The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Stevo985]

30 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I saw something yesterday about them permitting the use of 'liar'.

In fact, says so here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-liar-speaker-commons-parliament-b2062420.html

 

Imagine having to change the rules so that you're allowed to call the serving Prime Minister a liar  

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I saw a clip of Ian Blackford giving a pretty good speech which repeatedly called Boris a liar in the commons yesterday. It cut off before the aftermath but he talked for about 5 minutes and there didn't seem to be any outrage like their usually is when that word is used

It's basically because in a debate about whether the Prime Minister is a liar or not, it would be a bit daft for people not to be able to say that he is. 

Last time Blackford was chucked out of the chamber, Hoyle made a point of saying that if he wanted to raise doubts about Johnson's lying, it needed to be in the context of a discussion about it, not just thrown around willy-nilly. 

[Genie]

I wonder if they are allowed to call him a criminal? 

[Davkaus]

It's not a change to the rules as such - it's allowed because it was a debate specifically around a member's conduct, so the usual rules pertaining to parliamentary language prohibit the debate

[Stevo985]

The thing that continues to annoy me is that everyone knows he lies, and lied on this occasion.

We know it, opposition MPs know it, Boris knows it, his back benchers know it.

They know that we know. yet they have to stand there and give pathetic excuses to try and technically make it seem like they've proved that he didn't quite technically lie, even though everybody knows he did.

 

Even if it's cleared of lying, we all know it'll be on some technicality. Nobody actually believes that he didn't lie, just that he might technically get away with it.

It's all such bullshit

Edited April 22, 2022 by Stevo985

[Davkaus]

26 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

 

They're 100% right to put the rules aside in this case. The problem we have is that we've never had someone who lies with the frequency and blantency that this clown does. There's also a complete lack of trust in what he's saying even when he isn't lying (boy-who-cried-wold syndrome) and lack of faith in his character. When other politicians had possibly lied to the house it had been pretty rare they'd actually been caught red handed and a lot of the time it was unintentional, and they always had the character to go. An example would be Amber Rudd who resigned for midleading the house on something that didn't even happen on her watch. Still, she accidentally misled the house and had the character to know she had to resign.

Agreed. I think the rules about parliamentary language are typically helpful, to prevent debate simply becoming mud-slinging, but it's a huge problem, IMO, that the rule of parliamentary language, preventing members from being called liars, are enforced more stringently than the rules about actually lying.

He's lied multiple times, blatantly, everyone there has known it, and the speaker has just said something like "if the Prime minister has mislead the house I'm sure he'll correct the record". Which he doesn't, ever, because he's a habitual, unrepentant liar, and we have never held him to account. Meanwhile, if you call him a liar, you are forced to retract it, or get kicked out.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Davkaus

[desensitized43]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Agreed. I think the rules about parliamentary language are typically helpful, to prevent debate simply becoming mud-slinging, but it's a huge problem, IMO, that the rule of parliamentary language, preventing members from being called liars, are enforced more stringently than the rules about actually lying.

He's lied multiple times, blatantly, everyone there has known it, and the speaker has just said something like "if the Prime minister has mislead the house I'm sure he'll correct the record". Which he doesn't, ever, because he's a habitual, unrepentant liar, and we have never held him to account. Meanwhile, if you call him a liar, you are forced to retract it, or get kicked out.

Exactly. The rules around not calling someone a liar assume that no one should be telling lies in the chamber, certainly not knowingly but even by accidently in giving information that turned out to be incorrect at a later time on further examination.

Johnson has completely ripped up the rule book around lying in the chamber and used it for toilet paper. Normally I'd be in favour of the Michelle Obama way of dealing with such things - when they go low you go high - but this is about the kind of country we want to be. He's got to go.

[Genie]

How many times has he repeated the lie about record numbers in work? He’s been warned several times but keeps saying it. 

[Xann]

You don't suppose he lied about Brexit being great too?

[choffer]

52 minutes ago, Genie said:

I wonder if they are allowed to call him a clearing in the woods? 

I'm pretty sure I would if I ever had the misfortune to meet him.

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, Xann said:

You don't suppose he lied about Brexit being great too?

Nah not that, Brexit is great… for a select few who are able to capitalise on the collapse of the UK economy and currency.

[Davkaus]

Oh, yeah, Brexit was a thing.

How the deal was celebrated, from the perspective of everybody's favourite haunted pencil.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/12/jacob-rees-mogg-now-we-will-have-the-relationship-that-the-uk-really-wanted-with-the-eu.html

Quote

This has been achieved because of the negotiating panache of David Frost and Oliver Lewis, who matched Michel Barnier for capability. Many eurosceptics have a striking admiration for Barnier, who epitomises Gallic sophistication, and who had successfully outfoxed previous British negotiators. Regardless of their abilities, they could not have achieved the right outcome without the backbone of the Prime Minister, making it clear throughout that he would walk away from a bad deal.

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act emphasised this point. The British were reclaiming their sovereignty, and were not interested in the typical type of international fudge that could have potentially overturned the voters’ decision. For in truth that is where the real strength and courage lay, in 2015 by voting for a referendum, in 2016 by voting to leave, in 2017 by trusting the vacuous promises of both parties that Brexit meant Brexit, and by the resounding result in 2019, the electorate ignored all the doom-mongering to demand, request and require its right. As of Churchill, so perhaps of Johnson: “it was the nation …that had the lion’s heart …I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.”

Thus, this Agreement reflects what the British people repeatedly voted for” a zero tariff, zero quota, free trading agreement with the EU, outside its legal control, unbound from the EU’s treaties and courts.

How it's going:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/20/brexit-uk-northern-ireland-protocol-jacob-rees-mogg

Quote

The UK will “reform” the Northern Ireland Brexit protocol if the EU will not, Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned, raising the possibility of a dramatic intervention after the assembly elections in a fortnight’s time.

The Brexit opportunities minister said he could not reveal any more due to the sensitivities of the Stormont election in Northern Ireland, where tensions have flared over the protocol.

 

He told MPs on the EU scrutiny committee that the protocol was written in such a way that it could be “superseded”.

“That is really important to understand because a lot of commentary that says: ‘Well, we signed it and therefore surely we should accept it lock, stock and barrel.’ That’s absolute nonsense.

“We signed it on the basis that it would be reformed. And there comes a point at which you say: ‘Well, you haven’t reformed it and therefore we are reforming it ourselves.’ And the United Kingdom is much more important than any agreement that we have with any foreign power,” he told MPs.

 

Once again, these pricks try to rewrite history. Signed a binding, international agreement on the basis that it would be reformed? That's certainly not how I recall the discussions around their "oven ready deal". 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Davkaus

[Genie]

Re-writing the NI Brexit protocol has threatened for many months now yet nothing has actually happened. 
It sounds like a bluff to try and get the EU to back down on its red lines. I’d have thought by now they would know that we do not indeed hold all, most of many of the cards.

[Straggler]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Agreed. I think the rules about parliamentary language are typically helpful, to prevent debate simply becoming mud-slinging, but it's a huge problem, IMO, that the rule of parliamentary language, preventing members from being called liars, are enforced more stringently than the rules about actually lying.

He's lied multiple times, blatantly, everyone there has known it, and the speaker has just said something like "if the Prime minister has mislead the house I'm sure he'll correct the record". Which he doesn't, ever, because he's a habitual, unrepentant liar, and we have never held him to account. Meanwhile, if you call him a liar, you are forced to retract it, or get kicked out.

Even worse is that because the only option you have is to say the PM inadvertently misled the house means that you would have to lie to say the one thing you are ok to say.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Once again, these pricks try to rewrite history. Signed a binding, international agreement on the basis that it would be reformed? That's certainly not how I recall the discussions around their "oven ready deal".

Rees-Mogg has been raising the idea of reneging on the things they didn't like wrt to EU exit and the associated treaties and agreements since early debates on the subject.

 

One of a number of things from back in 2019:

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by snowychap

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Rees-Mogg has been raising the idea of reneging on the things they didn't like wrt to EU exit and the associated treaties and agreements since early debates on the subject.

Yeah, this latest floating of the idea of breaking the agreement seems like it might be the Brexit throbbers seeing Bunter is weakened still further and stirring the pot again.

[Genie]

Everywhere we look there are news stories about collapsing exports as a result of Brexit. How about JRM, the Minister for Brexit opportunities, puts his time and Energy into finding ways to increase trade with the EU?

Then maybe, the invisible borders that exist with NI and causing concern will be less of an issue anyway. 

[HanoiVillan]

19 hours ago, cyrusr said:

I'm pretty sure he's missed bits as well. Has there actually been a worse prime minister?

Yes. He's not even the worst PM in the last ten years. 

[desensitized43]

39 minutes ago, Genie said:

Everywhere we look there are news stories about collapsing exports as a result of Brexit. How about JRM, the Minister for Brexit opportunities, puts his time and Energy into finding ways to increase trade with the EU?

Then maybe, the invisible borders that exist with NI and causing concern will be less of an issue anyway. 

That would mean he'd have to admit that there's a problem and *shocked face* it's because of the Brexit he's been championing the whole of his career.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

That would mean he'd have to admit that there's a problem and *shocked face* it's because of the Brexit he's been championing the whole of his career.

He hasn't been championing it the whole of his career.

What people need to understand about Brexit and the Conservative Party is that Brexit is all about and always was about the survival of the Conservative Party.

Before the referendum, the Conservative Party were both under pressure from UKIP electorally and had a throbby "ideological" wing of the parliamentary party which was by no means in the majority but was big enough to potentially split the party in two.

Cameron won the election and promised a referendum which had the double edged effect of calming the throbby faction and prevented more votes leaking to UKIP. Cameron won the election and this saved the party from splitting in two

Johnson has flip flopped on the EU his entire career...

Quote

In his 2001 book ‘Friends, Voters, Countrymen’, written while he was trying to win a seat in the Commons for the first time, Mr Johnson wrote that Britain’s interests were “still on balance served by maintaining our membership” and said withdrawal would mean “a worrying loss of influence”.

In 2003, he told the House of Commons: “I am not by any means an ultra-Eurosceptic. In some ways, I am a bit of a fan of the European Union. If we did not have one, we would invent something like it.”

In the same debate he looked forward to the expansion of the EU, adding: “I do not know whether any honourable Members are foolish enough to oppose eventual Turkish membership of the European Union.”

Ch4 Fact Check

Johnson has always done what Johnson thinks is best for Johnson, nothing else. He famously couldn't decide which side of the debate he was on in the run up to the referendum and had to write two articles one for remain one for leave. He only decided right at the death which team to support

The hard line ERG throbbers have used Johnson to get out of Europe, his usefulness is coming to an end and they are no longer prepared to support him, they smell the chance of getting a "proper" Throbber in to lead the party now and that's why the likes of Steve Baker suddenly flipped from supporting Johnson to telling him his time was up

Brexit always was about saving the Tories just as it was the side Johnson chose with no conviction other than to serve himself.

The Conservative Party has survived, Johnson will soon be a footnote in it's history