Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Thread Split! Culture Cup Rules!

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

Who knows? He's refusing to discuss it. For some reason.

Yes, but you clearly think it's significant. So, what was it he was doing, in your mind?

That's for him to explain. Which he's refusing to do. He did, however, arrange for some old photo of him and his partner being all loving to be release in selected newspapers. Purely a coincidence, though.

You could be a politician just like him. Talk about avoiding the question. I'm not asking you what he says he was doing; I'm asking you what you think 'get off me' means here. Given the avoidance of an answer, I think it confirms what I suspected and the fact you know it's supported by no evidence whatsoever, but plays to your bias re. opinions of Johnson. I get it, but I don't agree with it. And we wonder why the Orange Man is in the White House and Brexit is the mess it is....

I think this tet-a-tet might be going to break a record of some kind.

I'm excited to be witnessing this attempt.

SecretFly wrote:I think this tet-a-tet might be going to break a record of some kind.

It's certainly sounding like a broken record.

lostinwales wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:...

Every MP who voted against the deal, regardless of their reasons, has jeopardised Brexit happening at all.

You say it like that is a bad thing.

The people who jeopardised the country let alone Brexit are the people who activated article 50 without a plan or a feckin clue. That some MP's are stll buying into no deal brexit like it is some kind of religious faith is a cause of deep shame to this country, but the lack of clarity, of any kind of plan to back up the promises of the referendum campaign have left us with a situation where there is no agreement on what it should be, and no time to do anything about it.

There is now no Brexit that can actually work. I am not sure there ever was. But there is also little sign of any end to the hopeless actions of our politicians as they do anything they can to avoid this simple truth.

I think there would have been support for a 'soft' Brexit if the government hadn't been so stubborn and secretive and antagonistic from the start - saying effectively 'it's our Brexit' and resisting any assistance from other parties, or even Tory backbenchers. Now though, it's as though only a hard Brexit counts as Brexit, which is absurd. All that Brexit requires is for us no longer to be a member state of the EU.

As to whether it happens at all now, I don't see how it can without the people being asked again, or an election being called and the new parliament having a majority in favour of the existing deal, some new deal (if such a thing is possible) or leaving with no deal.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

Who knows? He's refusing to discuss it. For some reason.

Yes, but you clearly think it's significant. So, what was it he was doing, in your mind?

That's for him to explain. Which he's refusing to do. He did, however, arrange for some old photo of him and his partner being all loving to be release in selected newspapers. Purely a coincidence, though.

You could be a politician just like him. Talk about avoiding the question. I'm not asking you what he says he was doing; I'm asking you what you think 'get off me' means here. Given the avoidance of an answer, I think it confirms what I suspected and the fact you know it's supported by no evidence whatsoever, but plays to your bias re. opinions of Johnson. I get it, but I don't agree with it. And we wonder why the Orange Man is in the White House and Brexit is the mess it is....

Bloody hell mate. I don't know what "get off me" meant in this context. Only him and his Mrs know that. I'm obviously not going to pull out some hitherto unseen piece of evidence. I'm also not claiming that he assaulted her in any way, despite your attempts to paint me as such.

However, the public has the right to know what went on as it's a very serious allegation. If he did assault her - AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT HE DID - does the fact that the assault occurred behind closed doors on a private property make it none of the public's business? I'm not saying he should go on trial here, just that he should explain what happened.

Look at Brexit and it is an all or nothing thing. Any exit from the EU with a deal either means tying Northern Ireland into an agreement they do not want or having a return of a Hard Border which nobody wants. That means impasse number one. Impasse number two is getting a deal through Westminster. I don't see it due to there being so many different factions who want their own outcome. Those that want a No Deal Brexit don't have a majority. Those that do not want to leave do not have a majority. Those that want May's Deal do not have a majority. Those that want a second referendum don't have a majority.

That being the case there will be a lot of people across the UK left disappointed whatever decision is taken. I can only see the following route taking place. Once BJ becomes PM and tries to steamroller through his dream of a No Deal Brexit and gets blocked by Westminster a General Election will be called. How the outcome of a General Election would alter things I do not know. Perhaps have each party having a clear mandate on what they will do with Brexit and the party that wins the majority of seats go with their Brexit plan without having to run it through Parliament (providing they this is agreed with the EU).

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps have each party having a clear mandate on what they will do with Brexit and the party that wins the majority of seats go with their Brexit plan without having to run it through Parliament (providing they this is agreed with the EU).

So after all that you said that rightly pinpointed all the friction areas and no-go areas that keeps this Brexit thing in the news for years, your final point is that the EU would have a controlling/consultative voice in any future upcoming British General Election?  That they'd have some kind of approval status, nodding approval for the majority party in that Election going with their manifesto-outlined Brexit plan without involving the Sovereign British Parliament that we've all been hearing about now for so many years? 'Parliament must be involved/heard/listened to on such a massive issue for the future of the UK!'

Now the majority party in the next election just have to agree with the EU that Parliament isn't required?

I wish you well with that concept Craig, in such an age when the entire Brexit issue happened because of presumed EU control of/interference in what should be the unique sovereign decisions of the UK.

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps have each party having a clear mandate on what they will do with Brexit and the party that wins the majority of seats go with their Brexit plan without having to run it through Parliament (providing they this is agreed with the EU).

So after all that you said that rightly pinpointed all the friction areas and no-go areas that keeps this Brexit thing in the news for years, your final point is that the EU would have a controlling/consultative voice in any future upcoming British General Election?  That they'd have some kind of approval status, nodding approval for the majority party in that Election going with their manifesto-outlined Brexit plan without involving the Sovereign British Parliament that we've all been hearing about now for so many years?  'Parliament must be involved/heard/listened to on such a massive issue for the future of the UK!'

Now the majority party in the next election just have to agree with the EU that Parliament isn't required?

I wish you well with that concept Craig, in such an age when the entire Brexit issue happened because of presumed EU control of/interference in what should be the unique sovereign decisions of the UK.

Perhaps I mis-worded the final part somewhat. Of course each party would have their mandate and plan on how to deal with Brexit but of course anything other than a No Deal Brexit would mean that the EU would obviously have to negotiate/agree to these new plans. Now at the moment the EU are adamant the deal on the table is the only one there and no more negotiations will be held. I take that with a pinch of salt. If the Tories lost that potential General Election (as looks odds-on) then I am sure the EU would consider opening up dialogue with a new party and new ideals on Brexit. Only time would tell.

Any deal would have to be approved by parliament, of course, but if the next government has a good working majority, it could get its deal through.

It still remains to be seen whether the 27 EU states would be prepared to grant a further extension beyond Hallowe'en.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Any deal would have to be approved by parliament, of course, but if the next government has a good working majority, it could get its deal through.

It still remains to be seen whether the 27 EU states would be prepared to grant a further extension beyond Hallowe'en.

The crux of the problem though is that all polls suggest no party will have an overall majority at the next election and the party with the most seats may be as much as 40 seats short of an overall majority.

The Irish Backstop MUST go. Simple. That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave. It's a hoodwink. It has had a specific designed purpose. Leavers know it's a set-up. The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Any deal would have to be approved by parliament, of course, but if the next government has a good working majority, it could get its deal through.

It still remains to be seen whether the 27 EU states would be prepared to grant a further extension beyond Hallowe'en.

The crux of the problem though is that all polls suggest no party will have an overall majority at the next election and the party with the most seats may be as much as 40 seats short of an overall majority.

There's no reason a coalition government wouldn't be able to get its deal through, if its majority is large enough to withstand a few dissenters. The question is whether the prospect of there ever being a new deal is pie in the sky.

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave.  It's a hoodwink.  It has had a specific designed purpose.  Leavers know it's a set-up.  The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.  

No deal will or should be agreed with the Backstop in place. Staggering that May actually even agreed to such a thing. I may be totally dense here but would a Hard Border really be the disaster it is perceived? Genuine question.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.

And the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of whom voted to remain, what about them?

A very good point but their opinion doesn't matter and nor does the majority of Scots who voted to remain. And that is where many have problem with the union. There are four countries that make up this union and two countries voted to Remain and two voted to Leave. But we are leaving. Kind of sticks in the craw when Scots were told nauseously post-2014 that Scotland was a valued partner of the UK and now we see how valued. Our opinion counts for Jack.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.

And the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of whom voted to remain, what about them?

I already said.... it's a ploy. I already said satisfactory agreement. I live right next to that border. I know all about it and its history and its violence. I say a satisfactory solution. The Backstop is not an agreement, it's a roadblock. Taking it away does not drop Northern Ireland back to the bad old days, it allows Real discussion on Real agreements. But yes, the 'back to the 70s' fear story is projected by those who champion the UK never leaving the EU - obviously so. It's politics.

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps have each party having a clear mandate on what they will do with Brexit and the party that wins the majority of seats go with their Brexit plan without having to run it through Parliament (providing they this is agreed with the EU).

So after all that you said that rightly pinpointed all the friction areas and no-go areas that keeps this Brexit thing in the news for years, your final point is that the EU would have a controlling/consultative voice in any future upcoming British General Election?  That they'd have some kind of approval status, nodding approval for the majority party in that Election going with their manifesto-outlined Brexit plan without involving the Sovereign British Parliament that we've all been hearing about now for so many years?  'Parliament must be involved/heard/listened to on such a massive issue for the future of the UK!'

Now the majority party in the next election just have to agree with the EU that Parliament isn't required?

I wish you well with that concept Craig, in such an age when the entire Brexit issue happened because of presumed EU control of/interference in what should be the unique sovereign decisions of the UK.

No. Having a deal with someone implies that both you and they agree to it. Have you agreed to my plan that you give me money?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave.  It's a hoodwink.  It has had a specific designed purpose.  Leavers know it's a set-up.  The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.  

No deal will or should be agreed with the Backstop in place. Staggering that May actually even agreed to such a thing. I may be totally dense here but would a Hard Border really be the disaster it is perceived? Genuine question.

The border is long and tangled with numerous crossing points and people on both sides who have built lives over being able to cross it without hindrance. Imagine putting up a hard border between Scotland and England? Or England and Wales?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave.  It's a hoodwink.  It has had a specific designed purpose.  Leavers know it's a set-up.  The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.  

No deal will or should be agreed with the Backstop in place. Staggering that May actually even agreed to such a thing. I may be totally dense here but would a Hard Border really be the disaster it is perceived? Genuine question.

A hard border would be one imposed.  Who would impose it?  The majority of UK citizens wouldn't be looking for it, regardless of they being Remain or Leave?  Would they?  
Ireland and the UK already had their relationship ties Before the creation of the EEC or EU.  Many of those ties engendered war and bloodshed but other aspects meant that we quite freely roamed back and forth between our Nations.  A construct like the EU calls halt?  Let them call halt.  I'd like to see them handle the PR on that one as the border between Ireland north and south is and always has been a uniquely Irish and British affair.  The EU really don't want to be erecting non-wanted hard borders on my island.  I really would be advising them it's not what they want to be proposing at any time.
Now Ireland itself?  Do the Irish, north or south want a hard border?  No.  None of them.  Not Nationalists and not Unionists.  Two separate entities already exist there.  You can say it's still all the EU but it's chalk and cheese administratively.  Different private tax rates, different corporate tax rates, different currency.  It happens with an open border.  Everything that's produced in this modern world can be tracked and traced.
Agreements are agreements.  Are there other places where the EU meets up with an external Nation and there is no hard border?  The Backstop just delays agreement - by design.

The EU don't want a Nation successfully Leaving its block.  That's the real reason behind all the roadblocks and supposed frustrations at how long it's all taking.  It's designed to be long.  It's designed to have people pulling their hair out.  That's it's purpose.  
If the UK pull out successfully with a good deal for them.  That's a blueprint that is repeatable.  And the longer the UK is out, the more other EU states will monitor its progress and weigh up how beneficial it is to remain in their 'enclosed' market space, combining 'sovereignty' and perhaps missing out on Nation specific trading deals with external Nations.  
The EU is terrified of the UK Leaving - terrified.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps have each party having a clear mandate on what they will do with Brexit and the party that wins the majority of seats go with their Brexit plan without having to run it through Parliament (providing they this is agreed with the EU).

So after all that you said that rightly pinpointed all the friction areas and no-go areas that keeps this Brexit thing in the news for years, your final point is that the EU would have a controlling/consultative voice in any future upcoming British General Election?  That they'd have some kind of approval status, nodding approval for the majority party in that Election going with their manifesto-outlined Brexit plan without involving the Sovereign British Parliament that we've all been hearing about now for so many years?  'Parliament must be involved/heard/listened to on such a massive issue for the future of the UK!'

Now the majority party in the next election just have to agree with the EU that Parliament isn't required?

I wish you well with that concept Craig, in such an age when the entire Brexit issue happened because of presumed EU control of/interference in what should be the unique sovereign decisions of the UK.

No. Having a deal with someone implies that both you and they agree to it. Have you agreed to my plan that you give me money?

So Boris doesn't agree with the Backstop. Simple. 'But May has!!!!!!'
Boris: "Is she sitting here? You're now negotiating with me. It will be an agreement with me. Both sides must agree. I don't agree with a Backstop. Your delaying tactics allowed me into office. I'm the new reality. We'll have to find something we agree with not something someone else agreed to."

Yeah. Try it Boris (provided you get in). It's worth a shot .

Unfortunately for Mr Johnson, he's answerable to parliament. If the government wants to do something - anything - and it doesn't have a majority for it, it doesn't happen. It's a monumental waste of time for all these leadership candidates to have pledged to take us out without a deal when there'll be a vote of no confidence in the prime minister that tries to do so.

The government requires the consent of parliament. That's exactly as it should be.

Election it is then?  Immediately new PM is named.  Election.

But then, narrow party interests stall that circus.  Hmmm, both Labour and Tories are wondering which of them the Brexit party might steal most votes from.  Oh hold on now, let's delay thoughts of elections too!

Christ - seems the only thing doable is go on the holidays until the middle of next year!  That might do the trick. Do nothing and a few more Remainers might hit voting age by then.......

SecretFly wrote:Election it is then?  Immediately new PM is named.  Election.

But then, narrow party interests stall that circus.  Hmmm, both Labour and Tories are wondering which of them the Brexit party might steal most votes from.  Oh hold on now, let's delay thoughts of elections too!

Christ - seems the only thing doable is go on the holidays until the middle of next year!  That might do the trick. Do nothing and a few more Remainers might hit voting age by then.......

Actually the real trick is threaten remain - and closer EU integration. A considerable number of Geoff Boycott types will become so enraged they'll probably drop dead on the spot.

Isn't that what's been happening since the day of the Referendum vote, lost?

"Hold on a sec, let's not be hasty here. We hear what the public said they wanted but maybe someoneis to blame here. Let's talk about that for a few months to waste some time. Who is to blame for the public voting Yes to Brexit? Then after that period, we'll lay the boot in and threaten no Brexit at all for the next three or four years! That'll learn'em!!!!"

Toddler Poll!  

That's it.  A Nationwide poll of how Toddlers intend to vote when they reach that age.  

"Boris!!!!!!  He's funny and like a...he's been like a clown.  I love him coz he's like a scruffy bunny"

"Shut it, kid!  Take her opinion off the list.  Next!"

SecretFly wrote:Isn't that what's been happening since the day of the Referendum vote, lost?

"Hold on a sec, let's not be hasty here.  We hear what the public said they wanted but maybe someoneis to blame here.  Let's talk about that for a few months to waste some time.  Who is to blame for the public voting Yes to Brexit?  Then after that period, we'll lay the boot in and threaten no Brexit at all for the next three or four years!  That'll learn'em!!!!"

Who do you imagine is doing the speaking?

Also, what was it that the public said that they wanted?

Who is doing the speaking:  The 'majority' Minority that cried and fretted, and went ape schidt when the result was announced.

What was it that the public said they wanted:  To stay in the EU and seek deeper integration immediately.  That's what the public said when they voted by a majority for Brexit.

We all know the answers to these questions, Super.  Why are you in the dark?  Were you away that day?

SecretFly wrote:"Boris!!!!!!  He's funny and like a...he's been like a clown.  I love him coz he's like a scruffy bunny"

That's why many Tory grannies are voting for him.

What did the public want?

Well some of the public voted for sunny uplands and unicorns. Some of the public voted to give that nasty government a bloody nose. Some of the public voted for £350m extra for the NHS. Some of the public voted based on a deep and long lasting mistrust of the EU. Some didn't vote at all, and the rest voted to stay.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:"Boris!!!!!!  He's funny and like a...he's been like a clown.  I love him coz he's like a scruffy bunny"

That's why many Tory grannies are voting for him.

Don't knock Grannies, Julius. I hope you still have yours. Great people, lots of brains. Know when they are being had. Fought for freedom before.

Maybe more people should talk to their grannies more rather than listening to the BBC?

lostinwales wrote:What did the public want?

Well some of the public voted for sunny uplands and unicorns. Some of the public voted to give that nasty government a bloody nose. Some of the public voted for £350m extra for the NHS. Some of the public voted based on a deep and long lasting mistrust of the EU. Some didn't vote at all, and the rest voted to stay.

English is a great auld language. It cuts things short when needed.

Bold = Most voted to Leave.

SecretFly wrote:Who is doing the speaking:  The 'majority' Minority that cried and fretted, and went ape schidt when the result was announced.

What was it that the public said they wanted:  To stay in the EU and seek deeper integration immediately.  That's what the public said when they voted by a majority for Brexit.

We all know the answers to these questions, Super.  Why are you in the dark?  Were you away that day?

And how then could that 'majority' Minority be responsible for the ongoing failure in delivering Brexit and be able to drive the narrative and control how Brexit is handled?

I think we're about 2 posts away from you claiming that this is some kind of George Soros led conspiracy?

A majority voted to leave. Fine. But there isn't a majority in parliament for any version of leaving. Thus we need a new parliament.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:But none of the play stuff matters at all. Their political leanings don’t matter. If a woman is screaming “get off me” while pouring banging can be heard during a domestic dispute in her own home, that’s a matter of public responsibility. The fact that it involved the prospective future PM makes it in the public interest.

No, it does not.

Sorry mate, but it absolutely does. If there is a chance that the next PM is a domestic abuser, it's in the public interest. Madness to claim otherwise.

Fine. We're entitled to differing opinions, but in my view this just reflects modern society i.e. we have a 'right' to know others' business. We don't and given there's no, you know, evidence, of any abuse etc here, it's just a row isn't it? Move along, nothing to see here...

This is the thing. It became everyone's business the minute they started arguing so loudly that multiple neighbours could hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that, unless hard, physical evidence of physical abuse can be produced, that nobody should have known about this domestic dispute? This is the future PM we're talking about here.

So what? It's not your business, or anyone elses either. Never mind.

You're right, it's not my business. I'm not a voting member of the British public.

But those that are deserve to know what kind of person will be in Number 10.

What? A man who can raise his voice in a blazing row like most of the rest of us? Wow. As I said, never mind.

*Sigh*

No, not because he raised his voice. Because he was involved in a domestic dispute during which a woman could be heard screaming "get off me". I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which I'm sure you're not.

And I ask you, again, what do you think 'get off me' meant here? What are you suggesting that Johnson was up to?

Who knows? He's refusing to discuss it. For some reason.

Yes, but you clearly think it's significant. So, what was it he was doing, in your mind?

That's for him to explain. Which he's refusing to do. He did, however, arrange for some old photo of him and his partner being all loving to be release in selected newspapers. Purely a coincidence, though.

You could be a politician just like him. Talk about avoiding the question. I'm not asking you what he says he was doing; I'm asking you what you think 'get off me' means here. Given the avoidance of an answer, I think it confirms what I suspected and the fact you know it's supported by no evidence whatsoever, but plays to your bias re. opinions of Johnson. I get it, but I don't agree with it. And we wonder why the Orange Man is in the White House and Brexit is the mess it is....

Bloody hell mate. I don't know what "get off me" meant in this context. Only him and his Mrs know that. I'm obviously not going to pull out some hitherto unseen piece of evidence. I'm also not claiming that he assaulted her in any way, despite your attempts to paint me as such.

However, the public has the right to know what went on as it's a very serious allegation. If he did assault her - AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT HE DID - does the fact that the assault occurred behind closed doors on a private property make it none of the public's business? I'm not saying he should go on trial here, just that he should explain what happened.

It's no 'allegation' of any sort whatsoever. 'Assault'? You're extrapolating again. All you have is words, which could mean anything. You and I both know what you were implying. And to come full circle, no, it's not the public's business. Shall we leave it now? Everyone else is bored stupid...

Especially because the pair of you c*ntslices keep quoting the entire argument in full when you post!

Stop it before I split you up and make you sit apart from one another!

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave.  It's a hoodwink.  It has had a specific designed purpose.  Leavers know it's a set-up.  The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.  

No deal will or should be agreed with the Backstop in place. Staggering that May actually even agreed to such a thing. I may be totally dense here but would a Hard Border really be the disaster it is perceived? Genuine question.

A hard border would be one imposed.  Who would impose it?  The majority of UK citizens wouldn't be looking for it, regardless of they being Remain or Leave?  Would they?  
Ireland and the UK already had their relationship ties Before the creation of the EEC or EU.  Many of those ties engendered war and bloodshed but other aspects meant that we quite freely roamed back and forth between our Nations.  A construct like the EU calls halt?  Let them call halt.  I'd like to see them handle the PR on that one as the border between Ireland north and south is and always has been a uniquely Irish and British affair.  The EU really don't want to be erecting non-wanted hard borders on my island.  I really would be advising them it's not what they want to be proposing at any time.
Now Ireland itself?  Do the Irish, north or south want a hard border?  No.  None of them.  Not Nationalists and not Unionists.  Two separate entities already exist there.  You can say it's still all the EU but it's chalk and cheese administratively.  Different private tax rates, different corporate tax rates, different currency.  It happens with an open border.  Everything that's produced in this modern world can be tracked and traced.
Agreements are agreements.  Are there other places where the EU meets up with an external Nation and there is no hard border?  The Backstop just delays agreement - by design.

The EU don't want a Nation successfully Leaving its block.  That's the real reason behind all the roadblocks and supposed frustrations at how long it's all taking.  It's designed to be long.  It's designed to have people pulling their hair out.  That's it's purpose.  
If the UK pull out successfully with a good deal for them.  That's a blueprint that is repeatable.  And the longer the UK is out, the more other EU states will monitor its progress and weigh up how beneficial it is to remain in their 'enclosed' market space, combining 'sovereignty' and perhaps missing out on Nation specific trading deals with external Nations.  
The EU is terrified of the UK Leaving - terrified.

Ireland, as an EU member, would be impelled to impose it as I understand it.

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Who is doing the speaking:  The 'majority' Minority that cried and fretted, and went ape schidt when the result was announced.

What was it that the public said they wanted:  To stay in the EU and seek deeper integration immediately.  That's what the public said when they voted by a majority for Brexit.

We all know the answers to these questions, Super.  Why are you in the dark?  Were you away that day?

And how then could that 'majority' Minority be responsible for the ongoing failure in delivering Brexit and be able to drive the narrative and control how Brexit is handled?  

I think we're about 2 posts away from you claiming that this is some kind of George Soros led conspiracy?  

Who has led the supposed rush to 'Brexit means Brexit' up to this point?  It's simple.  
Doesn't need George, the man you still obviously haven't studied in depth.  No it doesn't need him.  

All it needs is a Remain voter as PM, an EU negotiating team, an Irish Backstop quagmire, a Private Legal crusade by a Business woman, a politically biased Parliamentary speaker and that there Parliament that you all say must be involved.  

The Remainers (Tories amongst them) love the idea of the eternal arguments.  They love the delays.  They pretend they're all hot and bothered but no, they're not.  The longer the delays, the longer Remain continues as a possibility.  I think you're a Remainer?  Delays are your lifeblood.  Why don't Remainers just admit the logical truth?

Conspiracy theory 7D - 158:  Boris might also be a Remainer.  Might turn out to be your Champion knight.  Who knows.

Was your mum at the top of a ladder when you fell out of her?

lostinwales wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave.  It's a hoodwink.  It has had a specific designed purpose.  Leavers know it's a set-up.  The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.  

No deal will or should be agreed with the Backstop in place. Staggering that May actually even agreed to such a thing. I may be totally dense here but would a Hard Border really be the disaster it is perceived? Genuine question.

The border is long and tangled with numerous crossing points and people on both sides who have built lives over being able to cross it without hindrance. Imagine putting up a hard border between Scotland and England? Or England and Wales?

I suppose it depends on how badly you want something. I could live with a hard border between Scotland and England if it meant independence but appreciate others might not but hard borders are commonplace around the globe and implemented without any trouble.

Hope you never become Independent for your sake..

Wouldn't be able to self sustain....

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The Irish Backstop MUST go.  Simple.  That is the Eternity clause that might legally lock the UK forever within that which the Referendum majority sought to Leave.
It's not there to protect the Good Friday agreement, it's there to elongate the process of Leaving until hopefully a generation arrives that don't want to Leave.  It's a hoodwink.  It has had a specific designed purpose.  Leavers know it's a set-up.  The intelligent ones just simply won't walk into that pretty crude trap.

The sooner it goes, the sooner the Trade Agreement talks can happen, the sooner a satisfactory solution can be found to the Irish border issue, the sooner the World can move on.  

No deal will or should be agreed with the Backstop in place. Staggering that May actually even agreed to such a thing. I may be totally dense here but would a Hard Border really be the disaster it is perceived? Genuine question.

A hard border would be one imposed.  Who would impose it?  The majority of UK citizens wouldn't be looking for it, regardless of they being Remain or Leave?  Would they?  
Ireland and the UK already had their relationship ties Before the creation of the EEC or EU.  Many of those ties engendered war and bloodshed but other aspects meant that we quite freely roamed back and forth between our Nations.  A construct like the EU calls halt?  Let them call halt.  I'd like to see them handle the PR on that one as the border between Ireland north and south is and always has been a uniquely Irish and British affair.  The EU really don't want to be erecting non-wanted hard borders on my island.  I really would be advising them it's not what they want to be proposing at any time.
Now Ireland itself?  Do the Irish, north or south want a hard border?  No.  None of them.  Not Nationalists and not Unionists.  Two separate entities already exist there.  You can say it's still all the EU but it's chalk and cheese administratively.  Different private tax rates, different corporate tax rates, different currency.  It happens with an open border.  Everything that's produced in this modern world can be tracked and traced.
Agreements are agreements.  Are there other places where the EU meets up with an external Nation and there is no hard border?  The Backstop just delays agreement - by design.

The EU don't want a Nation successfully Leaving its block.  That's the real reason behind all the roadblocks and supposed frustrations at how long it's all taking.  It's designed to be long.  It's designed to have people pulling their hair out.  That's it's purpose.  
If the UK pull out successfully with a good deal for them.  That's a blueprint that is repeatable.  And the longer the UK is out, the more other EU states will monitor its progress and weigh up how beneficial it is to remain in their 'enclosed' market space, combining 'sovereignty' and perhaps missing out on Nation specific trading deals with external Nations.  
The EU is terrified of the UK Leaving - terrified.

Ireland, as an EU member, would be impelled to impose it as I understand it.

Exactly. That would be a Catch 22 both for the EU and any existing Irish Government. When rules become oppressive, we have a history of wanting to break them/end them. The world is in flux.

superflyweight wrote:Was your mum at the top of a ladder when you fell out of her?

Is that your counterpoint?

That's another lie, isn't it - that you hate Trump.  You have all 10 volumes of his Put-Down Quote Compendium

Maybe try writing your own insults.  Who knows, some of them might work and scare me off.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=68889