upthread has mentioned it. Just catching up, now.

BoJo's at the palace now. He helped rip this country to pieces by promoting Brexit, and now he's being rewarded by becoming prime minster.

R211 - The person who ripped the country apart was David Cameron, not Boris Johnson. Theresa May was REMAIN and she completely cocked it up. Britain has always been a regionally divided country, and the divisions in this country have been simmering for at least half a century, exacerbated by the inequality between the rich southeast, London-centricity, and the far less wealthy north, still economically England's stepchild.

Stop reducing hugely complex and long-standing issues to Boris Johnson supporting LEAVE.

BREXIT was an outcome of an increasingly socially, culturally, and politically divided country, not a cause.

Boris promises to negotiate new better deal with EU. Bullshit. EU has clearly stated the negotiations are over. Take it or leave without a deal.

R212, I didn't say it was all Boris's fault - I said he HELPED create this situation. Yes, Brexit brought to light divisions that were already there, but there are much less damaging ways in which that could have happened.

The Mayor of London is actually a pretty weak position and is nothing like running a country r204. Due to the set up of the system the Mayor is actually not that powerful of an office compared to how other cities function.

[quote]The person who ripped the country apart was David Cameron, not Boris Johnson.

Da.

UK should be ready for No Deal Brexit according to BJ. Stupid decision. Without a deal the entire economy in UK will face deep troubles. Just think how many millions of Europeans visit London yearly. With no deal those people will need visas.

R216 - Oh please. Cameron offered that referendum back in 2010 to claw back a few votes from UKIP. He fully expected to lose the GE in 2015; he was writing his resignation speech at ten miniutes before ten, and at ten past ten he found he'd won. Then he was on the hook to fulfill his iron-clad promise.

Did Putin cause the economic disasters and strikes in Britain in the 1970s? Did Putin tell Tony Blair to get Britain into Iraq in 2002? Did Putin set up the class sytem in Britain? Did Putin disenfranchise the entire post-industrial northeast in England after 1950?

Open a history book. You want to discuss Russian influence in British politics? Look no further than the unreconstructed 1930s Stalinist leading the Labour Party.

R217 - Oh, no! Visas to visit Britain!

"The United Kingdom is the world's 6th biggest tourist destination, with over 40 million visiting in 2018. US$31.93 billion was spent in the UK by foreign tourists in 2017. VisitBritain data shows that the USA remains the most valuable inbound market, with American visitors spending £2.1 billion in 2010."

The number of visitors from Europe is greater, but far more money is spent by our American cousins here. And Americans do not need a visa to visit the UK, only a valid US passport. I'm quite sure the UK government will be able to make similar arrangements with France, Germany, Denmark, etc.

[quote] Running London is like being president of a small country.

It’s really not, R208. Running a country involves thinking about National defence, overseeing Britain’s Nuke arsenal and negotiating billion-dollar Arms deals, trying to prevent Scotland and N. Ireland from leaving the Union, making public announcements that can cause people in Baghdad or Libya (half a world away) to flee for their lives.

[quote] He has held a top government position - he was Foreign Secretary from 2016-2018, and he's been in Parliament for years - we're not talking Barack Obama here who leapt to the White Hosue after a year in the Senate.

And he was a foolish Foreign Secretary, with aides in his own Department admitting he was an embarassment. He started reciting Colonialist-era poems in Asia - and his aides had to beg him to keep quiet before angering the local crowd.

[quote] Johnson was the MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008. He's an experienced hand in Parliament. Theresa May had been Home Secretary before stepping in, and a very bad one at that. Why is Johnson any less qualified?

Because, unlike Tessa, he has perpetual foot-in-mouth syndrome, that’s why. He has a penchant for speaking before thinking. He often needs to be micro-managed like a toddler. His “experience” amounts to a collection of mistakes, from which he never learns.

R214 - On that are agreed - there shold have been better ways to address those divisions, and Cameron's hubristic promise and Parliiament's equally foolish promise to "honour the outcome" will stand as one of the political follies of the 21st century. That said, it seems that most governments don't seem to address the handwriting on the wall until the wall collapses and falls on them.

Omnis caro veniet.

R220 - I'm not suggesting Johnson is a flawless candidate. But I stand by my initial thought - having held the referendum, having promised to honour it, a desperate Parliament then went into tortured efforts not to honour it without looking as if it were sticking two fingers up to the electorate. They put in someone who doesn't have Johnson's flaws to negotiate with a group of people intent on punishing Britain and making an example of it. She walked back on every red line she so foolishly announced, and the momen the Irish backstop was inserted into that document, the WA she brought back was doomed.

My point, which I admit is not a popular one, is that it is precisely his flaws that make Johnson the better choice for the BREXIT issue coming up. I repeat: Brussels was never for a moment afraid of Tessa, and that was the problem. You don't send a supine cow in to negortiate with a lot of vicious bulls: you send in another vicious bull. They know they won't be able to walk all over Johnson they way they did over May.

They tried the safe hand already. It didn't work.

Fair enough, I accept your point, R222. I'm no fan of the current crop of smug, obstinate Brussels bureaucrats either - and if Johnson can rock their holier-than-thou boat, then by all means.

R208: Boris Johnson is completely unqualified to run a lemonade stand, never mind end up becoming Prime Minister of Britain.

He’s a classic case of an upper middle class twit, who walked into a cushy reporting job at The Times Newspaper ( a job from which he was later fired ) solely due to his contacts. This is also a guy who was caught on wiretaps conspiring with his fellow upper crust chum - and cocaine dealer - in a conspiracy to beat up a fellow reporter for actually doing his job and writing an expose on said friends links to arms dealing and drugs.

However, it gets better. When he was employed at the Daily Telegraph, ( once again through his Oxford contacts ) he somehow ended up being promoted to the Brussels Bureau, where he wrote a series of biased articles that helped stoke up resentment against Brussels and the EU.

Moreover, he only entered Politics and became an MP because his friends and contacts managed to put him into a Conservative safe seat. And as Mayor of London he was an incompetent clown, who would have been an even worse fuckup if not for his team of managers - who actually ran the city.

It was the same situation when he was foreign secretary. He was nothing more than a bumbling idiot, who had to be managed like a retarded juvenile in case he caused a disaster. Furthermore, his own constituents in Uxbridge cannot stand him, with many complaining that he hardly ever offers surgeries ( he was once again forced on the constituency by the Conservative Party ).

He’s a complete waste of space, who has done nothing in his life but fall upwards due to his birth and background.

Let's admit that democracy always involves, to some degree, manipulating the nudniks who have the vote and choose their representation and/or leadership.

But we are apparently at the crest of an age in which demagoguery will be the method of that manipulation -- will be the norm rather than the occasional and embarrassing exception. And that does bode ill for democracy, because demagoguery usually involves scapegoats, villains, and conflict.

It also involves a retreat from voter decisionmaking about national policy. Those decisions are still made, of course, which is the whole point of demagoguery, because it goes behind a smokescreen, while the attention of the voters is directed somewhere else.

R224 - He gave a very decent speech today, and if he can't get the job done, he'll be gone. But I do repeat that he twice beat Ken Livingstone for Mayor of London - leaving aside what he did or didn't do in that position for eight years, and as we know that most people vote with their guts, not their brains, what do you suppose the voters in London based those votes upon?

In other words, I'm trying to back into this from the point of view of the voters, not the assumptions made by a small, self-selected group.

The two major issues facing the country immediately are BREXIT and Iran. I've asked above, but haven't gotten an answer yet, who amongst the candidates who lost to Johnson would you have preferred to see take on the job right now?

[quote] My point, which I admit is not a popular one, is that it is precisely his flaws that make Johnson the better choice for the BREXIT issue coming up. I repeat: Brussels was never for a moment afraid of Tessa, and that was the problem. You don't send a supine cow in to negortiate with a lot of vicious bulls: you send in another vicious bull. They know they won't be able to walk all over Johnson they way they did over May.

But will Brussels be afraid of Boris? The EU is still in a much stronger negotiating position than the UK is. That hasn't changed.

I couldn't understand why there was a glockenspiel playing in the background on Sky News. I thought I must have left a YouTube video running on my phone or something. Turns out it was a protester.

R227 - Yes, I think Johnson will make the EU more nervous than May ever made them - which was not at all.

R228 - I thought there was an intruder in my flat whose mobile kept playing, "Consider yourself, at home/Consider yourself one of the family" from "Oliver Twist".

A glockenspiel is intended to help musicians keep time and rhythm. I wonder if it was a hint about the 99-day clock ticking down.

Foe what it's worth, I don't think Johnson believes for a moment that in 99 days he will negotiate a new deal with Brussels and get it through Parliament, unless the tweaks are minimal and/or the Irish backstop is somehow withdrawn or the border issue ironed out, and he rams it through and it ends up being little different from May's except for those sorts of changes, and in terror of No Deal, Parliament goes for it.

But I do believe that he's prepared to walk without a deal, which is the difference between him and May and not something the EU wants. As it's not credible that an entirely new Withdrawal Agreement will emerge in that short a time, it's clear Johnson believes that No Deal is what BREXIT really means.

And people must bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement isn't a trade deal. The other problem with the backstop is that the threat of implementing it gives the EU incentive to offer a trade deal that far more benefits it than the UK, and the UK will once again be forced to accept something it finds less than appetising in order to avoid the backstop coming into play.

What do others think of Javid as Chancellor, Raab as Foreign Secretary, and Patel as Home Secretary?

I think people posting in this thread should first identify themselves as British or not, and Labour or not.

Because 2/3 of this thread is just silly schoolyard talk.

[quote] I think people posting in this thread should first identify themselves as British or not, and Labour or not.

Which you did not do, thereby reducing your post to just so much silly schoolyard talk.

Thank you for upbraiding me, R231.

I belong to a nation of the British Commonwealth and I think it's unfortunate that a conversation about a serious British issue is sullied by schoolyard talk.

Well England, you've fucked yourselves beyond repair. Trump is temporary but Brexit will permanently weaken your country.

Maybe now all of you can come down from your proud perches, stop passing judgement on us Americans, and work on fixing your country instead.

I think my post makes it obvious, but since you guys asked, I'm American and a Dem

BoJo was born in NYC.

When he’s finished with the UK, he will probably run for President of the United States as well.

R227

I totally disagree -they knew that the GYPSUM LADY would deliver a Brexit that favoured the EU.

BoJo is pushing hard Brexit with WTO rules and a sweetheart deal with Trump.

Exactly R229

A no deal Brexit is much worse for the EU than the U.K.

R233

“....Brexit will permanently weaken your country.”

Only if you believe that the European union will survive the current trials and tribulations that are roiling the periphery and beginning to destabilize the center. Have you not paid attention to the rise of the far right and populist Eurosceptics?

The euro itself is a flawed and inherently destructive monetary mechanism that enriches the German elites while in punishing the rest of the eurozone.

The alternative MiniBots Italy is preparing to implement will just accelerate the economic disintegration.

Children voted for him, their parents cast their votes, it is disgusting. Another nasty Nazi, just like Trump. Our world, full of Deplorables.

Why are you so disgusted, R238? You won't get far in life if regular politics disgusts you.

[QUOTE] Just think how many millions of Europeans visit London yearly. With no deal those people will need visas.

What kind of spaz are you? Joey Deacon!!!! Nobody needs a visa to travel to the UK for a vacation.

[QUOTE]Children voted for him, their parents cast their votes, it is disgusting. Another nasty Nazi, just like Trump.

Aaaand the Welp Troll is in the building, rancid with sour conspiracy theories.

I am British and I've always voted Labour.

To the tune of Seven Nation Army by The White Stripes: 'We love Je-rem-y Cor-or-or-byn!'

But there are some right Deacons on this thread, including the Welp Troll and Titles Troll.

R242

Don’t forget to carry your yellow star of David patches around to slap on the Juden...

R243 is the Spaz Troll.

R242 Are you a Labourite of the traditional, White Van Man sort?

Or are you a New Labour Islington Lady Nugee Luvvie?

[quote]I repeat: Brussels was never for a moment afraid of Tessa

They aren't afraid of Boris, either. He has absolutely no leverage at all and both sides know it.

[quote]But I do believe that he's prepared to walk without a deal, which is the difference between him and May and not something the EU wants.

They don't want it but they know it will harm the UK far more than it will harm the EU. They're not even remotely afraid of such an outcome. They've already shrugged their shoulders at the insanity and have moved on. There are no signs that any of that has changed as this outcome became apparent.

If Boris was born in NY then surely he must be American?

Three quarters of this thread is full of 'Doubters, Doomsters and Gloomsters'.

Why the fuck can't Labor elect a new leader??

Labour, darling @ R249. This isn't Australia.

No, R247. He was born an American citizen, by virture of his birth in the US. He was also a British citizen, by virtue of his parents' British citizenship.

They took the little creep back to the UK, where he belongs. He subsequently renounced his US citizenship. We in the US got lucky.

R237 - Thanks for bringing this up. No one in these discussions ever brings up the massive problems facing the EU, firstly surrounding the folly of bringing forward a common currency without a common financial system and the massive debt building throughout Europe - as in America and so many other places, printing money and ignoring the consequences has been the method of choice in dealing with modern economic issues. DeutscheBank is in trouble, even the German economy is slowing down. Britain was the second biggest net contributor to the EU and as reduced as our defence forces are, we were still, with France, one of the only two nations in the bloc with a half-decent defence force. Look up what the Ursula von der Leyen did as Defence Minister in Germany - she was a joke and the German defence force is a joke, so going on talking about the "EU army" is also a joke.

In my view, the truth as always somewhere in the middle: Britain isn't going to sink into the Atlantic if it leaves the EU with no deal, the EU would much prefer a deal itself, and there will be serious economic consequences for the bloc with Britain leaving and taking its marbles with it, the EU isn't Nirvana (huge bureaucracies seldom are) and geopolitics shift constantly.

I still maintain the view that No Deal was the best card Britain had to play, and May shouldn't have ditched her, "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" statement so soon, making it plain that she never believed that for a moment.

And that was always the problem: in the end, it was plain that May lacked conviction; she knew she didn't mean it, the EU knew she didn't it. You can't start a negotiation by throwing away your best card because the shareholders and CBI and the BoE were only concerned about the bottom line profits they think they have coming to them as a birthright.

Say what you will about Johnson, but he demonstrates the thing that May lacked: conviction. We'll have to see how that works.

Meanwhile, however unpopular Johnson might be in You.gov polls, the Tories are already siphoning back votes from Farage and the BREXIT Party. I have to say that turning about to be both Farage's and Brussels' worst nightmare is not entirely a bad thing.

R251 - Given the moron sitting in the White House, I would say you in the US have been anything but lucky - after all, in between Clinton and Obama, you got eight years of Dubya, the invasion of Iraq a folly on the magnitude of Vietnnam, and then put in Trump. Trump and Johnson may share blond hair and a gut, but at least Johnson can speak coherent English.

Have you ever watched the PMQs? I cannot think of an American politician of the last 100 years who could have stood up under that heat except for FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton.

People in glass White Houses shouldn't throw stones.

[quote] The euro itself is a flawed and inherently destructive monetary mechanism that enriches the German elites while in punishing the rest of the eurozone.

R273, I read that when the Euro was being introduced, Germans had one of the most opportunistic currency exchange rates (from Deutsche Mark to Euro), making them richer overnight. Not so much so for some other EU countries, in terms of the currency switch.

R249 - Labour here is being run by Momentum and a small cabal of hardcore Stalinists - think Seamus Milne. Labour shold have been ahead in double digits given how the Tories have cocked it up over the last 8 years. Instead, they are barely pegging level from one week to the next, or trailing, or pulling ahead by a few percentage points. One problem for Labour is that Corbyn is a longtime Eurosceptic, heading up a mostly - though not entirely, think the working classes in the northeast who voted overwhelmingly LEAVE - Remain party.

Corbyn voted against every EU treaty. Labour have vacillated on its position on BREXIT because what their leader wants is Britain out of the EU, but on someone else's responsbility. The EU's regulations do not permit the kinds of nationalisation of public services that Corbyn has in mind, and he knows it. He can only bring about his dreamt of "socialist revolution" in Britain outside the EU.

The other problem Labour have is that, similar to the situation in other countries, liberalism has become a chic accessory for the comfortable middle and upper classes, and moved away from strong working-class roots. The working classes no longer feel truly represented by Labour.

Corbyn is the MP for Islington North, in inner London. It's an expensive area; Emily Thornberry, she who expressed contempt for White Van Man, symbol of the patriotic white working-class, is the MP for Islington South.

Islington is also the home of Arsenal FC - whose home stadium, irony of ironies, is Emirates Stadium (guess who built it?).

Schism seems to be the watchword of the day: the Tories are split, Labour are split, Britain is divided, America is divided, Europe is divided - Macron has not exactly become the "Saviour of the West" that The Guardian, in typical fashion, trumpted he was a few years ago, and Le Pen's National Rally is doing disgracefully well, thanks to those divisions.

No one should see BREXIT soley through the prism of Britain.

R254 - Yes, the history of the euro is not stink-free. I am old enough to remember how many politicians and financial wizards warned Britain forty years ago that if it didn't go on the euro, it would "be on the wrong side of history" and predicted exactly the same dire outcomes that the same types are now predicting if Britain leaves the EU on a No Deal basis. Not going on the euro, like being exempt from Schengen and the permanent migrant quotas that Merkel tried to shove down the throats of the block to rectify her massive misjudgement of 2015, turned out to be a very good thing.

[quote]Brussels' worst nightmare

Except he's not. Really. This is all just made-up bullshit unsupported by actual data.

Ya you're delusional if you think Brussels is afraid of any possible PM. They don't want a no deal Brexit true, but it will hurt the UK far more than the EU and both parties know this.

What the UK is essentially asking for is charity. You want them to willing give you some of benefits of EU membership for free. Johnson will be no better at asking for it than anyone else. He might even be worse because Brussels dislikes him personality, though I assume they are practical enough to put that aside

R257 - This is a gossip site where varied opinions are expressed withoout having to provide footnotes listing the scholarly papers consulted before publishing.

It is hardly "made-up" - no one made up Theresa May walking back over every red line she announced so foolishly; no one made up that inserting that backstop into her withdrawal bill doomed it from the outset - both are a matter of public record, and it's hardly a stretch to observe that the EU was positively delighted that she did so. It's hardly a stretch to observe that the EU took a bullying, sneering, tone in the negotiations that they might not have had Johnson been put in to start with, and that they far preferred dealing with a supine cow than a provocative bull who will take that 39bn and put two fingers up to them.

That they have other "nightmares" is something acknowledged in a post above. If you can't handle a bit of hyperbole that is nevertheless based in observable factors, you should find another site.

DL is nothing if not a comfortable home for hyperbole. That doesn't mean the underlying factors are ipso facto untrue.

The architect of VoteLeave has been put in by Johnson as his Special Advisor. Were I the EU, I would be at a minimum dismayed.

R259 You have no leverage. Negotiations aren't magical and mysterious. They follow rules. The UK has nothing they can use in their favor.

The only harm they can possibly cause to the EU is some fallout from a no deal Brexit. But it would hurt the UK even more than the EU so they can't use it as leverage. What do you think Boris will do when the EU just says no to his demands? What magical powers powers do you think he has that will convince Brussels to do something against their own interest to help a country they are pissed off at right now?

[quote]It is hardly "made-up"

Pretending that Johnson is "Brussels' worst nightmare" is made up. Pretending that the EU is even remotely interested in starting over on negotiations with Johnson is made up.

[quote]It's hardly a stretch to observe that the EU took a bullying, sneering, tone in the negotiations that they might not have had Johnson been put in to start with, and that they far preferred dealing with a supine cow than a provocative bull who will take that 39bn and put two fingers up to them.

This whole paragraph is not only entirely made up, it's delusional.

Modern day Oscar Wilde...?

R202, only that it will. Just wait and see

R262 The new PM is frequently witty but I don't understand his allusion to 'choristers'.

R264: actually I don’t get the ‘choristers ‘ reference too.

However, the Oscar Wilde allusion is quite clear:

“One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.”

"choristers" are members of a choir. It was a choir from Africa. But I'm sure you all knew that.

[QUOTE] Not so much so for some other EU countries, in terms of the currency switch.

Yep, Greece and Ireland in particular spazzed out completely when they got hold of the Euro. The pound remains strong. We should probably have a real border between northern and southern Ireland. I can't see why it is such an issue.

BJ is a theatrical, larger than life character who can be very eloquent and persuasive. Definitely not like the orange hoe in the White House.

[QUOTE] Corbyn is the MP for Islington North, in inner London. It's an expensive area; Emily Thornberry, she who expressed contempt for White Van Man, symbol of the patriotic white working-class, is the MP for Islington South.

Islington is also the home

He lives in a tiny terraced house. Not all of Islington is wealthy. Council accommodation is always cheek by jowl with 4m properties even in central London.

are putin's trolls on here pushing Boorish like the push Trump?

R269 I think the Boris supporters are just actually this delusional. This is like religious reverence they have for him.

It will be fun to see them scatter when he gets a no deal Brexit and the country ends up fucked.

Brexit was started by a Tory PM, advanced by a Tory PM, and will happen under a Tory PM. Don't let anyone tell you Nigel Farage or some other far right idiot is the problem. The Tories are utterly incompetent, malevolent assholes. They are singularly responsible for the demise of a once great nation

R270, there hasn't been a 'demise', you hysterical American. Eastern European migrants were flooding in unchecked and taking over the small market towns. That cannot continue. You have never experienced 'freedom of movement' so you wouldn't understand the attendant horrors.

ah...like our rethugs, just not as stupid

Pretty damn close, though, particularly when it comes to the followers. Just look at R271.

R273, do you love migrants?

Run along back to your "fuckable bod" poll, R274. The adults are talking.

DL is very bad at predicting economic and political outcomes. Probably because emotions get in the way. I think in this case we need to wait and see what actually occurs.

Ireland needs to accept that a hard border between north and south is an inevitability.

Wow, some real idiocy being promoted here. A. Ireland is a very successful country. It has benefited from generous business relationships, from migration from the EU and tourism from Germany. B. The Irish are a related people - meaning that there are Sullivans in the North and Sullivans in the South, O'Neils in the North and O'Neils in the South. It makes no more sense for there to be a North and South Ireland with a hard border than it made sense for there to be an East Germany and a West Germany. It's an accident of history that Cromwell moved a bunch of Scots people into Northern Ireland in the 16th century to give a Protestant presence in an overwhelmingly Catholic country. But there are 750,000 Catholics in Northern Ireland vs. 760,000 Protestants there, so it's not a clear question of this country is where the Protestants go, and that country is where the Catholics go.

Re: Eastern European migrants to Britain. 1.4 million Eastern Europeans are living in Great Britain, out of total of 66 million. So, essentially one out of SIXTY people in Britain is eastern European. Just as a comparison, in 1915, one out of SIX Americans was an immigrant from poor parts of Europe - Eastern Europe (Jews, Poles, and Russians), Southern Europe (Italians, Greeks, Spaniards), southern Slavs (Croatians, Serbs, Slovenians, etc), and a smattering of Germans and Scandinavians, or ten TIMES as many as Britain's current Eastern Europeans. The idiots above who call that a flood are ignorant of the numbers and ignorant of history.

[quote]Council accommodation is always cheek by jowl with 4m properties even in central London.

NYC is the same. You have multi-million dollar apartment buildings around the corner from the projects.

[quote]It makes no more sense for there to be a North and South Ireland with a hard border than it made sense for there to be an East Germany and a West Germany.

And like Mexico and New Mexico? North Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece)? Sudan and South Sudan? There are reasons why there are borders between these places.

Many British people think Trump is great.

[quote] United Kingdom residents have an overwhelmingly unfavorable view of President Donald Trump, with recent polls showing only 21 percent of Great Britain having a positive opinion of the United States leader.

This is the level of delusion Boris supporters live in. You will NEVER get through to them

Northern Ireland would be a third world country if the English weren't in charge of it. If the English ever left, it would be the white Pakistan in a year.

Who is the guy on the left side of OP's pic?

R278

Cradle to grave welfare wasn’t a right for those immigrants 100 years ago.

Do you think that they would have been welcomed with such open arms if each immigrant cost $25,000 a year in taxpayer expenditures, with zero effort on the immigrant’s part?

[QUOTE] Re: Eastern European migrants to Britain. 1.4 million Eastern Europeans are living in Great Britain, out of total of 66 million. So, essentially one out of SIXTY people in Britain is eastern European.

That is still too damn many in a tiny country when you take into account all the other migrants rushing to cling to the NHS and DHS.

[QUOTE] And like Mexico and New Mexico? North Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece)? Sudan and South Sudan? There are reasons why there are borders between these places.

Exactly. Southern Ireland made a complete mess of joining the euro, with a corrupt, shady Prime Minister. They are cheating, unreliable people.

R284: that’s Jeremy Hunt, Boris’s arch-enemy.

Still idiots. According to statistics, more than 80% of eastern Europeans in Britain are working. That means that they are paying into the system, not taking advantage of it. By the way, Poles and other eastern Europeans get low cost or free medical care in their home countries as well, so making their presence in England about that just emphasizes the poor quality of propaganda here and probably in various social media sites in England as well.

Is R222 still here? Love your bullish, pro-BoJo posts. Too bad the EU and Ireland have already knocked him back. Good on you for buying into his bluster. Look forward to the vote of no confidence after the summer recess.

R287, "Southern Ireland" does not exist. Your silly statement underscores how silly the artificial division of the country is and has always been.

Does Boorish have his own balloon yet?

[quote]According to statistics

Oh, now that's just not fair. How dare you use actual data!

Data is fine, but ironically, we have no use for it at Data Lounge.

R261 - If you'd read my post at 229, you'd have seen that I'm actually in agreement that Johnson isn't going to get the EU to reopen the WA. Their not doing so is the nail he's going to hang his No Deal BREXIT on. That WA has been put to the House three times and failed every time to pass. It is dead as a Dodo, Brussels knows it, Johnson knows, and probably Parliament knows it.

Meanwhile, you can throw the the term "delusional" around all you like - the bullying, sneering, threatening remarks about and towards Britain by Verhofstadt, that drunekn sot Juncker, and Barnier, are a matter of public record. They made no secret of their intention of punishing Britain and making an example of it to head off any other attempts at exiting.

If you want to make an issue of a bit of hyperbole, do enjoy yourself. But May's failures as a negotiator, her foolhardy annnouncement of half a dozen "red lines" that she then walked back on to the EU's satisfaction, are also a matter of public record. They won't find Johnson, whatevert his flaws, so easy to walk over.

Lastly, the EU is not Nirvana, but a sociopolitical entity, and like all others of that breed, it already has a sell-by date on the wrapper.

Like I said: delusional.

Yes, actually, they will find Johnson "easy to walk over," nor is anyone in the EU having "nightmares" about Johnson. It has nothing to do with "strength" or being a "supine cow" or a "provocative bull" or a "vicious bull" or having "conviction." It has everything to do with leverage, of which the UK has none.

They've already tried the "give us what we want or we're leaving ploy." It resulted in nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders. There is no reason to believe that the tactic will work any better with Johnson, despite his being a "vicious bull" with "conviction."

I can't believe they elected him, he can't even comb his hair. useless cunt.

R290, here I am and do get over yourself.

Brussels and Ireland haven't knocked him back - they're playing right into his hands. Whether it's your or my stance isn't the issue: Johnson himself wants a No Deal BREXIT. He has to state publicly that of course Britain wants a good deal to make it all look honest, but he knows perfectly well that Brussels' idea of a good deal is one that disadvantages Britain and works better for them. If that weren't the case, May would have brought back a deal that Parliament could have supported. The deal failed to pass after three tries in Parliament. It is dead, and as I said at my post at 229, Johnson knows that the likelihood of it being renegotiated in 99 days is slim to none. He has to ask politely, but he doesn't want the WA renegotiated. He wants OUT, fast.

He'll have to take responsibility for the fallout, but that's where he's headed in my view, and Brussels and Ireland are obliging him by refusing his reflexive request to renegotiate, and therefore are agreeing to No Deal. Johnson can point to their refusal to reopen what he and they know is a dead bill that failed three times to pass in the House, shrug his shoulders, and blame them.

And as far as Parliament blocking a No Deal BREXIT, unless I'm mistaken, unless Parliament votes to revoke Artricle 50 and their previous agreement to an extension that ends on 31 October after which Britain automatically exits the EU with or without a deal, there really isn't a clear path for Parliament to block No Deal. All Johnson has to do is sit on his hands and bring no business forward and at midnight on 31 October, it's over.

Parliament had three tries at May's bill and she comes across as far more "plausible" than Johnson does. But she failed, ulitmately. Perhaps "plausible" just isn't the right person for this particular job. And she was shite as Home Secretary, as well. She's a middle-management plodder at heart and wasn't up to either job.

Either Parliament revokes Article 50 and admits to the electorate that it never meant to honour the outcome of the referendum unless REMAIN won, or it accepts the damage it has inflicted on the country and the electorate over the last three years and does that now. It would have done better to admit on 24 June 2016 that it made a mistake and is terribly sorry but can't see its way to honouring it, but Thank you for your input, we'll take it under advisement and get back to you later - much later.

There is no bill on the table, that is a fallacy. May's bill is a corpse. Therefore, No Deal is what's ahead and Johnson not only knows it, it's what he wants, no matter what he dutifully states publicly.

It's all a grand panto.

R296 - You really can't read, can you?

Johnson - wants - a - No Deal BREXIT. He doesn't want to renegotiate anything. The WA is dead, he knows it, Brussels knows it.

He's saying what he has to publicly. But he WANTS a No Deal BREXIT. And that's exactly what he's going to get.

May started out saying that No Deal was better than a bad deal, remember? Then she ditched it quickly.

Johnson means it. The deal failed in Parliament 3 times. There isn't enough time for a new one.

Both sides know exactly what they're doing. Johnson will get what he wants: No Deal.

I don't call that being "walked over". You like to think he's desperate to get a new deal going so you see Brussels' refusal as a knock-back. He isn't desperate for a new deal. He's not a desperate type, come to it. He's a one-nation conservative who thinks he's going to resurrect the Britain of Churchill and Victoria and Henry V. He loathes the EU and the sentiment is heartily returned.

If you don't get that, it's you who are delusional.

So quoting your own words back to you is a clear sign that I "can't read." Got it.

Yes, we know that Johnson wants a no deal Brexit. Nobody is pretending otherwise. Lovely little strawman argument there.

[quote]You like to think he's desperate to get a new deal going

Speaking of not being able to read....

Boris Johnson, good English name.

R301 - Sajid Javid, good English name. Sadiq Kahn, good English name. Benjamin Disraeli, good English name.

Your point is?

Never mind, we know what your point is.

Can you imagine how relieved Theresa must feel now? Yes, she's humiliated herself and will forever be remembered as an appalling prime minister, but at least it's finally OVER.

Omg.

"Do you know how difficult it is to get into Oxford? It's not a shoe in..."--r154 "It’s not a complete shoe-in..."--r192

Oh, dear.--r305

if the horn is big enough it could be

"Boris Johnson Predicts ‘Million-to-One’ Chance of No-Deal Brexit"

This was from like two weeks ago...pure bullshit of course. No Deal is what he wants and what he's hell bent on having, even if he has to shut down Parliament to get it.

the EU doesn't need to "punish" Britain, its voters seem quite capable of destroying the country and determined to do so.

R305 The correct usage is 'shew in' rather than 'shoo in'.

'Shew' is the past tense verb for 'show'.

total bullshit

The conventional spelling of the noun meaning a sure winner is shoo-in, not shoe-in. The term uses the verb shoo, which means to urge something in a desired direction, usually by waving one’s arms. The idea behind the word is that the person being shooed—for example, into the winner’s circle, into a job, or into a field of award nominees—is such a lock that we can shoo him or her in without hesitation.

shew (shō) v. Archaic Variant of show.

R309 You say 'shew' is archaic, I say 'shew' is correct.

And if the Oxford scholar Boris Johnson were here, he'd agree with me!

Boorish Johnson is to Oxford as Donald Trump is to UPenn/Wharton a shitstain on its reputation

No, r308, it is not. Consult a dictionary.

Why does Boris always walk like he just shit his pants?

This situation is made so much worse and more dismaying because the leader of the opposition Corbyn is absolutely a useless dishonest incompetent who is clearly out of his depth.

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson 'already working on' UK-US free trade deal

The US president is said to be committed to an "ambitious free trade agreement", with formal talks to begin after Brexit.

Does it have to pass congress? ^^ I believe it does.

It's Idiocracy. All in the numbers.

The bottom line, whether you like Johnson or not or like BREXIT or not, is that as Parliament voted to pass Article 50, and also agreed to the extension from 31 May to 31 October, on which date at midnight Britain leaves the EU with or without a deal, the only way Johnson can be stymied is someong bringing a bill forward asking Parliament to revoke Article 50. The political risks of same are astronomical. Parliament is now legally entitled to a "meaningful vote" on any Withdrawal Agreement - but only if there is a WA to vote on. May's bill is off the table. Without a new one, there is nothing for Parliament to have a meaningful vote on, which means all Johnson has to do is bring no new business forward and sit on his hands running down the clock if the EU refuse to remove the backstop.

Which will turn Johnson into the Man Who Delivered BREXIT.

If Parliament is determined to head him off, they have two options: bring down his government, and/or vote to revoke Article 50.

Both options will have politically dire consequences for an already deeply divided country.

The outcome of the upcoming Brecon by election in Wales will have some impact on Johnson's ability to fight this out, as, ironically, after checking the polls on Britain Elects, the two front runners are the Lib Dem candidate and the BREXIT party candidate. That could change between now and 4th August, but the loss to either one by the Tories, who hold the seat now, will reduce Johnson's majority in Parliament to . . . one.

It's anyone's guess how this plays out, but my own, as stated several times above, is that the EU will not take the backstop out, Johnson will head for the No Deal exit he really wants, and all hell will break out in Parliament as it turns to a vote of no confidence to bring him down or brings a bill forward to revoke Article 50, basically nullifying the outcome of the referendum . . .

Which is what Parliament wanted to do, anyway, and should have found the balls to do on 24 June 2016 instead of putting the electorate through this bullshit.

[quote]Does it have to pass congress? ^^ I believe it does.

Yes, r316, and even if that were not the case, anyone who seriously believes that Trump is going to do any kind of trade deal, particularly a deal with advantageous terms to the UK, is hilariously obtuse and has been asleep for the past two and a half years.

Trump doesn't do trade; he just does trade wars.

[quote]Both options will have politically dire consequences for an already deeply divided country.

So will a no-deal BREXIT, r318, as well as real-world economic and financial consequences.

can't say it enough: fuck david cameron

If Johnson is successful, where will people who are loyal to the EU go? After the American Revolution, many loyalists moved to Canada or Great Britain. Will there be an exodus to the European mainland? That could actually reduce the political discord.

If Johnson is successful, Britain will be plunged into a major recession, which will probably last 3 or 4 years. When it emerges, it will have an economy the same size as Italy's, the pound worth less than a dollar, and, yes, people clamoring to emigrate OUT of Britain. And for WHAT?

People would be smart to leave now if they are going to go, while they still have freedom of movement across the EU.

GB got what they asked for a Trump twin.

Sex trafficking was unheard of in the UK before free movement of EU citizens occurred. Now, it is endemic.

^ wow I didn’t know that.

R321 - Exactly. He may be less colourful but Cameron's hubris quotient is much higher than Johnson's in reality, and he is the one who really ripped the country apart and to this day has never apologised or acknowledged his monstrous error in judgement; Tony Blair also bears some responsibility for BREXIT and has admitted he played a significant role but still insists he did the right thing "at the time" (the way he did the right thing dragging us into Bush's Iraq folly although he knew perfectly well the evidence for Bush's claims were dodgy).

^ Tony Blair and his lieutenant Andrew Neather made a catastrophic change to the country from which it can NEVER recover.

Britons traditionally supported the underdog but Blair and Neather created an unassimilable underclass of underdogs.

Interesting that you added your own "unassimilable" adjective to the discussion, r329. Also that you failed to include his main point from the bottom of the article, that there was a labor shortage in Britain at the time, especially in certain skill sets. In my opinion, if a culture is really strong, or, as most people within the culture almost certainly believe, "superior", it ought to be cohesive and attractive enough that new residents of the country would automatically adopt it - assimilate, in other words. I read that unassimilable as meaning they're black or brown skinned, therefore can never be British. If they've gone to British schools, have learned British English, have learned about common law, the Magna Carta, and Parliament, can recited the Kings and Queens of England, have learned to eat marmite and kippers and chips, and know how to queue, they are as British as any farmer from Yorkshire. In the meantime, they have also enriched the crappy original cuisine of England one thousand fold with curries and jerks and tagines, the music scene, the art scene, the dance scene. I see that as adding to, not taking away.

R330 - In fairness, Blair did state publicly that he wanted to "rub the Establishment's nose in diversity", forgetting that the old working-class communities who felt the impact of all that immigration so quickly weren't the Establishment and suffered legitimate losses. The former equality czar, Trevor Phillips, published essays stating that Britain was sleepwalking into being a segregated country, and whilst many immigrants do assimilate quickly, Britain made a conscious decision to go for multiculturalism rather than integration, an approach it now regrets. Britain isn't the only country Europe to wrestle with this problem over the last 40-50 years.

Most British kids of any colour can't recite the Kings and Queens of England these days, by the way. "Cultural enrichment" also includes a few things that people feel they could have done without.

It's a complex issue and there are grains of truth on both sides. Just the same, it's clear there was too much too soon with little preparation and Blair the great humanist gave little thought to impact on culture and community.

As far as a labour shortage goes: google immigrant economy and its benefit to the corporate 1% and their bottom lines. Large swathhs of the British workforce felt that its wages were undercut and their children left to rot by an inadequate schools system with little to no interest in preparing them for a modern workforce.

Unfortunately r331 illustrates the bad things about multiculturalism. And Britain rushed headlong into it with little thought to the negative consequences. It's just a mess now.

I should amend my comment about what Blair stated publicly: it was a draft speech that his speechwriter reviewed and reported on which you can read about in R330's link, which was quite interesting.

R331

Yes, R332, it is a mess and it cannot be solved in our lifetime. Perhaps, just perhaps in two generations time, but I suspect not.

Andrew Neather and The Islington Luvvies, figuratively speaking, have blood on their hands.

France has gone unequivocally for integration rather than multiculturalism, and I don't see that its approach has gone radically better than Britain's. But the beef with Brexit was supposedly NOT about color. After all, Britain has been absorbing people of color since the 1940s - Indians, Pakistanis, people from all of its colonies all over the world. The freedom of people from the EU to migrate to Britain and the people of Britain to migrate elsewhere, which has also happened in spades, was supposedly the catalyst - along with "sovereignty" in whatever twisted way Nigel Farange defined it. However, as mentioned before, the total number of Eastern Europeans in Britain is only 1. 6 million. A drop in the bucket in a population of 66 million. Moreover, I don't think that the immigrants from Poland are trying to impose their culture on Britain. Two generations my ass. If language is a problem, the children of the immigrants will have mastered English and English society by the end of their first year in school. I have friends who have just moved here from Ireland last school year. Their children lost their brogues the FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL. That's how strongly and quickly kids respond to the dominant culture around them.

The street scenes in the middle of this video look depressing.

Britain seems to be fucking in multiple ways these days.

FUCKED in multiple ways. Lol, sorry about the typo!

R337 There are lots of crazy things happening in Britain.

It's getting crazier exponentially every year.

British pound is going to be worth USD$0.80 by this time next year.

On the bright side Wales, Ireland and Scotland are now all clamoring for a breakup of the UK.

Thanks, Tories!

R340 What would Jeremy do, dear?

Even the Labour stalwarts are deserting the sinking ship.

Little Britain just doesn't have quite the cachet as Great

nor does United Kingdom of England and Wales

but at least they will be white

r342, there are already 3 million south Asians, and 2 million black people in Britain. In total, 7.5 million people living in Britain are from elsewhere, mostly non-European places, and represent 12-13% of the population. They aren't going anywhere, although I'm certain there are plenty of Britons who wished they would. I'm certain some of the Brexit energy comes from people who have this fantasy, but there's nothing in Brexit demanding the expulsion of all non-white people living in Britain.

I'm surprised it's only 12% non-white. Watching British tv shows, you'd think the non-white population of Britain was around 40%.

R344 - Part of the issue is government (which is to say Arts Council) funding for programmes: to get that funding, you have to show that you are "reaching out" to "underserved" populations, which means creating roles for BAME actors even when it flies in the face of artistic or current demographic reality. If you're filming a detective or mystery or crime or drama series set in London or Birmingham or Manchester or Bradford, it makes sense, as those are places where the BAME population are clustered. But Britain as a country is still 79%-80% white, and in the countryside and places like Cornwall and Devon and East Anglia the figure is even higher. It is when they insert a BAME role into any and every show ,even when it is doesn't remotely reflect the reality of those places that it becomes absurd, sacrificing one population's reality to the sociopolitical agenda of another's.

Funding is a major issue especially for "high art" programming, e.g., the Hollow Crown series that covered the Wars of the Roses, from Richard II-Richard III (the series disappointed me on many levels, not least the switching about of lines from one character to another especially in Henry VII and Richard III). If you want government funding/Arts Council funding for that kind of programming, you can no longer have an all-white cast, even if it reflects the historical reality.

The intention is understandable, but my own view is that art isn't well-served when it has to knuckle under sociopolitical doctrine, cf. what happened to artists under Communist rule who couldn't express any view that didn't reflect the government's party line.

One should be able to serve art and diversity of opportunity at the same time.

This is a digression from the Johnson story, sorry.

Back to that, I think the next thing to watch is tomorrow's Brecon by-election in Wales. It will reflect the divisions in the country at large, given that the frontrunners are diametrically opposed in policy. For those outside the UK, Wales voted LEAVE.

Apparently, the odds on the Tories pulling it out in the Brecon by election today were greatly shortened due to Johnson's "poll bounce". Interestingly, Brecon's BREXIT vote was exactly the same as the country's: 52% LEAVE, 48% REMAIN.

If the Tories do pull this out, it will represent a major win for Johnson. Polls close in three hours. We shall see.

[quote]If the Tories do pull this out, it will represent a major win for Johnson.

Ooopsies!

[QUOTE] If they've gone to British schools, have learned British English, have learned about common law, the Magna Carta, and Parliament, can recited the Kings and Queens of England, have learned to eat marmite and kippers and chips, and know how to queue, they are as British as any farmer from Yorkshire.

Are you actually 90 years old? Nobody eats kippers anymore, or learns the names of more than a handful of Tudor and Stewart kings.

If you're not insulted when someone calls you Joey Deacon, you're definitely NOT a Brit.

[QUOTE] If language is a problem, the children of the immigrants will have mastered English and English society by the end of their first year in school. I have friends who have just moved here from Ireland...

I can assure you that they don't master English within a year. I was at school with some and it took them around five years to be able to hold a decent conversation.

I wish the British had taught Asian Indians how to use English properly. It would have saved me many hours of trying to decipher communication from them. Do the needful, Brits.

British DLers, under the Parliamentary system, could the Liberal Democrats create a coalition with Labour and form a government, if together they outnumber Tories? And if that's the case, is it automatic that the one of those parties with the most seats will select the Prime Minister, or is there some negotiation around that issue? I see Corbyn as an obstacle to Labour winning a majority, but maybe there's a charismatic Liberal Democrat waiting in the wings?

[quote]could the Liberal Democrats create a coalition with Labour and form a government

Not only would they be short of a majority, the coalition of the two would still be less than the Conservatives. You have to take into account other parties and independents.

R352, the Lib Dems have already ruled out entering into a coalition with Labour if Corbyn is leading. I can't imagine the purists in Momentum would allow Labour to sully themselves by forming a collation with the centrist Fib Dems, either. And of course it all depends on a successful vote of no confidence and Labour wouldn't support such a call if it came from the Lib Debs or SNP and Corbyn doesn't seem especially motivated to call a vote himself.

Corbyn is better off with the Conservatives on the precipice rather than strengthened after an election.

thanks, r353.

Johnson has a reputation for brashness, bombast, bending the truth, and really bad hair, which has earned him more than a few comparisons to President Donald Trump (who also happens to be a fan of his). Is this true?

An interesting night in Wales. Labour had a complete disaster and nearly lost its deposit. Farage had quite a good night: the BREXIT party gained 10+%, almost the exact amount the Tories lost from their last election there, and he demonstrated the BREXIT party's ability to siphon critical votes away from the Tories. If the BREXIT party was more interested in getting BREXIT done than its own power, it wouldn't have stood in this by-election, and those votes added to the Tories' would likely have given the Tories the victory. The BREXIT party pushed Labour into fourth place - that's no small feat.

This will force Johnson to consider talking to Farage and bringing the BREXIT party into the fold, something he has been reluctant to do. There is talk that if Johnson had brought Farage into the fold as soon as got into Downing Street, with some "advisor" position or the like, Farage might not have fielded a candidate in this by-election.

No honour amongst thieves, as they say. This town voted LEAVE and it's interesting that both REMAIN and LEAVE parties did well. The total LEAVE vote is greater than that of the actual victors, leaving feckless Labour, still uncommitted in its BREXIT message (Corbyn is a confirmed eurosceptic, which doesn't help), in what can only be described as a humiliating position last night.

It's like that Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

[quote]If the BREXIT party was more interested in getting BREXIT done than its own power, it wouldn't have stood in this by-election, and those votes added to the Tories' would likely have given the Tories the victory.

It was interesting that an early version of an AP story about the results pointed out that the Conservative + Brexit vote would have won, and the story covered the effect of losing the seat without any attempt at stating that the Lib Dem victory had any other significance. A later version of the story removed the fact that the Conservative + Brexit vote was greater than the Lib Dem and inserted that the Lib Dem victory was a meaningful rejection of Brexit. There's no honest media in the MSM.

It's hare to predict how votes will align in a 4-way contest, if the options were reduced to three. People MIGHT have been Leavers vs. remainers, but it's not necessarily true that they would have voted Conservative if they had not had the choice of Brexit, because there are some remainer conservatives, and leavers in Labour. Or, they might have just gone with the more intelligent or photogenic candidate.

This was an interesting article on Johnson, Brexit, and the potential breakup of the UK by Luke McGee Would love opinions on this article by British DLers.

The only thing that’s going to break up is the Tory party. British politics will splinter further. In reality, both the major parties are over though Labour may survive in name only. The Tories are finished, taken down by their own right-wing extremism which the British do not have the stomach for. There isn’t going to be a No-Deal Brexit and once Brexit is off the table there will be no need for the Brexit Party. Nobody will want to be reminded of 3 - 4 years of utter stupidity.

R363 You say 'the Tories are finished' but that 'Labour may survive in name only'.

Well, that's the same as each other.

R362 How will Brexit just be off the table? Will there be a second referendum or will the power just act like it never happened?

[quote]Will there be a second referendum or will the power just act like it never happened?

Not saying they can completely ignore it, but legally it *is* a non-binding referendum...

They could easily ignore it if they chose. BUT the UK did formally begin process of leaving the EU. They would have to take formal steps to end that process and some of those might require parliament

They can’t just throw away people’s votes. That’s dangerous. The country voted and decided and as it is now, Brits would still vote for Brexit. The Brexit Party did well.

Actually, yes, they can, and no, it's not. It was a non-binding resolution and refusing to move forward with it would cause less harm then moving forward. There are reasons why we don't run national governments by plebiscite.

also the vote was to "leave" without any specifics as to what that would mean and under what conditions it would occur.

a "hard exit leave" (which is probably the only one they're likely to get) could well be defeated now that the implications are much clearer.

I would not be at all surprised to find that the hard Brexit will occur. The EU isn't going to negotiate and Johnson has too much ego tied up in this, not to mention nationalist extremism on the part of his followers, to simply let it die. I'd say the odds are better than even that the UK will exit on October 31st.

That remains separate from whether that's a good idea, of course. The one good thing is that this will all be on Johnson. He cannot avoid the consequences of his actions.

wow, only two weeks ago Boorish said the chances of a hard exit were a million to one

seems the brits are as gullible and as stupid as the yanks

[quote]seems the brits are as gullible and as stupid as the yanks

Don't drag us into this. If I recall correctly, you begged to be in the EU. France, twice, blocked the UK from entering. So when you're finally let into the club, you're whining to get back out? Make up your damn minds.

elect clowns....get a circus

In 2005 we had a European referendum. The French vote was NO. The French gvt decided that was just an opinion and just got on with it.

The name "constitution" got scrapped and replaced with "treaty". I'd say that's a pretty big win, French deplorable.

The British didn’t vote for Boris. The hard right faction of his party did.

Boris doesn’t have the votes in parliament for a hard Brexit. As soon as the summer recess is over the fight will begin to have his government removed by a vote of no confidence. His skeezy advisor, Dominic Cummings, thinks they can prorogue parliament during the GE by having Boris refuse to resign and crash out while parliament is not in session - or something like that. Then somehow hold the election after the 31st and remain in Downing Street? It is truly bonkers.

Prepare for embarrassing scenes of very high drama.

Referendums are legally nonbinding but the political ramifications of ignorine one that was billed by the government as "the most important vote you will ever make" would be untold damage to the government's already badly damaged integrity. Parliament gave its assent to the referendum and promised publicly to "respect the outcome". Millions of pounds were spent on the campaign leading up to the referendum, which was promised at a time when no one thought LEAVE could win. In effect, Parliament was hoist with its own petard.

But having done so, and passed Article 50, Parliament cannot reverse the decision except by voting to revoke Article 50, which will also make a mockery of its promises and enrage the people who voted LEAVE in good faith. The House also agreed to the extension until 31 October. So, legally, with no Withdrawal Agreement before the House, it's either revoke Article 50 or the UK exits the EU at midnight on 31 October.

Bringing down the Johnson government is the other alternative, which will trigger a general election. And the truth its, I don't think the electorate has the stomach for it.

Johnson was elected PM because his party is (at least for the moment) the one in power. Thus, being elected leader of the Tories made him automatically PM. Bringing down governments isn't a foolproof solution, either.

Every poll taken shows Johnson, whatever his flaws, to be 20 points more favoured as PM than Jeremy Corbyn. So a general election would throw the country into more schism and more conflict, and what if Johnson gets elected with a majority again?

In my view, the government has to swallow the dregs of the cup it mixed for itself and then clean up the mess it made. I've said it before and will do so again: Cameron should be hanged in Parliament Square for allowing this referendum in the first place.

i would prefer drawn and quartered for that idiot cameron

Agree, R277, to override the original referendum outcome would be fatal... damage government and politics around the world. People are so alienated from the systems now. To act undemocratically would be lethal.

it ain't "undemocratic" if a binding resolution (unlike the first) were to pass and "no hard exit" won

R380 - "No hard exit" amidst how many other choices? Leave the EU but stay in the customs union? Leave the EU but stay in the single market like Norway? Stay in the EU?

Your estimation of the attention span of the electorate is far higher than mine. WIll the electorate understand that "no hard BREXIT" could leave the country in as bad a position as anything else? You think voters understand the differences between staying in the customs uinion (the worst of both world's, a hard BREXIT is far preferable) or staying Norway-style in the single market (you still have to agree to the Four Freedoms) . . .

Detailed questions like those are rarely put in a referendum for obvious reasons.

The path to BREXIT was constructed over the last 40 years. When other bloc countries took advantage of the sunset limits on migration upon first entering, Blair threw open Britain's doors, insisting that "we" needed the workers; well, if we did, it's because we didn't prepare our own for the modern workforce because it costs money to do that and bringing in cheap labour from abroad is . . . well, cheaper. It's the shortcut.

Every time you look behind one door in this mess, you find another one.

Referendums don't lend themselves to nuance or complexity. That's why the questions are simple. What should have been nuanced were the approaches the government took to just about everything. Had they paid the slightest attention to voter concerns, things might have gone differently.

But it didn't. And now we'll all pay a price for it.

They didn't call Cameron "Dodgy Dave" for nothing. He lied like he breathed - remember when he said he would bring immigration down to the tens of thousands, "No ifs, no buts, and if I don't kick me out of office!" Well, he didn't and we more or less did kick him out of office.

He knew the moment he said that he not only wouldn't be able to, he didn't want to, the business community would have been on him like terriers on a rat.

May did the same thing, then purred sadly when she didn't how "disappointed" she was, as if, you know it was some sort of Act of God.

Johnson looks crazier than these two, but I dunno - in refusing to go back to the "immigration targets" game, he showed some sense.

May and Cameron were dumber and crazier than they looked, Johnson may (emphasis on the word "may") turn out to be less so than he looks.

"No Deal Brexit" was the strongest card the UK had to play, and May tossed it away before she even got to the negotiating table.

Generally, I'm terrible at cards, but I'd have loved to sit down to poker for a couple of hours with Theresa May.

Unless you know something different about capitalism than I do, it is an economic system predicated on population increase. Without immigration, Britain's population would be in decline. What happens to countries with declining populations.? Ask Japan, an economic and industrial powerhouse. Britain's industrial regions have been struggling since the end of WWII. That struggle didn't begin with immigration, but with the loss of an empire and the ready market that provided for industrial output. Both the leaders and the working population of Britain were unprepared for that drastic change. I realize that all of this will be lost upon 3rd generation unemployed or underemployed of Birmingham, who will look to blame immigrants on their inability to get factory work, but really, they had little or nothing to do with it.

Just as in America, it's racism at the heart of British fear of immigration that has little or nothing to do with economic realities.

one of the truest observations ever made about race in America was from President Johnson more that 50 years ago, and is as true today as ever:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.".

I suspect if you substituted "immigrant" for "colored man" it would be just as apt in the UK

[quote]Referendums are legally nonbinding but the political ramifications of ignorine one that was billed by the government as "the most important vote you will ever make" would be untold damage to the government's already badly damaged integrity.

Said "damage" will have its stereotypical "15 minutes of fame" and then disappear as new "untold damage" shows up in future.

[quote]to override the original referendum outcome would be fatal....

To whom, precisely, and in what way?

[quote]damage government and politics around the world.

Wow.... you're really full of yourself, aren't you? I do hate to disappoint you but the UK just isn't that important. "Politics around the world" will be completely unaffected.

[quote]To act undemocratically would be lethal.

Again, to whom, precisely, and in what way?

"fog in channel, continent cut off"

we'll always love you Little Britain

r381

[QUOTE]insisting that "we" needed the workers; well, if we did, it's because we didn't prepare our own for the modern workforce because it costs money to do that and bringing in cheap labour from abroad is . . . well, cheaper. It's the shortcut.

Can the same be said of the US? Other than the human rights reasons many who support immigration into America say the workforce is needed because the young are ill equipped to help fill the gaps.

r386 the argument is that native-born Americans are unwilling to do the unskilled jobs, so that's why lots of immigration is needed.

Wonder how true that is when I also hear that younger Americans can't find jobs.

Is it better to work at Starbucks and wait tables than to learn a trade or do a little manual labor?

Americans are still learning trades, it's the jobs like picking fruit and that kind of thing they won't do.

The UK never wanted to be part of a political union and France and Germany do. It's inevitable that the UK would separate from the EU. As many people have stated, France and Germany should be celebrating, and trying to expel the UK quickly, so they can go their different path without hindrance.

Sure, Jan. Go get American college kids (or any young people) to pick crops in the fields, clean people's houses, bathe and tend the elderly, shop prepare serve and clean up meals, manicure lawns, dig the sprinkler trenches, for less than minimum wage.

You know - all the shit work for shit pay that the white supremacists are supposedly so fucking pissed off that they don't get to do anymore.

Let us know how it goes when you find America, R388, dear. We'll keep an eye out for you.

France is a country of spaz trolls.

France is a country of spaz trolls.

Hats off to Liz

R382 - And yet, Britain's populatino is projected to increase to nearly 80 million within 20 years. It doesn't matter who they are - what is going to happen in terms of space, housing, schools, health services - in the places people all seem to want to live, getting the kiddies places in the local comp is turning into a frenzied nightmare. Britain;s birth rate may be falling, but I have also read that it could not add a single immigrant and in the next 20 years its population would increase by nearly 10 million, to nearly the size of Germany's.

Not every country in Europe is experiencing the same exact birthrate, and the problem hasn't been so much immigration as assimilation.

As an eldergay, I was none too pleased to see women in burqas and a mostly Muslim crowd outside those primary schools teaching young children that homosexual relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones.

I don't think it was a matter of immigration perse, but of too much immigration too fast without expectations of integration and assimilation.

If you can't find a place for your kid at the local comp in a hugely congested city, talking about the falling birthrate and broad economic trends is meaningless to most people. Whoever said all politics is local, was right.

No one wants to live in rural areas any longer - what would you have us do, pave over our beautiful contryside so we can turn all England into one vast London or Birmingham or Manchester?

The instantaneous accusation of racism at anyone objecting to loss of culture is specious. It's an easy cheap shot. Britain is no more racist that France, or Denmark, or Ameria, or Italy. There are cultural losses experienced by people in local communities with long-standing histories and roots.

Not every city or hamlet in the world was meant to be, or particularly is benfitted by, being like the Lower East Side of Manhattan between 1895-1930.

One size does not fit all. People in Cornwall and Denmark have as much right to determine their cultural environment as people in Nigeria and China.

It was very badly managed, as everything else seems to have been since the end of the war.

Britons are actually a fairly tolerant lot.

"As an eldergay, I was none too pleased to see women in burqas and a mostly Muslim crowd outside those primary schools teaching young children that homosexual relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones."y

This should have read: I was none too pleased to see women in burqas and a mostly Muslim crowd outside those primary schools PROTESTING teaching young children . . . "

R395

[quote]The instantaneous accusation of racism at anyone objecting to loss of culture is specious. It's an easy cheap shot.

Oh honey, if the jackboot fits.....

You're dressing up boilerplate neonazi "replacement" ideology with pretentious six-dollar words.

R397 - You're obviously too young to have ever seen those in real jackboots. You should get out more and meet some real Nazis. Then you might be able to tell the difference.

And I notice you didn't address the question of why it is perfectly fine for Nigeria to be 99% black African, but wrong for Denmark to want to remain white European.

Nor did you address the issue of space in the cities where everyone wants to live, the pressures on water, housing, health services, schools, etc.

But then you wouldn't, would youy? It's so much easier to call anyone who doesn't agree with you Open Borders lot a neonazi.

And for the record, sirrah, I am not your "honey". And I am old enough (just) to remember my capital city when it was being attacked by real Nazis, not people with legitimate questions about the pace and levels of immigration without suggesions of integration.

It's the crowd protesting the teaching that homosexuality is natural and all right that are the Nazis, trying to impose their religious views on the English schools system.

And you're blocked.

The reason nobody addressed your "issues" is that you provided absolutely no data to back them up. You simply made random, not to mention more than a little racist, assertions and expected us to take them seriously. And then you get all pissy when someone, quite correctly, points out that the coded language you're using does, in fact, place you firmly in the racist camp.

If you don't want to be called a racist, then stop using racist language. Is that really so difficult for you?

Tiny little England already has a population of 55 million, which is kind of crazy for a country that size when you think about it. That's a helluva lot of resources and a huge carbon footprint. Perhaps a reduction in population would be a good thing.

r400 no worries. After a hard Brexit, you'll have a million jobs or so leaving England for the continent - mostly in banking and financial services, which has been the high point of the British economy for the past 4 decades. That means there'll be a huge out-migration of the English to whichever other countries will accept them, as the crashing economy will force others to leave to find work in other sectors as well.

r395 must be reading different projections than I have. I have read that with current levels of immigration, Britain's population could reach 75 million by 2041 - without it, no more than 70 million in 2041. I'm linking my source. If ALL immigration ceased, Britain's population would gain only one million from what it is today in 2041 - about 67 million vs 66 million

Positives for Britain include a temperate climate, especially in these times of global warming, a land without tall mountains or other impediments to travel or building, and up until the past 10 years, a relatively stable and effective form of representative democracy. It also has decent infrastructure for transportation and water/sewer delivery. So, when it's no longer in the top tier of nations for economic activity and output, (it will probably slide out of the top 10 after a hard Brexit) it will remain a vacation destination and a place for people to have second homes, sort of like Spain or Ireland.

r389 are we sure? How many even know that's a job available to them?

You know r391 the pay is so shitty because minorities and illegals are doing the work. Ever consider that the last thing that industry would want is Americans who might unionize the job to do that work?

Corporations essentially want slave labor. Hence, illegals. No living wage, no insurance and god forbid NO UNIONS.

It's all so fucked.

[quote]Britain's population is projected to increase to nearly 80 million within 20 years.

That's nuts for a country that small. The UK needs to work on population control.

[quote] Tiny little England already has a population of 55 million, which is kind of crazy for a country that size when you think about it. That's a helluva lot of resources and a huge carbon footprint. Perhaps a reduction in population would be a good thing.

England is 130,279 sq km (50,301 sq mi). The population of the UK is about 65.7 million. The population of England is about 53 million.

Bangladesh is 56,977 sq miles, population 164.7 million (2017)

so all the bangladeshis could move to england and fit right in?

does farage know?

There really is nobody pissier than a racist being called out for their racism, is there?

[quote]And for the record, sirrah, I am not your "honey".

I guess we'll have to settle on "bitch".

[quote]And I am old enough (just) to remember my capital city when it was being attacked by real Nazis, not people with legitimate questions about the pace and levels of immigration without suggesions of integration.

If true, it's doubly pathetic that you'd endure the Nazis the first time around, then eagerly crawl into bed with their descendants.

Block away. I couldn't care less; I know you'll read this anyway. Just take some time to contemplate who your new bunk buddies are.

r406, you’re proving the point that no country would want let itself become so overpopulated that it becomes like Bangladesh.

Actually, I think his point is that there is no possible way that England will ever be as densely populated as Bangladesh. First of all, the birth rate in England is 1/2 or less the birthrate in Bangladesh, and in fact is not even close to replacement level. (1.7 average births per woman, to be precise). Even with the most immigration possible under current policy, Britain would only have 77 million people in 2041. And since immigration has been tightening in the past two years, it's much more likely that low estimates of immigrants will be the correct ones. England is also on an island. People can't really swim there, and there's no actual border to walk across, therefore the British government will always have a strong level of control over people coming into the country - entering Britain has to happen by boat, airplane, or train. Security at these entry points could or can fairly easily prevent illegal migration and current policies are limiting legal immigration.

Britain's population today is 65 million, not 55 million, and the problem is where the populations are clustered, as mentioned above. Everyone wants to live in the big cities now - that's where the jobs are, opportunities are, most of the cultural stuff is centred . . . no one will answer me about what the plans are to address the shortates of water looming especially in London, the pressures on housing, schools, health services, social services . . . Britain isn't the only country in the West suffering from this, of course - but it's also an island. It's not American or Canada and it's not Russia, it's not even Germany.

Immigration at sensible levels is one thing; but using cheap immigrant labour to feed the profits of Big Business rather than bringing up the education system so it prepares everyone for the modern workforce is another.

I'm not blaming the immigrants: this is, as always, the fault of governments in the pockets of business and the voters who keep voting in those same politicians who trumpet phrases like "A Britain that Works for Everyone" and then go back to business as usual once in office. So the voters and the society at large are making decisions whether they admit it to themselves or not.

In fairness, our choices here have never been especially compelling. It's why even the mildest of us begin to think longingly of millions with pitchforks and torches in our hands storming Westminster Palace.

[quote]Immigration at sensible levels is one thing; but using cheap immigrant labour to feed the profits of Big Business rather than bringing up the education system so it prepares everyone for the modern workforce is another.

Amen

I could kiss you 411.

Very sensible post r411, you make a lot of sense. Now just wait to be called a racist.

R414 - Oh, I'm used to it. The problem with the immigration conversation is that you can't have one without being called a racist, especially when the issue of cultural integration comes up.

Very true 415.

And this is when I saw the reality in the criticism toward the left. Just knee jerk reaction to anything they are sensitive to without really hearing what is being said to them. It also made me wonder if some brainwashing wasn't going on by constantly pushing this subject into the mainstream with no discussion about repercussions or the causes of this issue. Shocking to me no one cares about that just blindly supporting without discussion.

[quote]And this is when I saw the reality in the criticism toward the left. Just knee jerk reaction to anything they are sensitive to without really hearing what is being said to them.

Just look at Datalounge, even in this very thread. It's always the knee-jerk "racist!" accusations to try and shut down a legitimate debate.

And they'll be here soon enough to prove the point even further.....

Not really, R417, as we've seen, you are beyond reach, so, personally, I'm not inclined to play your silly games today. I will simply note that the posts at r415, r416, and yours are pure fantasy, particularly R416.

^^Yup, this cunt. Right on schedule.

Like I said, silly games.

Silly games? Like doing nothing but arguing and name-calling? Do something useful and refute r411's post if you're so right about everything.

To make a "career" on this site with just the use of cut and paste and rudimentary trolling with very little intellect and NO style or humour is, I suppose for you, another feat. Bravo.

R411, as has been the case in every one of his lengthy posts on this thread, provided no actual data, R421, so there is literally nothing to refute.

Like I said: silly games. And there's r422, right on schedule.

And with that, I return you to your regularly scheduled circle jerk. Do have fun, won't you? And feel free to congratulate yourselves on your accomplishments on this thread and how wonderfully unwoke you are with this "legitimate debate."

Bitch you say absolutely nothing, just attack people. Good riddance from this thread, then. Let the adults talk.

No 10 aides suggest 'a general election could happen days after the UK leaves on October 31

Definitely a possibility r426.

Could someone please summon the Queens' Guards, we have two who need to be escorted from the palace

Could someone please summon the Queens' Guards, we have two who need to be escorted from the palace

As for the "why don't white people live in Nigeria but Nigerians get to live in Sweden?" argument I for one left that untouched because the sheer mind-numbering stupidity of the question was strong enough to destroy the time-space continuum.

never mind, the royal corgis are quite capable of handling feuding cats.

r430 that's not what the poster meant.

r411, the problem is that you blame the government for not educating the people to address the modern work force. I'm quite certain that for 20 years or more, the British school system has been promoting technical training, programming, and other STEM subjects. Here's the reality. Lots of people are not interested in learning those subjects. Lots of people are not intelligent to do well in those subjects. You wouldn't approach a group of 100 people and say, "ok, if we give all of you piano lessons, in 15 years you'll all be concert pianists". We know intuitively that this is not going to work. Why not? Because most people don't have the discipline, the intelligence, or the innate talent. How is that the fault of the government? India, for example, has 1 billion people +. Half of its population is under the age of 25, which means that 500,000,000 people are under the age of 25. Even if only 2% of that half a billion have any talent or aptitude for STEM subjects, that means that 10,000,000 people in India are ready to compete in those fields, if they have any access to education at all. 10,000,000 is 1/6 the population of Britain. About 25% of British people are under the age of 25, which means that this age group in Britain numbers about 15,000,000. If we use the same proportion as we made up for India (of 2% having talent and aptitude for STEM subjects), this means that that group in Britain would number 300,000. 300,000 vs 10,000,000. If Britain continues to want to be competitive in the world in these STEM fields, it's going to need more than 300,000 native born British children and teens working in those fields. The answer doesn't lie in trying to force the other 14,700,000 people under the age of 25 to magically become skilled in these areas. People with these skill sets will need to be imported in sufficient numbers to make STEM field British companies competitive on the world stage, or else relegate their nation to a niche production kind of place, like Swiss people making watches a century ago. .

The problem is that people in Britain want to earn the salaries and have the prestige of these high-paying STEM jobs, without having acquired the skills. They resent being paid less to be pub workers, store clerks, managerial assistants, and all the other service jobs they are well-equipped to do. They grouse about the unfairness of foreigners taking the jobs that should have rightfully been theirs, but the reality is, they don't have the skills to do those jobs, and they wouldn't have had those skills even if there were no foreigners in the country. Their parents, in many cases, were factory workers or industrial workers, were unionized, and had decent pay and decent benefits. I feel quite certain that in many cases, they did not encourage their children to strive for a different kind of education or to aspire to a different kind of life. The threat or memory of starvation gives a little more motivation for that sort of change. I would be astounded if you were able to link some credible sources showing that British natives, well-trained in STEM fields are losing out to foreigners (immigrants).

I wish I could be there October 31st. There should be a lot of festivities and partying,

I wish I could be there November 30th. There should be lots of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

433 What I know is when I recently had trouble with my AT&T (in California) provided internet I talked to a man with a very heavy Indian accent because those jobs had been exported to India long time ago. Why couldn't we have exported those jobs to England (since we're giving away jobs)? At least I would have been better able to understand what the fuck the person on the other end of the phone was saying. Do you think India got those jobs because they are being paid less than British or Americans would make doing the same job?

R433 - R436 is right. Everywhere you speak to people, when you have to call the big companies for tech help, you get connected to India. It's about lower costs and bigger profits, no matter how you slice it. Not that that is any different from ever was. It took a long time to gety chilc labour laws passed because they earned less, too. I'm not saying this is anything new. I'm saying that new or old, blaming an entire workforce for their own woes is just as off as blaming all the immigrants.

And your post is vastly over-simplified. Immigrant labour from Eastern Europe were willing to work for far less in the construction arena, and when Labour went canvassing in the Heywood and Middleton by election 2014 (they nearly lost to UKIP, there had to be a recount, there former 8,000 vote majority was cut to little more tham 600 votes), what they heard from housewives on the doorstep is that their construction worker husbands now also had to work for half what they did before. Those men weren't unskilled or unwilling to work - their couldn't compete with men living ten to a room who were sending most of the money back home. That's what happened in Boston, Linc. Local rents went up because of the deman from Eastern European workers, quality of life changed . . . governments neglect to address these issues because they don't want to address them. If the CBI and the BoE and the City boys are happy,that's all that counts.

Naturally, the local and native population expect to be paid better - are they wrong for expecting decent wages and benefits?

British schools have fallen in quality compared to other places. It was never a really equitable system between the local comps and grammar schools, but I do think it used tro be better. It costs time, money, planning, and making tough decisions to shift school systems. I wouldn't say Britain has made a good job of that in donkey's years.

But it isn't alone. Finland's schools don't keep coming out on top accidentally. In America, the quality of schools are determined by the local inhabitant's tax bracket. Schools in wealthy areas are good, schools in poor areas aren't. In Finland, everyone gets the same quality school, and the income inequity isn't so vast.

It's a different value system. Larger countries in the West like America and Britain should be doing much, much better than they are.

They never listened when it came to immigration, 437. I remember back in the early 2000s there was a series of petitions that numbered in the hundreds of thousands, that were delivered to Downing Street from areas where immigration was causing the biggest impact. All that Labour under Tony Blair did was to make a few useless platitudes in the press, and the business of unlimited immigration continued on as before.

I’ve always felt that Brexit was a vote on immigration as much as it was on membership of the EU.

[quote]I wish I could be there November 30th. There should be lots of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

Will Remainers always be that way, or will they move on?

I think the poster upthread meant 1 November, not 30 November re the gnashing and wailing.

The veneer of democracy, especially a representative democracy, is pretty thin. It's probably better than in was in 1319, but still - no one asked the UK voters and taxpayers what level of immigration they wanted. The government knew there were concerns and ignored them. Some years ago the ONS after taking some surveys said that politicians who ignored the rising concerns were going to pay a large price for it, and they were right. Problem is, the rest of us paid the price for it, too, and BREXIT is on the sticker.a w

Ah well, perhaps it will go better than we think.

when little england, rid of all those dusky immigrants, can once again be a green and pleasant land

R441 - Actually, you cunt, the problem was Eastern European immigrants re the workforce, who were all white and Christian, or haven't you visited Poland recently?

r442, given the thousands and thousands and thousands of threads and posts on DL coming from British DLers about the Muslims (and to a lesser extent the African and West Indies blacks in London), and how they were ruining Britain, how could r441 have possibly guessed that every last bit of British working class resentment was aimed at the Poles? Because, I certainly couldn't have...

Where were our Britons last night?

and those satanic mills, making cars for export will also be gone

[quote]Actually, you cunt, the problem was Eastern European immigrants re the workforce, who were all white and Christian, or haven't you visited Poland recently?

Pakistani immigrants were invading England long before the Poles could even get their shoes on and cross the border.

And you're a fine one to be calling someone a See You Next Tuesday!

most green, most pleasant

Stoke-on-Trent 2035

Polish plumbers are the best, they really know how to lay pipe

R443 - I wouldn't know about "thousands and thousands", and there probably are resentments against demographic shifts - there are always both gains and losses in huge demographic shifts but anyone even mentioning the losses is instantly labeled a racist, which is why the conversation couldn't even be started. But the topic at hand on this thread was pressure on working-class wages, and this thread is about elections. I raised the Heywood Middleton by-election, and Labour's near-death experience in it, for that reason: if you didn't follow it, that's your proyblem. But for obvious reasons, I did. And in the aftermat h, Labour admitted that it hadn't any answer for doorstep canvassing in which women pointed to the (almost entirely Eastern European, and mostly Polish) EU migrant workforce exerting pressure on their husband's wages. It was what Americans I think call a "kitchen table" issue. Equally, the situation in Boston, Linc., once a quiet seaside town and now filled with rooming houses packed with Eastern European labourers whose presence drove up rents.

The problem with this conversation is that it never has nuance. The Heywood Middleton by-election highlighted one aspect of the problem, another area of the country would highlight another aspect of it - e.g., the uncovering of the grooming gang scandal in Rotherham, in which a Labour council as well as the local police threw thousands of young Anglo girls to the wolves for more than a decade because no one wanted to be accused of racism toward Muslims. y It is, as I mentioned earlier, a complicated issue, and it's not one unified picture everywhere you look. The EU and its dedication to its "four freedoms" should have been more flexible and realised that if a policy is working well for Poland and Romania, but not for the countries its workers are flooding into, there should be some framework for revisiting the policy. Had they done so when Cameron came calling in February 2016, BREXIT could have been avoided.

But as far as the anti-migrant sentiment goes, especially in the post-industrial northeast: those migrants were overwhelmingly white, Christian, Eastern European, particularly from Poland.

I know it's more fun to oversimplify and call everyone questioning the motives of anyone questioning how immigration and migration was handled in a country that never was America, but it really is a mult-faceted issue here.