Queen Elizabeth Tells Parliament That Going Thru With BREXIT Is Her “Priority”

[Kathianne]

That IS the default position. This can only go one of two ways: an extension is granted, or, we leave by 31st October.

With Parliament failing to ratify the latest deal, should that happen, then it'd be up to the EU as to what it's prepared to do (such is our enslavement to EU law, as a member, that the EU has always had the upper hand in that sense). The EU could decide that it's gone as far as it possibly can in supplying a deal. In that case, they could say there's no point in granting any extension. Or, they could say that they'll just wait for our Parliament to give up its dysfunctionality, and ratify it.

Without hope of ratification being evident .. I think they'll just refuse to grant an extension .. so, if we've not ratified by Halloween, we crash out.

If Labour stops its vandalism, and reconsiders its position, AND the EU believes they may .. then, I believe that we'd get that extension.

But, I don't think Labour will ever be constructive enough to reconsider. They'll just go on insisting that 'no deal' is not an option, simultaneously refusing (insanely and vandalistically) to ever agree one !! In order to fend off accusations of being undemocratic, they'll push for another Referendum. Or agree an election. And expect the EU to wait around to witness the outcome of either.

In reality, though, I think this is 'make or break' time. The EU expects this latest deal to be ratified. If it isn't .. game over, and we crash out.

That's my belief. But, as I say, the final decision lies with the EU. I think that Labour's arrogance fails to permit them the understanding that the EU's patience is wearing thin. Short of Labour somehow finding a way of showing them they can derail Brexit entirely, they'll say 'game over', and we will leave on the due date.

Is not the deal better than crashing out? Won’t the people punish Parliament for that?

[Noir]

“I want to make it absolutely clear, that under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea, or to attenuate our union and that is why I so bitterly opposed the withdrawal agreement you may recall...and that’s why i resigned over Chequers you may recall. It’s a terrible moral blackmail it puts on the U.K. government, you can’t have that, you can’t have that approach.”

Boris Johnson speaking in Belfast, July 2019.

Today, Johnson announced a border in the Irish Sea.

[Drummond]

“I want to make it absolutely clear, that under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea, or to attenuate our union and that is why I so bitterly opposed the withdrawal agreement you may recall...and that’s why i resigned over Chequers you may recall. It’s a terrible moral blackmail it puts on the U.K. government, you can’t have that, you can’t have that approach.”

Boris Johnson speaking in Belfast, July 2019.

Today, Johnson announced a border in the Irish Sea.

So, what are you saying ?

Thanks to a mixture of intransigence and sheer arrogance, the EU required concessions from us, before they'd give any. Now, I daresay Boris could've given none .. resulting in no deal being forthcoming.

THEN, what would've happened ?

Boris would've been mandated by Parliament to ask for an extension. THAT, TOO, would've seen Boris being forced to renege on his absolute assurance (on pain of dying in a ditch) that he'd not ask for one.

So, we know what Boris chose. He chose, as he saw it, the lesser of two evils ... the one which permitted him to try and deliver Brexit by 31st October, versus one that would have forced him to defy the electorate, and FAIL to do so.

You tell me, Noir. Which of those choices, according to you, should Boris have opted for ? If you think he could've avoided both, fine ... tell me HOW !!

Noir, you're just continuing on with attack-dog posts. You want to denigrate Boris any way you think you can, but, you offer no alternatives to what's occurring. Fact is, Boris is doing his best, playing a very bad hand as well as possible -- in such a way that he can keep faith, as much as possible, with the peoples of the United Kingdom.

All the while, of course, Labour do what you're doing .. offering no good alternatives, just attacking (and vandalising). Labour 'want us to leave with a deal, rather than without one' .. they SAY. In truth, they shoot down any AND ALL deals out there.

Non-dictatorial, honest politics, where MP's SERVE those who elect them. Noir, when was it that Labour abandoned such principles ?

Or did they never really believe in them, only now, it's become particularly apparent ?

... H'mm .. ?

[Noir]

So, what are you saying ?

Im saying that something that Johnson promised he would never do to Northern Ireland in July, he did in October.

You tell me, Noir. Which of those choices, according to you, should Boris have opted for ? If you think he could've avoided both, fine ... tell me HOW !!

He could not of avoided both, because he backed himself into a corner from which either path forward would of contradicted statements he has made in the past few weeks. Johnson putting himself in that position in the first place doesn’t seem very smart.

Noir, you're just continuing on with attack-dog posts. You want to denigrate Boris any way you think you can, but, you offer no alternatives to what's occurring. Fact is, Boris is doing his best, playing a very bad hand as well as possible -- in such a way that he can keep faith, as much as possible, with the peoples of the United Kingdom.

If by ‘denigrate Boris in anyway you can think of’ you mean ‘compare the actions of Boris today to the words he stated a few weeks ago’ then Johnson has brought that on himself by saying one thing, and then doing another, like a liar.

He has not kept the faith of the Leave voters of Northern Ireland.

[Drummond]

Im saying that something that Johnson promised he would never do to Northern Ireland in July, he did in October.

He could not of avoided both, because he backed himself into a corner from which either path forward would of contradicted statements he has made in the past few weeks. Johnson putting himself in that position in the first place doesn’t seem very smart.

If by ‘denigrate Boris in anyway you can think of’ you mean ‘compare the actions of Boris today to the words he stated a few weeks ago’ then Johnson has brought that on himself by saying one thing, and then doing another, like a liar.

He has not kept the faith of the Leave voters of Northern Ireland.

I see a great deal in your post, Noir, that's critical of Boris. 'Strangely', though, I see nothing that's critical of the EU. Now, why is that ?

It's not as though you lack a basis for that criticism !!!

So, in considering your words:

.. something that Johnson promised he would never do to Northern Ireland in July, he did in October.

... I think you should also consider how it was that the EU insisted that he renege on his word.

Does that tell you anything GOOD about the EU's principles in all this ? Does it suggest to you that the EU had any respect for our side in the negotiations ?? To demand what they have, and to get Boris to break his word into the bargain .. what conceivable basis could anybody have for trusting, or feeling 'good about', a power that plays these games with our very borders, and is happy to force our PM into a position his critics could claim held a measure of disreputability ?

AND THESE ARE PEOPLE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ENTRUST POROUS BORDERS TO, TO THINK NOTHING OF PERMITTING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE FROM THE EU TO OUR SHORES ??

The real truth, Noir, is this: the EU has contempt for the rights of Nation States. They consider borders held by EU members, THEIRS to do just what they like with ! What ELSE explains the EU's sheer arrogance in suggesting we keep to the border arrangements now insisted upon ?

So, Noir, learn the real lesson here !! [Not that you'll be willing to, though, eh, Noir ??]

As for:

He could not of avoided both, because he backed himself into a corner from which either path forward would of contradicted statements he has made in the past few weeks. Johnson putting himself in that position in the first place doesn’t seem very smart

I suggest to you that to break faith with the UK electorate to such a degree that he refused to respect the 2016 Referendum, to the point where he happily asked for another extension, would've been so disreputable and contemptuous of the People, that he couldn't possibly have chosen to go that far. Whatever else you want to wallop Boris for, you cannot claim that he hasn't fought hard to see that the Referendum's outcome is respected.

Keeping to his pledge to leave by 31st October was a definite line in the sand. He didn't 'box himself in' ... he has been keeping a highly necessary and laudable pledge to the peoples of the United Kingdom.

Consider Theresa May's fate. She asked for an extension, and got it. What happened to her career, not very long afterwards ? What has been the mood of the electorate towards politicians, since ? They want Brexit DEALT WITH ..

... and this is where Boris came in .....

Absurdly, you said:

He has not kept the faith of the Leave voters of Northern Ireland.

He has done his best, Noir, for all those who voted 'Leave'. He holds responsibility for all UK members.

Here's a point which Lefties studiously ignore ... stupidly ...

The 2016 Referendum, Noir, was a UK-WIDE VOTE. No one country voted AS a country, but rather, as part of a UK-wide vote where all votes, no matter where they came from in the UK, were treated equally, holding equal significance and context.

What changes to the ballot paper do you claim existed on those used by NI citizens ? Didn't you vote on EXACTLY the same terms, as everybody else in the other UK countries ?

Take Scotland .. they, as a country, voted to 'Remain'. BUT .. they were part of a much wider overall vote which, when added up, produce a 'Leave' result. They are therefore tied into that 'Leave' vote, because, in voting, they didn't vote as a separate national entity.

Neither did Northern Ireland. So, Noir, in the sense of NI voters being NI voters, none held any special significance in the Referendum. They didn't have (nor could claim) any special 'rights'.

So, you're talking rot. Aren't you ?

Here's one more point for you to mull over.

If Saturday's Commons voting goes as many expect it to, and Boris finds himself in a position of needing yet more time from the EU as a consequence ... consider that, if that request is made, Boris's opposition will COMPEL HIM TO BREAK HIS PLEDGE TO THE PEOPLES OF THE UK, BY LAW.

WHY ?

Because, Noir, his truly DISGUSTING Labour opposition will have FORCED him into it.

I ask this:

What's any less than shameful about a political force which forces ANYBODY to LIE, and to incur legal punishment if they refuse to ???

Labour thinks itself fit to govern us. Yet, they'll force the most powerful figure in the land to LIE, and BETRAY THE PEOPLE, and punish him through the force of law if he refuses to !! How on earth can anybody willing to stoop to that, ever be fit for Government ????!?

[Noir]

Off topic - Sometimes less is more Drummond, you’ve got over a dozen sentences there that end in a question mark, navigating a post like that is not something I’m going to invest time into doing.

- - -

As for my point - Northern Irish leave voters (such as the people I work with) were very abusive in their choice of language to describe what Johnson has offered in his deal, because they were lied to.

This is particularly insulting to them because he promised only two months ago that he would do this under “no circumstances”.

This is also particularly funny to me, because Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and the ERG as a whole legislated an amendment into law to stop this exact proposal being legal.

[Drummond]

Off topic - Sometimes less is more Drummond, you’ve got over a dozen sentences there that end in a question mark, navigating a post like that is not something I’m going to invest time into doing.

Hah !!! Who do you think you're kidding ??

I'm posting points you're having difficulty with. You're evading them, because you are ! Can't you be honest enough to admit it ?

Do I understand that you will expect answers to your points, while you lamely evade mine ?

As for my point - Northern Irish leave voters (such as the people I work with) were very abusive in their choice of language to describe what Johnson has offered in his deal, because they were lied to.

This is particularly insulting to them because he promised only two months ago that he would do this under “no circumstances”.

Well, you can use my earlier post (the one you've evaded answering in any detail at all) to answer your work colleagues, can't you ?

This is also particularly funny to me, because Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and the ERG as a whole legislated an amendment into law to stop this exact proposal being legal.

Enjoy your humour. I understand your focus, though. There's absolutely nothing funny about what the EU has been up to. Their shenanigans are too arrogantly shabby and shameful, not to mention downright abusive, to find anything funny about. So, steadfastly turn away from being critical of the EU. Try HARD ... you'll need to, to avoid facing nasty truths.

If your co-workers really do feel the anger you claim ... tell them to place themselves in Boris's position. Point out to them that the EU wouldn't have given any ground unless Boris himself had (and tell them that discussions were tough, even so !). Get them to see that it's the EU's arrogance and intransigence that forced this whole situation upon them. Explain that the EU's own disreputability, its contempt, its arrogance, has forced ALL of this upon them. Get them to understand that negotiations needed an impetus, and the EU wouldn't have given ground unless they'd felt they could.

Tell them that, since all that's so, their instinct to vote 'Leave' has been proven as justified as it possibly could have been. Tell them that Boris is as much a victim of EU arrogance as THEY are.

Enjoy your misplaced humour, then. It has as its origin-point the EU's disreputable arrogance, and their unfitness to be a part of.

[Drummond]

Is not the deal better than crashing out? Won’t the people punish Parliament for that?

My answers to your questions, in the order you ask them:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

I've always wanted the UK to leave under favourable terms ... why wouldn't I ? That would absolutely necessitate agreeing a deal that provided them.

Labour's position has never been that honest, however. They SAY they want a deal, to protect the UK's economy from damage, and yet, no matter what they're presented with, they immediately reject it. I think their only agenda can be to arrange matters so that we cancel Brexit.

Thanks to a mixture of Left wing vandalism and the EU's stubborn intransigence ... we are where we are. A good deal is better than no deal. But, we DID vote to LEAVE the EU, and nothing was ever said about how we did !! The important goal is to see that the 2016 Referendum is honoured, and we are shown to be the democracy we profess to be !!

If Labour vandalism will permit no ratification of any deal, then, we must leave without one. The alternative is to give up our very existence, ultimately, as an autonomous Nation State.