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

[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]

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.

[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.

[Noir]

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 ?

Having a single statement be respond to with 5 or 6 questions is not conducive to a good discussion, nor does it make easy reading.

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 ?

No.

Enjoy your humour. I understand your focus, though. There's absolutely nothing funny about what the EU has been up to...

But there is something very funny about Johnson proposing a solution which is legally contradictory to an amendment which he (and other hard Brexit conservatives) got enshrined into law.

[Drummond]

Having a single statement be respond to with 5 or 6 questions is not conducive to a good discussion, nor does it make easy reading.

Whether or not you find it easy to read, doesn't concern me. If your points require detailed rebuttal, that's what they'll get.

That you can't handle (or is it, 'prefer' not to handle ?) what you get, isn't my issue. Rather, it's yours.

No.

What do you mean, 'no' .. ?

What's the problem ? Do you balk at giving your co-workers all the evidence they could ever need that their instinct to leave the EU was 100% justified, AND, that Boris being forced to accept that border down the Irish Sea (& all that this involves) is the EU's fault ??

The one helps to justify the other. The EU expects, & is content with, disreputable results from negotiations. That's because it speaks to what they are, and what they'll happily force others to do. It says all that's required as to what THEY, and not what their negotiating VICTIMS, ARE.

But there is something very funny about Johnson proposing a solution which is legally contradictory to an amendment which he (and other hard Brexit conservatives) got enshrined into law.

Was this done before the EU made him a victim of their negotiating ploys, or afterwards ?

Here's a challenge. If or when you reply, try saying SOMETHING that is critical of the EU.

Not Boris. The EU. Go on, Noir.

Try.

[Noir]

Whether or not you find it easy to read, doesn't concern me. If your points require detailed rebuttal, that's what they'll get.

That you can't handle (or is it, 'prefer' not to handle ?) what you get, isn't my issue. Rather, it's yours.

Fair enough, whatever you chose to spend your time doing.

What do you mean, 'no' .. ?

I mean -try and follow me on this- no.

Here's a challenge. If or when you reply, try saying SOMETHING that is critical of the EU.

Not Boris. The EU. Go on, Noir.

Try.

The EU is a god-awful organ - bloated, wasteful, overly bureaucratic, and insufficiently democratic.

[Drummond]

Fair enough, whatever you chose to spend your time doing.

You have a point, I suppose. It's not as though you even choose to learn anything.

I mean -try and follow me on this- no.

In the absence of an answer, I have to assume one ... as I already have.

Of course, another explanation could be that you don't talk freely to your co-workers. If it's because you once told them you were a Leftie ... I can understand.

The EU is a god-awful organ - bloated, wasteful, overly bureaucratic, and insufficiently democratic.

Some actual TRUTH here !! Congrats on meeting my challenge, even if a bit belatedly.

I'm not sure they're at all democratic, though, in any way that counts for anything. They like to claim they are ... but .. their own Parliament is an autonomy-demolishing monstrosity. The laws they pass on a daily basis, with the imperative that Member States MUST incorporate them into their own legislative machinery .. makes a mockery of their claims for respecting 'democracy'.

[Kathianne]

@Drummond @Noir

True?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...ment-tomorrow/

The situation has been fluid all day in Westminster, but The Guardian’s calculations suggest Boris Johnson just might get his Brexit deal passed. Ten Labour MPs have declared their intention to support the proposal, along with enough Tory rebels returning to get to a majority of two, even without the DUP. That’s an early assumption, however, and a key loss on a procedural motion might throw a spanner into the works for Johnson tomorrow.

...

[Noir]

Some actual TRUTH here !! Congrats on meeting my challenge, even if a bit belatedly.

I don’t see in what sense it’s belated, these have always been some of my opinions on the EU for many years now, in all honesty I should of been the easiest vote for the Leave campaign to of won, but no, the campaign from the start was a disaster, poor arguments backed up by ignorant and naive policy predictions. Indeed it was so bad that not only did the Leave campaign stop me from voting for them, but they convinced me to vote against leaving the EU, and I have not been surprised to see them amble from failure to failure (and lie to lie) since they won the vote, because based on their conduct before the vote this was always going to be the way it went.

@Drummond @Noir

True?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...ment-tomorrow/

It’s certainly possible, many on the Left/Labour (such as Corbyn) want out of the EU, and have done for a long time, though Johnson has made the maths much more difficult for himself over the treatment of Northern Ireland, losing the Conservatives 10 DUP votes that they paid for a few years ago.

[Drummond]

@Drummond @Noir

True?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...ment-tomorrow/

The honest answer is that, right now, nobody really knows. Thinking on this WAS that Boris was bound to lose ... but, he's been winning support from ex-Conservative MP's to whom Boris said 'Goodbye' fairly recently, when he had his rebel MP clearout. He's also getting some rebel Labour MP support (something Corbyn's hopping mad about ... days ago, fearing that was a possibility, he made a coded speech claiming 'No Labour MP' could countenance what was emerging from Brussels).

Boris may well win, but it's just too close to call. Nobody in the media is giving a hard prediction. As I'm typing, I've got today's Commons debate playing, live, in the background. Boris has given a sterling performance, now Labour Ministers are debating (Keir Starmer speaking) ...

If Boris loses, it looks like he'll be compelled to send the law-enforced, pre-drafted letter prepared to ask the EU for an extension. Rumour has it that if that happens, he'll do precisely nothing to follow it up with Brussels, with behind-the-scenes conversations or suggestions .......

[Drummond]

I don’t see in what sense it’s belated, these have always been some of my opinions on the EU for many years now, in all honesty I should of been the easiest vote for the Leave campaign to of won, but no, the campaign from the start was a disaster, poor arguments backed up by ignorant and naive policy predictions. Indeed it was so bad that not only did the Leave campaign stop me from voting for them, but they convinced me to vote against leaving the EU, and I have not been surprised to see them amble from failure to failure (and lie to lie) since they won the vote, because based on their conduct before the vote this was always going to be the way it went.

Noir, I don't know about you, but when I have an online conversation with someone, I don't feel obliged to thumb through years' worth of posts from the person I'm debating with as a preparation. All well and good, if my memory aids me: if it doesn't, I just go with the conversation, debating honestly and if need be, 'by the seat of my pants'.

If I have confidence in my views and arguments (I invariably do), I don't feel the need for massive research in preparation. With commonsense and material supporting me, my combination of each usually allows me to win through.

I can't really comment on your internal thought processes ! Some may have reacted as you did, to what you saw and heard. Others, witnessing exactly the same, might (and doubtless did) react in precisely the opposite way.

For myself, I'd have believed that being guided by media pundit offerings, or even the musings of MP's or Ministers, wasn't a productive exercise. You can't predict with any precision at all what may occur in the political world of two & fro discussions, early in the process !

You talk of 'lie to lie', but give no detail on that. What are you thinking of, when you claim this ?

I'd say this: the Brexit Referendum had to be held before we discussed anything with the EU (but of course !). Nobody could predict, before any negotiations began, how they'd go !!

Now, with much hindsight and commonsense applied, one might presume that the EU would make discussions difficult, since, after all, WHY would the EU allow it all to be a smooth process ? It was firmly in their interests to deter any other Brexit equivalents from any other Member State. That said ... little if anything could've been predicted. We know what we know, now, because we DO know it !!

It’s certainly possible, many on the Left/Labour (such as Corbyn) want out of the EU, and have done for a long time, though Johnson has made the maths much more difficult for himself over the treatment of Northern Ireland, losing the Conservatives 10 DUP votes that they paid for a few years ago.

It was Theresa May who sought their support. Thanks to an election where her misplaced faith in polls saw her lose a majority she'd expected to bolster (!), she had no choice but to obtain whatever Commons support she could. Happily for her, for a long time, the DUP fitted the bill.

As for what you call 'Johnson's ... treatment of Northern Ireland' ... Noir, you're falling back on bad habits once more. I did get you to say something non-supportive about the EU, in this thread ... which surprised me, when I read your response. Now, once again, you've fallen silent in holding the EU responsible for its part in this affair !! BORIS HAS ONLY GIVEN GROUND ON N IRELAND BECAUSE THE EU BACKED HIM INTO THAT CORNER.

What conceivable reason can you have for supposing that Boris gave ground on that, without being MADE to, from hard, aggressive, EU bargaining ?? Our media was reporting that the negotiations were difficult, and they significantly overran Barnier's cutoff time for them.

So please be honest with your reviews, Noir. Boris only gave ground on the N Ireland border issue, because of THE EU.

Blame WHERE IT'S DUE.

As for Corbyn ... their conduct has reeked of dishonesty, fudge, and above all, sheer vandalism borne of an insistence to follow THEIR agenda, not that of respect for the 2016 Referendum. Their current policy is an outright insult to the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit, believing that their votes should count for something !!!