Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

"Can you absolutely promise that you will get your trade deal done by the end of December?"

"WE ALREADY HAVE A DEAL!"

 

Even if the "oven ready deal" was technically referring to the WA (I'm still not convinced) it's pretty clear Johnson has been happy to not just let people believe it referred to a trade deal, but explicitly tell them it did.

It wasn't 'technically referring to', it was referring to it.

That Johnson was not only happy to let people imagine whatever they may have wanted to with a lot of help from him suggesting that what had already been agreed upon (the WA and the Political Declaration - the second of which was not binding) meant that anything future was definitely going to be sorted out as the issues were 'mostly, 100% ... sorted' is, as blandy says, the point that I have been making.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah agreed. Sorry my post wasn't meant to be contrary to Snowy's. Just using it to refer back to the original conversation.

Either Johnson lied about there being an oven ready trade deal, or he lied to make it seem like the oven ready WA also meant a trade deal was done.

Ah, gotcha. :thumb:

It's very much the latter and that we can now go back and find bits of Johnson's blathering that show that he was happy to suggest this but also, in the same bits of questioning, him clearly say stuff about how likely it was to get a deal done underlines this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

One of his favourite tricks is speaking vaguely enough about something that nobody can really be sure what he's talking about. It seems to be working quite well for him.

Absolutely agree.

I think that it, for him, is a combination of the 'lack of detail' stuff, his columnist personality (riding multiple horses) and, during his time as PM, the influence of the Vote Leave brigade.

Oh and his shameless lack of integrity, decency and honesty.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think all this could be sorted out with a pre emptive sinking of a few French and Irish ferries.

Show the **** who’s in charge.

From the reactions of a certain demographic, I'm starting to think this is exactly what they meant when crowing on about "sovereignty" but not really explaining what they meant; sending out the navy to protect us from one of our closest allies.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

From the reactions of a certain demographic, I'm starting to think this is exactly what they meant when crowing on about "sovereignty" but not really explaining what they meant; sending out the navy to protect us from one of our closest allies.

Then: "Pfft, it's ridiculous to claim that the EU stops European countries from wanting to go to war with each other"

Now: "From January 1st, we need to send gunboats against the French"

It was all so predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Davkaus said:

One of his favourite tricks is speaking vaguely enough about something that nobody can really be sure what he's talking about. It seems to be working quite well for him.

An absolutely classic tactic of people who don't really understand what they are doing.

I've encountered this many times at work when talking to "experts".   My old boss once talked about this phenomenon. He said "I am a reasonably intelligent man*. If I've asked you to explain something to me and I don't understand what you are saying to me even after questioning, then either you are very, very bad at explaining things or you don't actually understand it yourself" 

* he was an incredibly intelligent man who I frequently quote even now at work 25 years later, and on many many occasions I've thought back to that quote when talking to people who don't actually appear to know what they are doing giving rambling explanations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

From the reactions of a certain demographic, I'm starting to think this is exactly what they meant when crowing on about "sovereignty" but not really explaining what they meant; sending out the navy to protect us from one of our closest allies.

The Navy can barely put out more than 6 ships at a time at the moment so I hope that isn't his plan. 

We can't even put out our aircraft carrier with a full strike group without forrrin ships in support. British Sea Power to display our powerful sovereignty.... Yeah OK Boris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sidcow said:

The Navy can barely put out more than 6 ships at a time at the moment so I hope that isn't his plan. 

We can't even put out our aircraft carrier with a full strike group without forrrin ships in support. British Sea Power to display our powerful sovereignty.... Yeah OK Boris. 

4q2zz1.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

The Navy can barely put out more than 6 ships at a time at the moment so I hope that isn't his plan. 

We can't even put out our aircraft carrier with a full strike group without forrrin ships in support. British Sea Power to display our powerful sovereignty.... Yeah OK Boris. 

Hopefully it's our turn to be in charge of the CJEF when it all kicks off with France ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian agents came to the U.K. and spread lethal nerve agents and killed a UK citizen and we were jolly annoyed on a diplomatic level for a short while.

Meanwhile, the theoretical chance of French trawlers in english waters causes tory MP’s to demand gunboats in the Channel to protect fish.

People get what they vote for. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Russian agents came to the U.K. and spread lethal nerve agents and killed a UK citizen and we were jolly annoyed on a diplomatic level for a short while.

Meanwhile, the theoretical chance of French trawlers in english waters causes tory MP’s to demand gunboats in the Channel to protect fish.

It’s because it’s all theatre. Russia has no problem killing people. They are not an ally.

In contrast, nobody believes the UK will actually go to war with France. It’s laughable. Child’s play. And thus a great opportunity for the impotent, overweight Tory MPs to pretend to be soldiers, without actually risking their sons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Enda said:

In contrast, nobody believes the UK will actually go to war with France. It’s laughable.

Yet if tomorrow the UK declared war on France for whatever reason an awful lot of the population would be thrilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â