Brexit

Brexit, Stay or Leave.

  • Stay

    Votes: 28 59.6%

  • Leave

    Votes: 19 40.4%
  • Total voters
    47
Warbler said:
I think there's two take-outs

The first is the cull of the Clan Cameron and the modernisers

The second is the more pertinent and that concerns the Brexit ministries of FCO (Boris) International Trade (Fox) Brexit (Davis). Clearly the UK isn't going to waltz into Brussels and expect to walk away with unfettered access to the single market without having to make compromises. At some point, the Brexiteers are inevitably going to have to retreat from their highest aspirations, as they won't be able to get a clean sweep on their shopping list without having to give a few things back. When that happens there is bound to be some kick back from the dissenters on the back benchers (if only because they've had their own noses pushed out of joint). Far better to allow the Brexiteers to make these concessions than a Remainian, as the latter is always going to be vulnerable to allegations of 'selling out'

She isn't setting them up to fail necessary, but setting them up to struggle, and in doing so, protect her. It's more of an exercise in the art of realpolitik

"While I see lives, the gashes do better upon them"
Click to expand...

that makes a lot more sense that grasses half baked Agatha Christie plots

fair play to warbler for passing that on. Where did you read it first?
 
Hamm said:
Osborne has made sh*t of the economy with his failed austerity policies..
Click to expand...

The differing versions of Osborne as a Politician & Chancellor get more extreme by the day.
Not so long ago he was branded the brainchild behind the economic recovery, and a shrewd operator who was nailed on to be the next Prime Minister.

Then there's people like Hamm that think he messed the economy up.
I defy anyone to tell me that if they were chancellor they would have increased borrowing and spending in the height of a recession after 2008?

To fair to him, he's left Philip Hammond with something to develop and work with, which he himself (Osborne) couldn't claim to be the case in 2010 when taking over from whoever Gordon Brown had in charge of No.11.
 
clivex said:
that makes a lot more sense that grasses half baked Agatha Christie plots

fair play to warbler for passing that on. Where did you read it first?
Click to expand...

What are you blabbering on about? It amounts to basically the same thing as I was talking about - put Brexit decisions in the hands of Leavers, and make them accountable for the outcome.
 
Marble said:
The differing versions of Osborne as a Politician & Chancellor get more extreme by the day.
Not so long ago he was branded the brainchild behind the economic recovery, and a shrewd operator who was nailed on to be the next Prime Minister.

Then there's people like Hamm that think he messed the economy up.
I defy anyone to tell me that if they were chancellor they would have increased borrowing and spending in the height of a recession after 2008?

To fair to him, he's left Philip Hammond with something to develop and work with, which he himself (Osborne) couldn't claim to be the case in 2010 when taking over from whoever Gordon Brown had in charge of No.11.
Click to expand...

Balls.
 
Hopefully, history (and possibly the new government) will show that neither Osborne or Cameron were the saviours they purported to be, and the UK will fare better for some loosening of the stingent austerity programme they imposed.
 
clivex said:
that makes a lot more sense that grasses half baked Agatha Christie plots

fair play to warbler for passing that on. Where did you read it first?
Click to expand...

The quote is from Macbeth if that helps, but frustration born out of watching amateurs like you guess your way round the machinations of politics and how cunning calculations are made (and Richard Branson's inability to maintain an internet connection this morning) eventually forced my hand.

In fairness, it isn't a difficult one to decode, and I wouldn't attribute any great insight to it. Most cautious politicians have an inbuilt sense of survival and this is normally to the fore of their thinking. The other thing I'd add is that the FCO operates as a semi detached ministry anyway. It's very difficult to make a name for yourself there, as you can rarely bring forward any big policy ideas. The best FS's tend to be those who you don't notice. It also involves a lot of overseas travel and has historically been used as an appointment for potential rivals as they don't get the time to spend working the corridors, bars, and tea rooms
 
reet hard said:
Hopefully, history (and possibly the new government) will show that neither Osborne or Cameron were the saviours they purported to be, and the UK will fare better for some loosening of the stingent austerity programme they imposed.
Click to expand...
The truth is a grey area somewhere in between I reckon. Of course they should abandon rigid austerity, the new lot are doing that now and Osborne probably would have as well (he only just abandoned his goal of getting into a budget surplus by 2020).

If there's been growth the past 6 years they need to invest the proceeds into getting more growth now, sitting back and playing it safe will cause problems. It's not about idelogical spend spend spend or austeritiy austerity austerity, its just working the economic cycles using some logic. Anyway I agree, get rid of that awful word austerity.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
The quote is from Macbeth if that helps, but frustration born out of watching amateurs like you guess your way round the machinations of politics and how cunning calculations are made (and Richard Branson's inability to maintain an internet connection this morning) eventually forced my hand.

In fairness, it isn't a difficult one to decode, and I wouldn't attribute any great insight to it. Most cautious politicians have an inbuilt sense of survival and this is normally to the fore of their thinking. The other thing I'd add is that the FCO operates as a semi detached ministry anyway. It's very difficult to make a name for yourself there, as you can rarely bring forward any big policy ideas. The best FS's tend to be those who you don't notice. It also involves a lot of overseas travel and has historically been used as an appointment for potential rivals as they don't get the time to spend working the corridors, bars, and tea rooms
Click to expand...

there is far too much supposed clever reading into political manoeuvres online and it is of no interest. There are no "insights" here. As is so often in life the boring obvious answer is the correct one. She appointed him to do the job and feels he's a positive

simply put you go back to where we were

johnson was no threat whatsoever to May in the short or even medium term. None. He was not a rival.
 
Marble said:
The differing versions of Osborne as a Politician & Chancellor get more extreme by the day.
Not so long ago he was branded the brainchild behind the economic recovery, and a shrewd operator who was nailed on to be the next Prime Minister.

Then there's people like Hamm that think he messed the economy up.
I defy anyone to tell me that if they were chancellor they would have increased borrowing and spending in the height of a recession after 2008?

To fair to him, he's left Philip Hammond with something to develop and work with, which he himself (Osborne) couldn't claim to be the case in 2010 when taking over from whoever Gordon Brown had in charge of No.11.
Click to expand...

this is largely correct of course

by most economic indicators the economy has most certainly not been "messed up" and if you need a benchmark, you compare with peer nations.

The level of "austerity" (dismal buzzword) can be argued about for ever and still there would be no agreement but few would argue it was a climate for extra borrowing
 
Also wrong that the foreign secretary role has been routiinely shoved onto a potential rival

i would suggest a quick look at the list of incumbents over the past 30 years.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
As is so often in life the boring obvious answer is the correct one. She appointed him to do the job and feels he's a positive.
Click to expand...

This is laughable.

Johnson has a well-established history of abusing leaders of other nations. It's only a matter of weeks ago, he was having a pop at the US President, saying he had an historic, colonial, axe to grind over the EURef, due to his "part-Kenyan background".

Subtlety of language is everything at the FCO. Whilst I suspect Johnson can modulate himself sufficiently to get by, you are kidding yourself on, if you think he can be viewed as a "positive" in the role, based on his track-record.

Besides, even if she does think that, it hardly excludes the possibility that it is also politically expedient to place him in the role of Foreign Secretary. As ever, you break it down into a simple binary-argument, when it is much more subtle than that.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Also wrong that the foreign secretary role has been routiinely shoved onto a potential rival

i would suggest a quick look at the list of incumbents over the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

Agree - huge political mistake from May here. She could have given Osborne this position, thereby keeping all of the Cameron/Osborne backbenchers onside, and having the slightly important side effact of a much more dignified senior politician with some world standing.

Johnson is an of, and is viewed as an embarrassment around the world. It's all well and good for some to say 'masterstroke' etc etc but Foreign Sec is a serious role and should be given to someone capable and experienced.
 
The armed forces learnt long ago that the best way to rein-in a 'popular with the troops' troublemaker is by promotion.

Equally, there's the axiom that the ladder of promotion ends in a job one can't quite do

So May's surprising appointment will either prove to be inspired or end in calamity

So go on Boris - cometh the hour, cometh the man?

Vary glad Gove has been kicked into touch but ambivalent about Osborne; he probably did as good a job as chancellor as anyone could given the dire situation he inherited

Go Theresa go! Given the shambolic opposition, shouldn't we all, regardless of hue, be wishing her and her team all the very best? I am
 
I certainly am, Drone.

She is going to have to navigate us through probably the trickiest political period of my lifetime, and it would be stupid to wish her anything other than our best hopes and wishes.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
This is laughable.

Johnson has a well-established history of abusing leaders of other nations. It's only a matter of weeks ago, he was having a pop at the US President, saying he had an historic, colonial, axe to grind over the EURef, due to his "part-Kenyan background".

Subtlety of language is everything at the FCO. Whilst I suspect Johnson can modulate himself sufficiently to get by, you are kidding yourself on, if you think he can be viewed as a "positive" in the role, based on his track-record.

Besides, even if she does think that, it hardly excludes the possibility that it is also politically expedient to place him in the role of Foreign Secretary. As ever, you break it down into a simple binary-argument, when it is much more subtle than that.
Click to expand...

no it's not laughable. Don't fcking rewrite what I said .

I didn't say he was a positive. I said she thinks so and she is far better able to judge than anyone on a forum. It's as simple as that

and no. Boris is well known for not having a great deal of support on the backbenches.
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
Agree - huge political mistake from May here. She could have given Osborne this position, thereby keeping all of the Cameron/Osborne backbenchers onside, and having the slightly important side effact of a much more dignified senior politician with some world standing.

Johnson is an of, and is viewed as an embarrassment around the world. It's all well and good for some to say 'masterstroke' etc etc but Foreign Sec is a serious role and should be given to someone capable and experienced.
Click to expand...
i thought it perhaps could and should have been osbourne.

but it's far less controversial than David Owen all those years ago. He had zero experience and it worked out very well. Robin cook was arguably not the smoothest character to be a charming diplomat and relationship builder.
 
Last edited:
Drone said:
The armed forces learnt long ago that the best way to rein-in a 'popular with the troops' troublemaker is by promotion.

Equally, there's the axiom that the ladder of promotion ends in a job one can't quite do

So May's surprising appointment will either prove to be inspired or end in calamity

So go on Boris - cometh the hour, cometh the man?

Vary glad Gove has been kicked into touch but ambivalent about Osborne; he probably did as good a job as chancellor as anyone could given the dire situation he inherited

Go Theresa go! Given the shambolic opposition, shouldn't we all, regardless of hue, be wishing her and her team all the very best? I am
Click to expand...

Yes we should.

To bear out the last sentence, more voters believe (by quite a margin) that may is a far better prospect as pm than corbyn. Shocked? Hardly

until you read that that recent poll is amongst non Tory voters only.
 
clivex said:
Boris is well known for not having a great deal of support on the backbenches.
Click to expand...

This key and it's surprising how little comment this receives in the media. It took only a view votes to Gove for him to have no chance of lasting in the conservative leader race. It's very unlikely he will ever be leader, as the average Tory MP has little time for him (his populist bombant doesn't wash so well with them as with the average dim witted tabloïd reader), and in an era where there are still plenty of médium to big hitters in the tory party, he has no chance of getting into the last 2 in a party élection race.
 
Back
Top