It has nothing to do with your suggestion that he was checkmated by Cameron and a whole lot to do with Michael Gove stabbing him in the back.
Upvote
0
It has nothing to do with your suggestion that he was checkmated by Cameron and a whole lot to do with Michael Gove stabbing him in the back.
Or possibly the fact that Gove and Johnson have both recognised the 'toxic environment' around Boris?
As an aside, is there a more poisoned chalice than PM at the moment?
Upvote
0
Gove did Boris a favour, and Boris knows that deep down.
After leading the campaign to leave, he has essentially been compelled to enter the Conservative leadership contest to become PM. However, he knows all too well that this post is going to be a poisoned chalice in the next few years.
Note the ease with which he bowed out from the race. It's the perfect scapegoat. Withdraw from a contest for a position he doesn't actually want yet, and blame Gove for making him do it.
Boris wants to be Prime Minister one day. He just doesn't want it yet. The next PM will be leading the Brexit negotiations in an impossible situation where he or she will infuriate a lot of leave voters and remain voters alike, whilst dragging the UK through an economic downturn where the electorate, as always, will be looking for someone to blame.
For his personal aspirations, it's simply far better to pass the buck to someone else as they deal with this Brexit mess, and then run again one day when the UK is in a more "stable" position.
I also believe, like some others do, that Boris doesn't actually want the UK to leave the EU. After all, he did suggest that a Brexit vote could force the EU's hand to give a better deal so we could then stay.
I believe it was purely a method to put him in a better position to take over as Prime Minister. If we remained, he could put the blame on remainers for the UK's problems whilst claiming that he would do things differently, but he can't because he "respects the will of the British people". With that, he would be protected from ever being called out on the truth of his stance.
However, just like Cameron, who only called this referendum to solve an internal party dispute, he never actually expected leave to win. He took what appeared to be a fairly low-risk gamble at the time and he lost.
Upvote
0
You'll be on to a winner.
I think she will be selected in the end. May is not acceptable as she is not an outer, and everyone knows that Gove doesn't really want it, and anyway would be far better in the role of Deputy PM to lead the actual negotiations.
Leadsom has a background in finance, which will be important in the coming years, and would be the most acceptable to most people. And I think is up to the poisoned chalice.
Upvote
0
M
MBE1
- Original Poster
- #287
I think May will be elected PM, and from her speech, she is the closest to most leavers wishes, no back door deal, no second referendum, brexit means brexit with No free movement of labour.
She has set out a good negotiating position, if she brings on board some brexit leavers to her team she would be a possible good unifying PM for the country, she sounded very Thatcher like at the press conference, she sounded like she had steel in her veins.
Time will tell how this plays out, buy May looks likely for now.
She has set out a good negotiating position, if she brings on board some brexit leavers to her team she would be a possible good unifying PM for the country, she sounded very Thatcher like at the press conference, she sounded like she had steel in her veins.
Time will tell how this plays out, buy May looks likely for now.
Upvote
0
You do realise she was in favour of remain, right?
Anyone can claim what she has. Of course there will be no attempts to re-join or hold a second referendum. However, she didn't mention much regarding her idea of what the exit agreement should look like.
Well, she did actually:
Prioritises the single market, says we need "more control" instead of full control, and says that she won't accept free movement only as it has been so far.
Doesn't that sound like free movement of labour to you?
She's far closer to most remainers wishes, as she is likely to minimise the amount of change required to allow our single market access and trade infrastructure to continue uninterrupted. As a remain supporter, I sincerely hope she wins.
Upvote
0
M
MBE1
- Original Poster
- #289
Of course.
As I said, time will tell how this plays out, she also said...
So a different arrangement, which doesn't sound like free movement of labour to myself, and re inforcing the result, which plenty of MP's, media and posters on this forum have advocated trying to over turn the original decision. I will wait for her more detailed plan, but whoever becomes PM a major part is to try to unify the country behind the new plan, so some compromise will be inevitable.
The big question is where that compromise will be attempted to be placed, since the brexiters in particular will not be happy in compromising certain main tennants of how the whole issue was fought and won. For example if she agreed to a limit with the EU, say 100,000 migrants per year, I would disagree, if the UK Gov set a figure of 100,000 which could be changed according to our national requirements in the future, I would agree. It's all about who makes the decisions, and who needs permissions.
Upvote
0
J
john1989
- Original Poster
- #290
I sincerely hope she doesn't win.
She was useless as Home Secretary.
Look how weak she came across in the London riots; she isn't a leader.
She was completely absent from the referendum campaign.
Look at what she has done to the armed forces and police force in order to further her husbands security company.
Have you ever seen her put on the spot in an interview? She's useless.
She's self-serving and useless.
I think writing this and @KM-Tiger has helped me decide that putting £20 on Leadsome wouldn't be a bad idea!
Upvote
0
In all honesty I don't really fancy any of the leading candidates. Theresa May is too weak and Michael Gove has not only said that he's not qualified to do the job but has also stabbed his partner in crime in the back which makes him unsuitable on both counts.
I would like to see the 1922 committee tell Cameron that he created this mess so he can sort it out as many of us voted "out" on the basis that Cameron would lead the negotiations as he said he would
I would like to see the 1922 committee tell Cameron that he created this mess so he can sort it out as many of us voted "out" on the basis that Cameron would lead the negotiations as he said he would
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
- Original Poster
- #292
Not Theresa May. She hasn't been particularly good as Home secretary, and I do worry about her wanting to introduce Sharia Law into UK law, although I haven't seen any details of those laws yet.
I would not go for the Single Market. The stance from the EU is already softening over a trade agreement, and we are not as reliant on exports to the EU as we used to be. It reduces every year, and once we have trade agreements with other countries we will probably be less reliant on them. I would prefer to take the short term hit and refuse the single market. The costs would still outweigh the benefits.
I can see that agreeing to the single market may ease bad feelings in the EU, but it only delays the inevitable demand for total freedom from the EU setting out their demands and everyone else falling into line. Nowhere else in the world would we have to agree to those rules. If they make it too difficult then they will hurt themselves more than us, and the world is waking up to the ridiculous demands made by the EU..We would have lots of support from other countries for the EU to agree a trade only deal.
I would not go for the Single Market. The stance from the EU is already softening over a trade agreement, and we are not as reliant on exports to the EU as we used to be. It reduces every year, and once we have trade agreements with other countries we will probably be less reliant on them. I would prefer to take the short term hit and refuse the single market. The costs would still outweigh the benefits.
I can see that agreeing to the single market may ease bad feelings in the EU, but it only delays the inevitable demand for total freedom from the EU setting out their demands and everyone else falling into line. Nowhere else in the world would we have to agree to those rules. If they make it too difficult then they will hurt themselves more than us, and the world is waking up to the ridiculous demands made by the EU..We would have lots of support from other countries for the EU to agree a trade only deal.
Upvote
0
Personally, I don't think we're ready to start negotiating with anybody at this stage.
To me it looks like our politicians could even unite to decide what they want for lunch, let alone unite around issues affecting the country.
I really don't foresee any government, being able to unite over these issues for at least another 2 -3 years. I would start preparing myself for a long wait.
It would be absolute madness to attempt anything at this stage.
To me it looks like our politicians could even unite to decide what they want for lunch, let alone unite around issues affecting the country.
I really don't foresee any government, being able to unite over these issues for at least another 2 -3 years. I would start preparing myself for a long wait.
It would be absolute madness to attempt anything at this stage.
Upvote
0
We cannot wait that long, as after Mar 31st 2017 we can only invoke Art 50 with a QMV majority of the other EU states.
Upvote
0
I think there is little doubt that we will get free trade in goods. Germany in particular stands to lose a lot more than we would so will ensure that it happens.
Much more complex will be free trade in services, as to work effectively would require some measure of free movement. Not the free for all that we have now, as we have clearly voted against that, but some system that allows service companies to move staff around Europe without difficulty.
Upvote
0
Might this cause a bit of a problem? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
If it is true that the rules preclude negotiating any deals with members of the EU, does that mean that we can't even start negotiating dals with the EU until after we have invoked Article 50 AND left?
If it is true that the rules preclude negotiating any deals with members of the EU, does that mean that we can't even start negotiating dals with the EU until after we have invoked Article 50 AND left?
Upvote
0
If you listen to the whole Newsnight interview Cecilia Malmstrom went on to admit this stance would also harm other EU Countries economies. Liam Fox, not that I like the bloke, clearly stated this morning that the British Government would not accept this premise.
These are just the opening salvos in pre-negotiations. It's no surprise the BBC headlined as they did. A more accurate headline would have read "EU commissioner threatens EU Economies in Spiteful anti-UK Outburst"
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
- Original Poster
- #299
Just because your local UKIP leaflet and the Daily Mail says so, it doesn't make it a real thing
The Daily Mail is one of the newspapers that I don't read. How about gov.uk?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-into-sharia-law-launched
Upvote
0
I know that she agreed that this would also harm other EU countries.
However if it is true that:
Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner's insistence that the UK must first leave.
It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU.
It looks as if we would have to get the EU to change its rules first, before we can start negotiating. I wonder why none of the Brexit campaigners appeared to know about this? Or did they just assume that rules don't matter?
However if it is true that:
Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner's insistence that the UK must first leave.
It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU.
It looks as if we would have to get the EU to change its rules first, before we can start negotiating. I wonder why none of the Brexit campaigners appeared to know about this? Or did they just assume that rules don't matter?
Upvote
0
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/28/teresa-may-sharia-courts-benefit-muslims-britain/
I think there is an issue to debate. Personally I would favour one set of laws for all.
Upvote
0
The problem is that you have to balance this with what the EU is likely to accept.
Even free movement of labour is frankly pushing it. That still might not seem good enough for leave supporters, but there's a good chance that the EU will flat out refuse even that.
Free movement of people has always been an unmovable pillar and is, technically speaking, one of the key elements of making a single market what it is. The EU is trying to provide a huge marketplace which simulates a single country and offers the same freedom to trade as a single country. The UK putting restrictions on people coming in would be like Manchester putting restrictions on how many British people can live and work in the city.
I really do think there's a huge discrepancy here between what leave supporters are willing to accept and what even the most ardent pro-leave politicians (Farage aside) are willing to accept.
They are between a rock and a hard place, but I think single market access will be a priority for them over fully satisfying all leave supporters. After all, with the winning margin so thin, they only have to placate the remain supporters, who make up almost 50% of the electorate, and a chunk of leave supporters where immigration isn't a huge concern for them (not everyone is that bothered by it), and they'll be making a decision which is backed by the majority of the public.
I believe that all of the Tory candidates are prioritising single market access, so you may not see anyone challenging her on that because they all want to dampen expectations themselves in event that they win.
Upvote
0
Try reading it again. Sharia Councils have operated in this Country unofficially for decades and officially since Labour permitted them to address minor community issues in the last decade.
The worry is that some of these Councils are now imposing a more conservative view of Islam that is contrary to UK law. The review is a good thing.
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
- Original Poster
- #306
Agreed, 100%. As we overturned our animal welfare laws for Halal and Shechita slaughter, and it's ended up with Halal meat being sold unlabelled to everyone and a massive increase in halal slaughter has resulted. I do worry that more UK laws will be overturned, with equally dire consequences.
We will have to wait and see.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I bet you're the sort of person who'd win £5 million on the lottery but spend all her time moaning that it wasn't £6 million
Face it. Brexit won. The World is still turning. We'll come out the other side as our Country always has. And the sun will shine again, although not it would appear while the cricket season is in play
Upvote
0
I think you'll find we may!
So let me get this right. You voted for Democracy etc. Which apparently is one of your primary reasons for voting leave. You have state several times that the EU in fringes on your ideals of democracy.
An element of democracy is that every community is eligible to have their say. A proposal by the muslim community has been put forward that they would like some aspects of Sharia law implemented into UK law. Under a democratic system, we are obliged to review the proposal.
This is part of the Democracy we live in, and very much part of ideals you seem so keen to strive for. What's the issue?
Upvote
0
Not really. These are the laws, and they are a problem. Of course they will harm the economies of other countries by restricting imports and exports, but what can you do when you must follow the rule of law?
This is spot on:
It has been said by many remain campaigners for months. The next two years are merely a basic divorce settlement. They are not the actual trade agreements which will take us forward.
The EU cannot negotiate a separate deal with one of its own members unless it breaks its own treaties. Likewise, the UK cannot negotiate with anyone else unless it chooses to break EU treaties whilst it's still a member. Some may suggest that the UK could do that since we'll be leaving soon and it won't matter in the long-term anyway, but the UK Government flagrantly breaking laws it is bound to is dangerous and irresponsible.
Every other law, such as free movement of people, will continue up until the negotiations are complete and the UK formally exits, and the same applies to trade laws. A difficult position, sure, but the law is the law. What do you want them to do? Re-write the treaties?
Brexit was always going to put us in an incredibly difficult position like this. Hence my continued concern.
Upvote
0
Move on Scott, get over your feelings of resentment against the will of the British people and make the best of things like most of us are doing!
More interesting than Brexit perhaps, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/01/taiwanese-warship-missile-china-hsiung-feng-iii?
Upvote
0
S
ShirleyM
- Original Poster
- #314
I said nothing of the kind. I said I was concerned about Sharia law being incorporated into UK law and gave my reasons why. You are creating an argument that doesn't exist. I gave the reason why I was concerned, and you twist it to say it was a declaration about democracy. Try reading what I actually said.
Upvote
0
Michael Gove has just announced that, under his leadership, he will promise the NHS an extra £100million per week by 2020.
What happened to that £350million per week?
Our current Government, in 2015, also pledged to increase NHS funding by £10billion per year by 2020/21, so Gove's promise is actually HALF of what the current Government promised, yet he's somehow trying to use this as a selling point for his candidacy.
Surely it's not this easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the public? I really hope not.
What happened to that £350million per week?
Our current Government, in 2015, also pledged to increase NHS funding by £10billion per year by 2020/21, so Gove's promise is actually HALF of what the current Government promised, yet he's somehow trying to use this as a selling point for his candidacy.
Surely it's not this easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the public? I really hope not.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Welcome to politics. If we can misinterpret what you say and use it for and against you. We will ;-)
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The polls, the reframing, and the billion dollarsHow three letters from the early years of Star Citizen's development...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The values trap: what the Punks actually ownedWhy BrewDog's Equity for Punks investors were structurally locked out...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When belief is the business modelWhat BrewDog's collapse and Star Citizen's billion-dollar climb are...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
