Music2 mins ago
Ed Miliband
The Humiliation of Boris Johnson yesterday by Ed Miliband was classic .
He pointed out the lifetime of lies that Boris has told about the E/U.
Fat Tounged, Slack Jawed, Wide eyed, and Wobbling sat Boris on the front bench Alone. and faced down his inevitable humiliation.As miliband calmly laid out before him one by one,, each of Boris's many many lies,
that had made him PM, Boris could do nothing but shake his head, and force short grunts. It was classic , just like Geoffrey Howe Bringing down Thatcher.
He pointed out the lifetime of lies that Boris has told about the E/U.
Fat Tounged, Slack Jawed, Wide eyed, and Wobbling sat Boris on the front bench Alone. and faced down his inevitable humiliation.As miliband calmly laid out before him one by one,, each of Boris's many many lies,
that had made him PM, Boris could do nothing but shake his head, and force short grunts. It was classic , just like Geoffrey Howe Bringing down Thatcher.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim: "It depends on how you go about it. Protecting our own interests is fine. Signing a Treaty and then breaking that Treaty unilaterally is not. " - who is breaking a treaty? all we are doing is saying we will break it if necessary. The breaking or not is up to the EUSSR. They need to stop the bully boy tactics, that's what this is really about.
The logical consequence of devaluing International Law, or at least the UK's position on it, should also be obvious: we lose any and all authority we had when complaining about the violations of other nations. How can we complain if and when Iran reneges on that Nuclear deal, the JCPA? It would, after all, be acting in its own interest. I don't want to overdo the examples, but it should be obvious that if the UK undermines the principle that International Law should be respected then that hands further licence to less desirable states to act with impunity in the same spirit.
I also resent, once again, the implication that this is in any sense anti-British. It is quite the opposite. After all, what I am saying is that, actin gin this way, the UK loses the moral high ground -- which means that I believed we held this. I don't know how much more pro-British you can get than saying that the UK can be proud of how it typically conducts itself on the international stage, and that it should stick to those same high standards.
"When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the consequences are unpalatable. By doing so he pledges the faith, honour and credit of this nation and it diminishes the standing and reputation of Britain in the world if it should be seen to be otherwise. No British minister should solemnly undertake to observe treaty obligations with his fingers crossed behind his back."
(Geoffrey Cox QC MP, The Times, yesterday)
I also resent, once again, the implication that this is in any sense anti-British. It is quite the opposite. After all, what I am saying is that, actin gin this way, the UK loses the moral high ground -- which means that I believed we held this. I don't know how much more pro-British you can get than saying that the UK can be proud of how it typically conducts itself on the international stage, and that it should stick to those same high standards.
"When the Queen’s minister gives his word, on her behalf, it should be axiomatic that he will keep it, even if the consequences are unpalatable. By doing so he pledges the faith, honour and credit of this nation and it diminishes the standing and reputation of Britain in the world if it should be seen to be otherwise. No British minister should solemnly undertake to observe treaty obligations with his fingers crossed behind his back."
(Geoffrey Cox QC MP, The Times, yesterday)
// They need to stop the bully boy tactics, that's what this is really about. //
What bully boy tactics? As I referred to earlier, the Government "is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith". Johnson contradicted this in the House yesterday, so which is it? Either he has lied to the House, or he has lied to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
// [International Law] does not exist. It is a mere fanciful concept. It is unenforceable. //
It very much does exist, and has done in one form or another either since separate nation states existed and realised that they had to have *some* common ground to work together. Besides, undermining the concept aids rogue states far more than it aids the UK.
What bully boy tactics? As I referred to earlier, the Government "is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith". Johnson contradicted this in the House yesterday, so which is it? Either he has lied to the House, or he has lied to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
// [International Law] does not exist. It is a mere fanciful concept. It is unenforceable. //
It very much does exist, and has done in one form or another either since separate nation states existed and realised that they had to have *some* common ground to work together. Besides, undermining the concept aids rogue states far more than it aids the UK.
I don't play Chess very well, though :P
But in any case, the analogy feels a little broken. The aim of Chess is to win and to make your opponent lose; the aim of any sensible trade deal with the EU ought to be win-win. Not the most sophisticated point I'll ever make, but, still: it seems to me that if you're going into these negotiations with the aim, in effect, of "beating" the EU, then that's the wrong attitude.
I don't see how having a set order of priorities is necessarily "bullying", either. It may not be flexible enough, but that isn't the same thing. Also, as I understood it, the position around a week ago was that there was agreement between the UK and EU on almost all points apart from fishing rights and state aid rules, which, if so, represents a tremendous amount of progress -- and most of that reached without the need to even threaten to breach Treaty obligations.
But in any case, the analogy feels a little broken. The aim of Chess is to win and to make your opponent lose; the aim of any sensible trade deal with the EU ought to be win-win. Not the most sophisticated point I'll ever make, but, still: it seems to me that if you're going into these negotiations with the aim, in effect, of "beating" the EU, then that's the wrong attitude.
I don't see how having a set order of priorities is necessarily "bullying", either. It may not be flexible enough, but that isn't the same thing. Also, as I understood it, the position around a week ago was that there was agreement between the UK and EU on almost all points apart from fishing rights and state aid rules, which, if so, represents a tremendous amount of progress -- and most of that reached without the need to even threaten to breach Treaty obligations.
Amazingly, moments before Miliband made his Damaging speech , Boris was there Jabbing his Finger in the air at the Opposition saying that the E/U think they have the power to break up the U/K .... Wrong ! The only person who looks like breaking up the UK is Boris himself....... With Cummings of course.
Gulliver, it will be the EU and Barnier who break up the UK.
https:/
https:/
If Boris is upsetting the Quislings that have tried every move in the book to prevent the will of the people then for once he is doing the right thing.
I guess the icing on the cake was Bliar (war criminal IMHO) and Major (Curry for breakfast and the only man that stopped me voting Tory). Whatever they say do the opposite and you cant go far wrong.
I guess the icing on the cake was Bliar (war criminal IMHO) and Major (Curry for breakfast and the only man that stopped me voting Tory). Whatever they say do the opposite and you cant go far wrong.
NI will not leave the UK under any circumstances as the idea of the RoI gaining a foothold is anathema. Wales has been legally part of England since 1536 so cannot leave of its own accord. Only Scotland could leave and then only if there is a majority in favour, which looks extremely unlikely. The UK is safe.
I hope the UK remains together but Brexit has certainly undermined the stability in NI. Anyone who knows anything about N Ireland will tell you that. Scotland may survive the premiership of Boris Johnson, which is probably a bigger threat to the union there. There won’t be another referendum while he is in post, if only because he’s not likely ultimately be there that long.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Travel25 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
