UKH

On being accused of grandstanding to the press at a hospital by the dad of a sick child he lies about no press being there, while, it appears, looking at the press. Yesterday or the day before he denied saying that investigating cases of historic sexual abuse was spaffing money up the wall despite it being on tape. I wonder:

a) how long this thread can get if we keep a running list of them on a daily basis

b) the gymnastics his supporters will engage in to explain why all this is normal and explicable...

Ehob cersees

Or perhaps the grandstanding was by the Labour activist father, putting on a performance in front of the cameras over something that was likely down to hospital management?

What cameras? - There was no press there...………...

I’m sure his political affiliations totally over-rode his concern about his 7 day old child who’d nearly died.  

Any observations on Johnson’s blatant lie?

What the f*ck? Of course it is somewhat more likely that someone who is politically engaged for an opposition party will challenge the PM when an opportunity arises than either the senile losers who made him their party leader. The less said about the spineless fraction who would rather doff their cap or tug their forelock in presence of their betters the better.

Next you are going to tell me that they poisoned the baby after learning about the visit....

CB

Blatant lie?

If he’s there for a hospital visit then any press are incidental, it wasn’t a pre arranged press conference. 

I’m pretty sure it’s been established that the press had been briefed about the visit by No10. Might be wrong, but I’ve glanced across stuff to that effect on Twitter. 

Incidental to the calls made by the PMs media team. Or are you suggesting that the nations press are a permanent presence in all our hospitals. Johnson’s words were “there are no press here”.

The assumptions that this was due to a lack of staff, that this was a result of Boris "running down the NHS" makes me think his political affiliations are the number one reason why he created the scene he did.

No idea. I assumed he hadn't explicitly brought the press with him, hence the response. I expect wherever he goes there are at least some cameras. But photographers on hand to see him meet this guy? 

Yes it was. It was briefed out to the press in advance, they even requested a pool camera.

Press was briefed on the visit, there was a BBC crew and several AP photographers there with the PM. 

You can actually hear the cameras taking photos suring the video clip, I don't know whether you've seen it. There's no way he could have thought there were no press there, while looking right at them filming and photographing him.

He simply lacks any interest in any form of honesty.

I've also seen staged photos from the visit syndicated on AP.

Hang on a minute: isn't he supposed to be busy, urgently writing the Queen's Speech...?

Or was his chat with the Queen along the lines of, "well, your Majesty, I'd like to suspend Parliament so I can go around the country, kissing babies..."?

Incidental? How gullible can you be? Of course, the press will be notified beforehand about any public appearance of a politician at any level, and TV stations an papers will then decide who to send along to the event. A hospital visit by the PM will merit the full treatment, cameras and journos at least by local media, a visit by a local councillor maybe one trainee journalist. There are email lists, social media groups, or an aide will invite a paper or TV station directly. What point visiting a hospital if not trying to get a message across, especially in the run up to an inevitable election?

There is nothing wrong with this at all, politicians should show the public what they claim to be interested in. Of course, they have to accept that this can backfire. Johnson seems to have a special talent for this.

His instinctive reaction, claiming that there were no media, when the whole thing was media event in the first place, just reveals him as a pathological liar not far from Trump.

CB

... and while he's busy electioneering, the 30 day deadline for coming up with concrete proposals in support of an EU deal renegotiation has quietly expired

ha ha ha, his actual words, "there are no press here". What part of that don't you understand, whether it was pre-arranged or not, he was aware there were press there, and he then said there weren't.

You're as bad as him!

He was talking to the Queen, that was her dressed up as a bloke, and she said wonderful things about Boris, and what a good job he's doing and how now he's visited a hospital our NHS will get all the funding it needs.

</trumpanator>

Useful thread if only to establish who the hardcore Bojo fan boys are.

Totally - he could have hardly NOT noticed a TV camera filming him.  It was like scene out of Spinal Tap.  He is a lying tw*t of the highest order, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.  

Amazing. What a scumbag you are. How utterly disgusting a post.

Next thing you know he'll be saying that rich people can only feel "privileged pain".....

Surely nobody could sink that low?

Cheers.  And good on you for being outraged.  As it is it looks pretty clear Boris was telling whoppers.  So happy to be corrected on that.  But not change in my view on the father being a political opportunist.  Or perhaps he was equal in his blame and launched similar invective on the hospital management?  Somehow I doubt it.  Next time I have an Amazon parcel go missing I'll be sure to blame Jeff Bezos and his treatment of his workers.

Who'll be saying that?

You should. Jeff Bezos is an absolute c*nt. I've worked for him, did my best but got treated like shite.

   The newspaper that said it about a rich man who's severely disabled child had died?

Will be saying it, or said it?

What about Johnson being an opportunist? Only in his case,  actually manufacturing the photo opportunity, by arranging to visit a hospital to no real purpose, other than to smile for the press,  and shake the hands of the few contract staff who could be rounded up from their proper duties, and possibly be trusted not to have a go at him?

Talking of proper duties, I'll ask again: how come Boris isn't spending time on the Queen's Speech, that was such an urgent requirement that he had to suspend parliament for, a few days ago?

Said it, in an editorial, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49710874

To quote Jenny Eclair "vile beyond vile"

  Politician in photo opportunity shock horror...

  Next thing you know he'll be kissing babies

Not really about him being an opportunist, rather that he looked into a video camera whilst several SLRs were clicking away (which his office had arranged) and said ‘there’s no press here’. This is the important bit about what happened yesterday, everything else is a distraction from this. 

WTF has David Cameron's son, and Jenny Eclair, got to do with Boris Johnson's lies? I used to think you were a conservative with principles, but when you keep jumping through hoops to defend the utter shambles that the Tories are delivering, I really doubt it and wonder if you're just another who's only interested in protecting their own interests that they'll profit from. But then, hey, that's pretty much the definition of a Tory....

You call it an "editorial" but it's actually in the Comment Is Free section, which is where the Guardian (or the Grauniad, as you'll no doubt be referring to it) publishes diverse opinion that the editorial staff may or may not agree with - very much unlike most newspapers. That's certainly not to excuse it by any means - it was indeed vile and should never have been approved for inclusion even in Comment Is Free. But regular editorial it certainly wasn't.

How could it be a photo opportunity? There were no press there. But, as noted above, the usual suspects are defending the lies.

Nothing. I'm not defending Johnson. I'm attacking you.  When you have the barefaced gall to accuse someone of being a scumbag for a reasonable if inappropriate post you need to be reminded of the depths to which your "side" sinks. Are you going to defend them???? Really?

  Don't even think of taking the moral high ground.

Not according to the press gazette, or any other outlet I've read. It was an editorial.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-sorry-for-privileged-pain-comment-over-...

I can't decide if your point is a straw man or whataboutery. 

I can help you. It's whataboutery based on anger at the sheer depths of moral hypocrisy which the left can sink to. Johnson may be a self serving liar but it's hard to compete with the Guardian this week. Where was all the moral outrage from the UKC sainthood about that?

  It was entirely appropriate because Ron was being criticised for his comment on a man probably traumatised and angry at the illness of his child. The Guardian's comment was 1000 times worse.

So what is the shock? That someone actually tackled him, to piss on his little photo op..?

As I said, the relevant question here is WTF is he doing messing about with photo ops, when he's supposed to be so busy preparing policies to present in the Queen's speech that he had to suspend Parliament in order to free up time to do that?

He's not supposed to have time for photo ops.

You're attacking me? Get a life, I don't give a f*ck what you think of me. And I don't think Pan Ron needs you to come to his defence. Unless you boys in the club feel the need to cuddle each other now your constant lies keep being exposed. And I don't have a "side". You obviously do.

Seems to me that there isn't really an equivalent to Comment Is Free in other newspapers, as it combines staff opinion contributions along with opinions from various non-staff writers, quite often with views that may be seen as challenging the expected Guardian line on events. That's part of the attraction - to challenge a few bubbles. But because of that it isn't really surprising that the nearest label other publishers have to use for it is Editorial.

As I said earlier, it's a gross oversight that such a piece should have been allowed visibility in the Guardian, but being in the Guardian and being called editorial by third parties does not mean that it espouses the views of the Guardian editorial staff.

  You cannot be  serious? Do you think PM's spend all the working hours dotting the I's and crossing the T's on the policies. He has civil servants and ministers to do that. He's selling the policies ! It's part of what he's paid to do.

  Of all the many things you could criticise Johnson for, misuse of time  is honestly bizarre.

  You seem remarkably upset for someone who is so happy to dole it out. Live by sword....

And yes, my side in this case is common decency, which the Guardian seems to lack..

I believe BigJob said "There is no press here."
Did you really miss that bit, after countless times of it being pointed out here and the media in general?

You're just a windup merchant these days.

  No, of course I didn't miss it. It was completely weird and stupid but given the "countless times of it being pointed out here and the media in general", unlike the drones on here I don't feel the need to join the chorus of boos.

  Read the thread. Paranoia accused Johnson of being an "opportunist" as if there were something wrong with this. There isn't and I pointed that out. That others assume that this is a defence of Boris making things up is , er, very silly.

Again, WTF? I don't read the Gaurdian, you obviously do. And I live my life with common decency. I'm not upset at all, I'm actually feeling quite relaxed at the moment, which is remarkable considering the shitstorm in this country that's been created by you. Are you shorting the pound?

  The Guardian itself has described it as an editorial, "The Guardian later apologised and removed the comments from the editorial on its website, stating: “The original version of this editorial posted online fell far short of our standards."

  Comment is free has bylines. This editorial didn't. All the evidence suggest that a senior editorial journalist wrote it

It's sad really. I disagreed with Postmanpat many times but always respected his views. Not any more since he became another Brexit apologist.

  I wish I were that powerful but sadly I'm not.  The story was in virtually every significant media outlet. And yes I read the Graniad.

Well given that it is no longer available I'll have to take your word for it. If that's the case it's just as deplorable that it ever made it to press but less forgivable as an oversight than it would have been were it to have been by a guest writer.

 Which kind of sums up the problem: people so convinced of their own rightness that they believe that people who disagree must be thick or morally lacking. My shock has been the sheer hysteria of the hard remain camp combined, in many cases , with a complete lack of understanding or curiousity about the argument for leaving. So if that makes me appear unreasonable to them, so be it.

Incidentally you seem to have missed this as well! https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/vote_libdem_you_know_it_makes_s...

Well you say you believe in democracy and you voted for Brexit. There's your power. And once again you mention the Guardian, but then misspell it deliberately. That seems to be an obsession some people have. Why do you do it?

  Fair enough. I guess the difference is that you see it as an oversight but I see it as a slipping of the mask.

Well you would, wouldn't you?

It's whatamanery AND Strawboutery, both of which points towards Boris being a lying bastard, when the first words out of his mouth after the bloke had had ago at him, were lies!!

That's what should be being discussed, not whether he was an "activist", whatever the f*ck that means, or whether Kuenesburg (sp?) thought it was right to out him. What should be front and centre is the PM lied about the press being there!!

I've never accused you of being thick. I think you're a very intelligent person.

For the same reason you did it?

It was an old running joke in Private Eye joke referring to the paper's frequent misprints. My generation has been repeating it for years so I got in the habit. It reflects appropriate disrespect for the organ and irritates a few people on here. Job done!

Thankyou. I know you haven't but it is assumption commonly made about brexiteers or, that if they are not thick, they must be xenophobes. It demeans the discussion.

I don't know, I don't read it. It just sounds like frequency garble to me. Your beloved Tories are lying over and over again, shafting our country to line their pockets, and you're defending them. It's the most despicable politics in the UK's history and you're defending it.

Can you quote my "defence" and the bits that you object to?

Lol. Is that the best you can do? You remind me of Stroppygob. Every time someone disagreed with him he demanded quotes and links etc. You know what I'm talking about. You have principles and ideals and ways you think the world should work, I respect that. But I also think you know that what's going on with Johnson and Brexit and British politics right now is very much wrong. Stop defending the indefensible, admit it's wrong, if you keep defending a liar it makes you a liar too.

The problem with that is that it’s very easy to think that people want out for xenophobic reasons rather than economic or political ones, when hardly anyone from your side of the argument seems to even remotely condemn the government’s rather xenophobic handling of UK residents from other EU countries. If we saw that, and hopefully some movement for reassurance from the government that would signal that they are not a bunch of c*nts, it’d be much easier to evaluate the rest of your side’s arguments on the matter on their other merits.

From the final batch of people running for leadership of the party only Gove and Stewart seemed to have such sensibilities, and for the love of god, don’t make me appreciate Gove.

   No, I don't know what you're talking about and I suspect that you don't either. I've been very clear what I think of Boris as a person for years. I've said I'm very uncomfortable about his shenanigans in parliament, prorogation etc (with the caveat that I am also uncomfortable about the actions of Bercow and the remainers) , have been negative about a number of other cabinet minsters, and have said I would probably vote libdem. 

  If you consider that saying the Tories are not wholly responsible for this mess then so be it. I don't regard that as a "defence", just as an analysis. In that I seem to share the view of, amongst others, such rabid Tories as Alan Johnson so I am happy to try and articulate a more considered view rather than simply screaming "fascist Tory" at every turn. If a few more remainers would do so there might be less hysteria.

Or is there something else that you are referring to? .

  I have, and I'm pretty sure others have.

Struggle with the concept of “hard remain”. Remaining is remaining. Nobody is arguing to join the Euro or anything. 

I’ve asked many times what the good reasons for leaving are and have yet to hear anything remotely plausible and logical. 

It depends on the defence. Strawmen and whataboutery wouldn't constitute lying for instance

I'm so disappointed by Postmanpat, I really thought he was a Tory with a heart. Not any more.

  Yes, yes, but you haven't actually produced anything to justify this and appear to be unaware of or ignore most of what is written.   I actually think you imagine things that aren't so. Unless, of course, you simply believe that a vote to leave is heartless per se?

  You have spent a lot of time defending Stalin, which I find very disappointing about you.

No it doesn't. If someone keeps lying, you know they're lying, and you defend them and agree with them, then you're a liar.

Are you a Tory with a heart? I'm giving my impression of you from my 15 years or so on UKC

"Hard remain" is when you can cannot imagine any remotely plausible or logical reason reason to leave, have not made any serious attempt to understand it  or the risks of staying and therefore assume the worst about everybody who voted to leave and become hysterical about it.

Yes, but so are many Tories. It's just that the left is so convinced of it's moral superiority that it doesn't feel the need to understand the case for moral Conservatism.

Woah right there. I have never made a single post defending Stalin. Take that back and apologise.

I’m prepared to accept my own lack of imagination, which is why I’ve asked so many times for the information. In vain. 

Lol. You remind me of Stroppygob. Every time someone disagreed with him he demanded quotes and links etc.

(Do you see what I did there?)

I definitely believe a vote to leave is heartless. You know that in doing so you’re condemning people to months or years of anxiety and fear about their settled status, their jobs, their freedom to work across Europe etc and you do it anyway. For absolutely no tangible benefit, just ignorant bullshit about sovereignty, and an unhealthy dose of xenophobia. 

Utter nonsense. You were given the whole argument about the inherent instability of the Euro and concomitant  inevitability of a move towards a centralised fiscal policy and a federal state and the question of where that would leave the UK. You were pointed in the direction of numerous books and articles and the concepts of community and identity which drove much of the leave vote and of the breakdown in democratic engagement of which the EU is a part.

You may not regard them as justification for leaving, which is fair enough, but if I'm honest I don't think you've even engaged with them.

Yes. You made yourself a liar again. Why does that make you feel clever?

And there we have it folks....

And you think the brexiteers are ignorant.......

You’ve managed to call someone heartless, a bullshitter and a xenophobe all in one post.

Even by UKC’s standards, or lack of them, that could be a record.

  Why am I wasting a time? I'll explain....

I was playing you at your own game. You accuse me of something that isn't so, and cry foul when I ask for evidence.

  I accuse you of something that isn't so (deliberately outrageously) and you scream "liar"

  Do you get it now? My point: don't make accusations if you won't support them.

Knock me down with a feather...

Clever Trevor....got it now?

I didn't 'scream' anything. You keep supporting the Brexit lies. Support the lies, then you're a liar. 

It’s true though. Zero f*cks given about those who are losing their jobs, having hours cut, living with financial uncertainty, worried about access to vital medicines and potential food shortages, emerging from school/uni into economic turmoil, having their businesses go bust etc etc etc. All that is on you. 

Obviously that's why I quoted that Ian Dury song.... Have you got it now? Or don't give a f*ck cos you're going to make money? How's your hedge fund doing?

So, you make false accusations so I make one back to make you see how you sound to me. I actually think that you really can't grasp this. That is  the only explanation I can think of for you to  keep making false accusations

I'll say it again: don't make false accusations if you won't or can't substantiate them.

(just in case you have still missed the point: my quip about Stalin was a deliberately false accusation which I assumed you would realise and come to your senses.. But you apparently didn't)

In what way is a father with a sick child in a hospital,  speaking about how things are in hospitals, being a political opportunist by speaking about it when chancing upon the PM (who decides about things like hospitals)?

  And how do feel about 40% youth unemployment in southern Europe. Zero f*cks as far as one can tell. Heartless bXstard.

A "quip" about Stalin. Wow. You utter dick.

You’ve helped them out a treat. Well done. 

  So you believe all that hedge fund and brexit nonsense. God help us

You are supporting the system that causes it. Do you feel no shame?

  You don't like quips abut Stalin I guess?

  Do you actually understand the concept that if you make a claim you have have some evidence to back it up? Because at the moment you're making no sense at all.

So if you were so concerned about it (which I very much doubt you were), how is removing the UK from the EU going to help which removes any influence the UK has over the situation, in addition to increasing the risk of it happening here? It isn’t, is it? It’s doing nothing to help that situation while causing untold damage here. Brilliant. 

I don't 'believe' anything. I see and experience the world around me, and form my opinions from that. I try to be as unbiased and open as I can. I'm probably being naive. I'm not like anyone you know. I'm not a hippy, I'm not straight. I'm somewhere near the middle but off to the side.

  On that note I'll leave you to it. Sweet dreams x

have have 

  Thanks for your charming vote of confidence. You guys are such sweethearts.

  How is, for example, resigning from a political party which you believe does harm going to help? It might not but by staying in it you are party to the harm being done. Are you happy with that?

Are you on the whacky backy?

Sweet dreams indeed. People like you who will make money out of Brexit and feel no moral imperative towards their fellow humans will sleep soundly in their bed at night.

I might give that weak argument some credence if I thought for a second that there was any significant degree to which the plight of the young in Greece and Italy influenced people’s decision to vote leave. Even Dominic Cummings tacitly admits it was all about immigration. There were no billboards up with Farage’s face in front saying “Leave the EU and protect the young of Greece and Italy” like there were ones showing thousands of refugees heading this way. 

No, are you? You said have have in your post.

  I wish! You’re a very confused fellow x

  Keep up the back. By voting to stay in an organisation that created and sustains massive unemployment you are just as guilty as those who voted to leave, risking a negative economic impact. 

  And if you actually studied any of the analysis you would know that immigration was not the main motivation for the leave vote. But not wanting to be treated like Greece and Italy was definitely a factor.

  Once again you have completely ignored any of the key issues raised about trade imbalances, the euro, federalisation, democracy, identity , community and so forth.

And next time you’ll say you’ve never heard a case for leaving blah blah.

Because you’re not listening and aren’t interested.

I'm not confused at all. You're a liar and a cheat like most conservatives I've met in my life. It's in the philosophy, you know that. Win win, be the best you can be. That's admirable but it's the trampling over others to get there that I don't like.

   Such humility and admirable self restraint

  You really are which is why I usually ignore you. You have simply made a series of the increasingly outrageous  and completely unsubstantiated accusations whilst apparently feeling no need at all to back up any of them. It’s just a kind of weird monologue going on in your head bearing virtually no relationship to anything actually being said to you except occasional bemused upset when you get a little of the same treatment that you hand out.

  If it wasn’t simply so odd I guess I should feel offended but I’ll probably just go back to normal service.

You probably will. Back to self serving, have fun with that, people like you usually do. Good night.

How on earth do you back up the claim that the EU "created and sustains massive unemployment"?

I think you are getting a bit confused about how Greece / Italy were treated (and similarly Spain and Rep of Ireland, I suspect).

Key issues. Hmmmm. Trade imbalances are simply a factor of who buys what and from whom. In a free trade area such as the EU, the playing field is about as level as it gets. The Euro - so what, it isnt compulsory; the UK doesn't use the Euro. How is it a factor is brexit? Federalisation - ok, maybe an issue fir some, but others like the idea. Democracy - for me the issue is the complete lack of understanding of how EU democracy works, not the democracy itself. Identity? how is this an EU issue? 

   OK, quickly....

  This is not a terribly controversial assertion. It's a commonplace amongst economists (eg.Krugman,Wolf,Bootle, Varoufakis, even Wren Lewis). Basically, Germany runs a structural current account surplus enabled by the weakness of the Euro and repression of domestic consumption (and, of course, an efficient manufacturing sector). The result is a high German savings  rate, savings which need to be reinvested, and they are reinvested in places like Greece, Italy and Spain etc.  This is fine until overall demand sinks, at which point Greece etc are are unable to repay the Germans. So the Germans, via the EU, demand that the Greeks etc embrace huge fiscal austerity which results in a massive recession and high unemployment.

  The  forcing of such hugely different economies into the straitjacket of the Euro means that the normal adjustments through currency movements cannot happen. Instead , deflation is exported across the continent and indeed the globe.

  This short video by Martin Wolf summarises the issue youtube.com/watch?v=eM9OxAdOT0Y&

To quote him further "The difficulty is not only that the outcomes have been terrible, but that a complete separation has emerged between the national level of accountability and the eurozone level of power. Democracy has been nullified...not just temporarily but indefinitely"."

  I don't. Both Italy and Greece effectively had governments imposed on them by the EU.

   See above for why trade balances matter. The reason the issue described above matters to the UK is that the obvious solution, which has already been discussed by the EU, is fiscal consolidation of the Eurozone which in itself implies political union of some form. In this case either the UK will feel under pressure to join, or it will be sitting on the sidelines neither in nor out of the EU but with hugely reduced influence.

  Incidentally, Wolfgang Schauble, the German finance minister, floated the idea of simply creating an EU "fiscal overlord" with the power to rule on the acceptability of the budget's of supposedly sovereign countries, justified by his assertion that national sovereignty is nonsensical and pouring scorn on the "academic debate over whether Europe is  a federation or an alliance of States."

  Regarding democracy, one of the biggest problems facing western democracies is that large parts of the electorate feel unengaged or even alienated by the political process (hence brexit, Trump, gilet jaune, "populism, etc). This is true of the UK and hence  the disaffection with Westminster, but the most egregious example is the EU, which is widely seen, not entirely wrongly, as a top down anti-democratic bureacracy. Democracies need to get closer to their electorates not further away.

  See also the above point about the Eurozone imbalances leading to the undemocratic overiding of politicians of sovereign countries by the EU.

  As I've referred to many times, David Goodhart, amongst others, gives the best analysis of the identity issue. Basically people feel the need to "belong" to something. The "somewheres"  get their sense of worth and security from their family, locality and country. You might regard these as old fashioned values (the more conceited will be less charitable) . For the middle class "anywheres" these values  have largely been replaced by identity based on education, career achievements etc. The "somewheres" tended to vote for brexit. It doesn't make them bad or wrong. From their own point of view they may be right.

  As I've often said, it's quite possible to believe the above and still believe in remaining (like Martin Wolf), or to disagree with the analysis. What I have barely seen from the hard remainers on UKC is any acknowledgement or engagement with such core issues.

Unfortunately you are arguing with people who are emotional and scared of change. 

It doesn’t matter what you try to do to alleviate those fears, they’ll not change their viewpoint. The emotion is causing them to dig their heels in. 

Any argument is dismissed as lies and many people blame the conservative government for many years of their own hardships. Hardships caused by the previous labour government. However, obviously the previous labour government wasn’t a real labour government, but the next one will be. Heaven help us. 

Its emotional entrenchment that’s preventing any rational debate with Brexit. They’re not interested in facts, the facts can be easily dismissed as they don’t fit the dogma. “I’ve not read anything that’s convinced me.” means “I’m not open to debate in this, I’m only interested in things that confirm my current viewpoint.”

It’s all very sad. All rational discussion went out the window years ago. It’s now just tit for tat. The quicker the 1st November arrives, the better. Then we can move on and unpick things. 

Putting on my best Diane Abbot voice, "as a remainer...." what you just wrote conflicts with my own narrative about the virtues of the EU, presents a rational reason for why the Brexit vote exists, and therefore I am unhappy, angry, arguably even injured by your harmful words.  

I won't allow it.  I shouldn' have to put up with this.  Have a negative!

That might just about be possible as long as we have not left, and therefore with Johnson finished politically, leaving the grown ups to negotiate a softer, more pragmatic and less damaging Brexit, better reflecting reflecting the referndum result, which the people can then either accept or reject.

Another entrenched emotional response. 

Eyesrolling. 

My iron-o-meter has just exploded

No. I genuinely think that a hard Brexit (or, heaven help us, no deal, negotiated by a Johnson government over the next five years - Given FPTP, a united minority leave vote would probably win the conservatives a parlaimentary majority) would be very damaging and divisive. A soft Brexit, negotiated by a coalition, would far better reflect the referendum vote and I might even vote for it rather than Remain in the interests of avoiding further divisiveness. 

As an exercise in human psychology it’s fascinating watching the idiots arguing. 

But it’s run it’s course now. 

Unfortunately, you will never know if that isn't the case.  Each side has too much invested in their causes and in being right. 

Even if a hard Brexit produces minimal disruption, some eventual benefits, and real but intangible improvements for c. 17.4 million, every negative outcome will be hyped and any positive ones overlooked depending on which way your media source is aligned.

I agree entirely. Any negatives will be the fault of the media and not the responsibility of brexit supporters or leaders.

  So why didn't the Labour party vote for May's soft brexit?

LMAO, did you write all that with a straight face?

‘write’?

Yes. 

Politics. They had their 6 "red lines" that Mays deal failed to match, and they felt a bit sore at not being consulted and involved with the negotiations, so voted against it. Our adversarial, FPTP parliament at it very worst again. Perhaps if may had involved them, they wouldnt have found it so easy to vote against it, and imho, the deal wouldnt have been so different. 

Incidentally, some good stuff in your response to my post upthread - i dont have time at the moment to reply properly, i'll try to later on today. 

In what sense could May's Brexit be regarded as Soft?

Good spot! Thanks....

Anyway how you can claim Remain voters are gripped by fear and emotion is beyond me....it was emotion (backed up by bullshit), not cold hard facts that drove the whole Leave campaign and continues to do do.

It gets better though 'any argument is dismissed as lies'.....jesus wept, this has been the whole Vote Leave MO since 2016!!!

Then we have 'they are not interested in facts'....WTF....it was Gove who proclaimed we don't need to listen to experts before telling us all that Turkey was about to join the EU. 

Do you work for Farage HQ?

  Keeps the UK effectively in the single market and the customs union and under the jurisdiction of the ECJ during the transition.

  I heard Alan Johnson on the radio bemoaning ("it makes me want to scream") the failure of most Labour MPs to vote for that "soft deal".

Are you going to engage with the argument for leaving?

It presents a rational explanation why PMP's Brexit vote exists, I doubt it reflects the reasons for why most of those who voted to leave did so 

  Most of the people on either side would have difficulty articulating a coherent or consistent explanation of their position. That's democracy for you.

But analysis suggests that the issues of democracy, sovereignty and "identity" were major drivers for the brexit vote, however incoherently they were articulated or rationalised.

An intentional misreading of what I wrote?  If the positives turn out to outweigh the negatives, is it right to pretend the positives don't exist and only the report the negatives?  To the point that Brexit must be reported as a bad thing regardless even if it turns out not to be?  Might as well be reporting the opening of another glorious tractor factory while the population starves.

Might be mistaking cause and effect.  I'm simply saying, if we're all better off (or potentially worse off), the Sun/Guardian and their relative readerships won't see it.  Their narratives won't change.

The words "during the transition" are doing a lot of heavy lifting there, in an attempt to distort reality into something approaching your claim.

They are the facts. Is it your argument that it is the non-binding political declaration which is the problem for Labour rather than the soft deal withdrawal agreement? Is Alan Johnson attempting to distort something?

Are you going to engage with the argument for leaving?

  Exactly. As I said the other day, the basic problem is that none of the parties: DUP, ERG, Labour , Lib dems will accept a "second choice"

Lots of whataboutery there. Well done. 

"non-binding".

Tee hee. Tell that to pretty much anyone in favour of any kind of hard Brexit and see what they think about the idea of ignoring the red lines upon which the WA was negotiated. But yet you're happy to use it as a rhetorical tool by which to pretend that May's deal is anything other than hard and damaging.

It's not whataboutery when the very tactics or traits you accuse Remain of have been/are used far, far more by Leave....

  I'm really not. Do you think Alan Johnson is? What is hard about the withdrawal deal itself?

I've barely seen any serious arguments about the political agreement. Have you? Maybe you can link to it?All the focus seems to have been on the withdrawal agreement?

Are you going to address a single question I have asked or point I have made?

I'll make whatever points and observations I choose to and have time for while dipping out from trying to concentrate on work. But thank you for the invitation to be led somewhere quite different.

Outside the single market. Outside the customs union. Outside every organisation associated with the EU (see: Euratom). Outside the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ for dispute resolution.

Being in the customs union, like Turkey, would be softer than that. Being in the single market, like Norway, would be soft.

What do you think is soft about this deal?

   You mean to be engage with the debate at hand? It was you that queried the description "soft brexit" and now apparently regard that debate as "somewhere quite different". Maybe I should draw the obvious conclusion.

  Why don't you read my replies to John?

Because it wasn't a soft Brexit. It was a hard brexit based on red lines drawn to try to appease the hardliners in her own party.

Which part is the hard brexit and why does Alan Johnson, a keen remainer, regard it as a soft brexit? Is it the withdrawal deal or the political declaration that you believe is the problem?

Good grief! Yes, of course it does. By doing so It avoids the cliff edge we would get with no deal. 

I agree that a dislike of foreigners (or "identity") was huge part along with not being ruled by EU (sovereignty) but the arguments you laid out were:

a) mostly economic and not in anyway related to "economic" arguments used by the Brexiters ("we're giving them £350 million a week)

b) concerned about future integration and loss of sovereignty which do not chime with narrative of most Brexiters that we are already in an "EU dictatorship"

Please don't let me stop you drawing whatever incorrect conclusions you choose.

No customs union, No single market. No freedom of movement. 

The leavers have moved the goalposts. A soft Brexit always used to be understood as something like Norway or Switzerland. It now seems that anything less than no deal is regarded as soft!

Because they do not answer literally any of the points I made. Also, even BoJo’s idea of a deal without a backstop involves a transition period, read Stephen Barclay’s comments on the alternative backstop arrangements. Is the Brexit secretary a remainer too? The transition period doesn’t soften or harden any deal, it’s by its very definition a transition to a new relationship, to allow time for new systems to be put into place. Having no transition doesn’t make a deal harder, it makes it a cliff-edge Brexit.

It is whataboutery, you haven’t denied anything I posted or adressed any of it. You’ve just posted that Leave side have lied as well. 

You’re just proving my point. Neither side are interested in what either have to say. They’re only interested in getting their point across and trying to win an argument. 

  I was replying to your question. So, I'll ask again, to be clear. Is it the political declaration as opposed to withdrawal deal that it the problem?

  You seem to be confusing the campaign headlines with what the electorate said about their reasons for voting. There is overlap but they are not the same thing. What, for example, is your evidence that "most brexiteers" as opposed to a hard core of pub bores regard us as in an "EU dictatorship"?

  It's almost funny that hard remainers seem to take such soundbites more seriously than most brexiteers. No wonder you think "It's the Sun wot wunnit". You take it seriously!

   And "identity" is not at all the same as "dislike of foreigners". This is a common misunderstanding of hard core remainers. Do you really believe it? Have you read any of the books on the subject?

Once again I agree entirely. Brexit must be reported as a bad thing by newspapers more used to reporting on the glorious tractor factory.

OK to be clear I am denying what you said....

I don't frequent this forum much but do another with a 142,000 posts on it's Brexit thread and the arguments put forward by Leavers are on the whole embarrassing (there are a couple of posters who can form a coherent logical argument for leaving, not that I agree with them) and not based on any rational argument or facts......anything posted by Remainers based on evidence of how the EU actually works or the views of experts in their fields is immediately shouted down as 'bollocks'....Operation Yellowhammer is apparently 'project fear' despite BJs government running with it....work that one out!

In what way is a father with a sick child in a hospital,  speaking about how things are in hospitals, being a political opportunist by speaking about it when chancing upon the PM (who decides about things like hospitals)?

He appeared to be unloading a lot of vitriol on the PM as if Boris is personally responsible for the fact that his daughter apparently went without care (we really do not know the details of that); "my single experience is 100% evidence of what the person at the top of the pyramid has done" even if the mistake was some mundane error or a simple reality of no hospital ever being able to provide 24/7 care of every individual on its ward. 

Regardless of whatever stress he may, or may not, have been under I don't see it as an excuse to start hurling abuse at anyone in that environment.  That he then turned out to be a self-proclaimed Labour activist makes me suspect it was intentional and reserved for Boris regardless of how well or poorly funded the NHS is.

No doubt many people in hospitals never get the care they expect, whether that is for someone in a life-and-death situation or who turns up to A&E with an issue that warrants a sticking plaster.  Claiming any one person responsible, based on what is likely to be a partial understanding of how a hospital operates, looks like having an axe to grind or simple stupidity - might as well be saying "Doctors kill more people than they cure, innit".

Part of it is also that I'm sceptical of the crying-wolf when it comes to Boris.  Time and time again I'm being told he is the devil incarnate when on closer inspection, nah, he's probably not.

I have engaged in the past with your arguments, but I am happy to try again. 1) The EU is an enormous project, one that has many facets. 2) No single individual - or even country - will be equally supportive of every different facet, and individuals - even highly influential ones - will have their own views of what the EU is or should be about. 3) Patently many German politicians think Germany is the definitive role model of how to run an economy, and want to export that model to all other EU countries. They may be right about economics but they're wrong about it being a universally applicable model. 4) Quite explicitly the EU has a far broader remit than a narrow economic one; and this something I as a remainer am very much in favour of. 5) The EU project is all about  creating a close alignment of geographically and culturally linked but distinct sovereign nations, within a highly democratic framework, to facilitate trade, environmental protection, life experience, academic and technological development, social justice and international development, partly as a check and balance to the hegemony of China and the US blocs and partly to be a genuine, definitive model for low impact development and peaceful coexistence.

It really isn't just about foisting German economics on Europe, even if some German politicians think it is.

Funny as everyone I have spoke to about why they voted for brexit amounted to ' Too many Polish over here taking jobs', in 100% of cases. So in which of your convenient three categories is the massive category of xenophobia quietly hidden under? 

Now we have the entire British EU vote split into two fantastical new categories of people called the ' somewheres' and the ' anywheres' on the basis of identity. This is  the work of a mind which is still at primary school and you even quote this nonsense. 

OK with your references to certain economists and their points on unemployment but can we leave your 'somewheres' and 'anywheres' guff in nowheres please? 

Ps. Feel free to do a de Plifflifflesk bumbling reply with a non-reply about some gulag like you usually do. 

I'm sure in your elitist bubble people are using the same arguments as you are but looked at any Brexit thread on Facebook and the only arguments being made are along the lines of EU dictatorship, they need our money, too many foreigners etc. You are the only person I hear making your argument so where is the man in the street hearing it because the politicians only talk in sound bites?

No one is saying that, they are just saying this was another example of him being a congenital liar, what are you arguing about?

Another straw man I think.

The headlines I saw seemed focussed on, and gleeful about, the fact that a member of the public, someone beyond reproach due to his status as a suffering parent, had hurled abuse at the PM.  It was the verbal equivalent of an alleged-Nazi being "icecreamed".  Nothing like seeing Boris being taken apart, even if its for something he isn't responsible for. Seemed like cheap political point scoring. 

As to his comment about the press, I can't make heads-or-tail of it.  Maybe it was an outright fib.  Maybe he was simply stating he hadn't bought newspaper reporters with him.  Who knows.

It was a lie. He lied. Why are you so keen to portray it as anything else? If this was at all ambiguous (it isn't, he lied) then his past history of lying would make it difficult to defend but as he was caught on a press camera lying I'm puzzled by your answer. 

   The point is not about foisting German economics on Europe, although you are right, some German politicians think that this should and can be the outcome (it can't). The point is that the the Euro system makes these imbalances almost inevitable and stops the natural adjustments that floating currencies enable.Every cycle will therefore see a a similar outcome unless radical change is undertaken.

  Can you elaborate?

  Oh, and since you gave me the go ahead: which group are you planning to starve to death?

can you direct me to another transcript of the event - because I can't see any "unloading a lot of vitriol" or "hurling abuse" but perhaps I haven't see the full transcript - I only can find the following (and the videos - taken by the various press, at Tory invitation). Am sure there has been further twitterstorm but if the transcript is true - and the father is there with his 7 day old daughter - I don't think this can possibly be seen as some "labour activism set-up"

...

"

Transcript of angry dad

Omar Salem: My daughter nearly died. My daughter nearly died yesterday. I came in and A&E guys were great, but we then came down to this ward here. It took us two hours... [inaudible] it took us two hours for [inaudible] to be put into my seven-day-old daughter. Seven day old. She was six days and 22 hours or something. And that's just not acceptable. This ward is not safe for children. There was one registrar covering the entirety of this ward and the neonatal unit. That is just not acceptable, is it?

Boris Johnson : [Inaudible]

Omar Salem: Would you like that for your own children?

[video cuts]

Omar Salem : There are not enough people on this ward, there are not enough doctors, there's not enough nurses, it's not well organised enough. The NHS has been destroyed, it's been destroyed, it's been destroyed, and now you come here for a press opportunity!

Boris Johnson : Well actually there's no press here. [Gesturing at press] They're... [mumbles inaudibly]

Omar Salem : What do you mean there's no press here! Who are these people?

Hospital staff member : Sir, we need you to stop raising your voice now...

Hospital chief executive : I'm the hospital chief executive...

Boris Johnson: We're actually here to find out what we can do to refurbish this hospital... [inaudible]

Omar Salem : Well that's not going to fix things now. It's a bit late isn't it? Years and years and years of the NHS being destroyed...

Boris Johnson : ... We're putting more money...

Omar Salem : ... And you're telling me there are no press here? There are no press here?

Boris Johnson : As far as I'm aware this is not a... [inaudible]

Omar Salem: This is a press opportunity. You didn't invite the press here? You didn't ask them to come? You don't have a press handler back here?

Hospital chief executive: [Arm outstretched] Sir, Sir, Sir, I'm the hospital chief executive...

Omar Salem : Okay, well, fine, well in your La La Land believe whatever you want.

[Man walks away with the hospital chief executive's arm on his shoulder]."

Why am I so keen to portray it as anything else?  I'm not really.  Yeah, he lied.  He didn't tell the truth.  He told a fib.  There were clearly cameras there, obviously so as he appears to have been walking right towards them when the event took place.  

Which makes it a bit odd that he would say "Well actually, there’s no press here", if you take "the press" to be a dozen or so cameras that are practically in his face, clicking away.  That's a porkie beyond even Boris' dimensions.  Which makes me think that there was something else going on. 

Anyway, that bastion of pro-Boris/Conservative/Establishment media, Channel 4 gives a less rabid explanation for what might have been going on, and it may simply have been him being evasive in what was a confrontational situation.  Its still a lie, but less than indicative of some grand moral failing - which so many seem keen to pin on him at every opportunity, and hence my comments. 

Worth a read: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-what-did-boris-johnson...

Knock yourself out though, feel free to look at it all in the most negative light you can find, if you desire.

The transcript doesn't quite capture the vitriol (though reading it now I'm even more sceptical of the father's motivations).  I suggest watching the video clip...then read the headlines, twitter-storm, and so on that followed.

As always, it feels as if there's an outrage machine in full flow. 

Intentional how - how would he go about arranging to be in hospital with a sick daughter ahead of time to be there when Boris was?   

Edit: It strikes me that would depend on Boris Johnson making it known to the general public which hospital he was going to be in, and when, and whereabouts in the hospital too - since they can be rather large. 

You keep on using the term "hard core Remainer". I just want to remain in the EU. To remain or not is a logical either/or: it does not need qualifiers.

For the record, I also want to remain British and English and remain breathing in the air as long as I am fit and healthy. None of these characteristics requires a "hard core" qualifier.

Come to think of it, the word "remain" is also unnecessary in each case. I am European, British, English and an air-breather. Because I am each of these things, the word "remain" is redundant in each case.

So, as far as I am concerned, the term "hard core Remainer" is doubly redundant.

If Jeremy Corbyn had been walking down the corridor do you believe this guy, a labour activist, would have started shouting that "This ward is not safe for children. There was one registrar covering the entirety of this ward and the neonatal unit. That is just not acceptable, is it?  There are not enough people on this ward, there are not enough doctors, there's not enough nurses, it's not well organised enough. The NHS has been destroyed, it's been destroyed, it's been destroyed, and now you come here for a press opportunity!"? 

I don't believe he's in a position to judge any of that.  Yeah, if you have a generic axe to grind about the Tory approach to the NHS, no surprise there.  But I'd say he's on thin ice assuming any of what he claims is a result of Boris and I seriously doubt he's in a position to judge whether a ward is correctly staffed and organised, or if the NHS has been "destroyed".  

Sorry, but it looks like he seized on the opportunity to cause a scene aimed at someone he clearly despises.  A trait he doesn't seem alone in.

  Ronny, you are indulging in the cardinal UKC sin of nuance. We are not fooled. We know that what you are really trying to say is that Boris is a God to you , a blonde Adonis, a man who can do know wrong and whose moral stature will make his  name will echo down the ages in the company of  Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and St.Francis of Assisi.

You can have 3 out of 4 of your wants by becoming a leaver. And still be all 4 of the things that you presently are.

What’s not to like?

I know.  But I come here, all disagreeable/offensive/harmful/divisive and all, reaping the whirlwind of contempt, as a form of self-flagellation; a punishment to absolve me of my real life nazi, racist, homophobic, transphobic, tory, brexiteer, anti-immigrant behaviour in the outside world, for which I go unpunished due to the overarching institutional support of the cruel and oppressive patriarchy.

  It is not a term meant to imply that there are different degrees of remaining,nor that anybody will somehow stop being European, despite some people's apparent fears. The UK is part of Europe.

   It is used to distinguish between those who want to remain but acknowledge that there is a reasonable case for leaving, or even a case that a democrat vote to leave should be respected, and those who don't.

I'd say that Boris is the person most in a position to decide that the NHS should be given more funding, making him the right person to take to task over the current state of the NHS, and that the NHS has been suffering during austerity is well known. If your memory is long enough to go back to Paxman talking about the state of the NHS during the 'handover' from Labour to the Coalition, and talk of budget cuts and austerity, he would ask people if how the NHS was then, was 'As good as it's going to get'  (this phrase in particular sticks in my memory) given the context of cuts to come, and the response he generally got was Yes but with it cloaked within language of making savings where possible while maintaining the level of service needed by the British public.   

I rather think that your talk of 'regardless of what stress he may be under', is failing to acknowledge the strength of emotion that parents can feel when the well being of their children isn't as it should be, by the way.

Edit: Incidentally, Paxman is a one nation Conservative apparently.

Good we are in agreement, he lied.

Uh oh? So you're now saying he didn't lie? Its not all that surprising, there are lots of people who lie when put under mild pressure. Understandable reaction with, say, an office junior who has accidentally deleted an important document. Less understandable in a PM who is asked to justify a policy they have been perusing for 10 years by some random voter.

Thanks for the link that clearly sets out the fact that this was a press junket that Downing Street had arranged as a photo op but made sure there would be no scrutiny by ensuring the invited press were not allowed to ask questions.

Looked at in a dispassionate light he lied. If you want to be generous you could say he buckled under mild pressure. Or maybe he is someone who has gone through life lying and he's not used to being called out on it because of his relative privilege.

Knock yourself out though, feel free to keep smearing the bloke who asked him some questions in an attempt to pretend that your guy doesn't look like Chemical Ali (you can spare yourself the effort of writing your usual schtick about how you are free from bias and that he's not your guy at all, you're just a seeker of truth and someone clever enough to look beyond the headlines. Just assume I know that already).

Boris? "My guy"?  

Heres "your" guy's Twitter page - https://twitter.com/OmarSalem.  If that doesn't leave you suspecting partisan Labour party motivation ranks rather highly in his life priorities, and he's not the sort to miss any opportunity to blame the Tories for everything from roosters crowing to the sun setting, I don't know what will.  

As for smearing, not really.  He might be a perfectly pleasant chap.  I'm just sceptical of his motivations for kicking off when and where he did.  A bit like Rashida Tlaib pulling the "sick grandmother" line to justify her demanding, then refusing, an Israeli visa.  Politics is like that and you don't have to be on the payroll to play the games.

Well he is a partisan Labour supporter, I don't need to read his tweets, I read it on Laura Kunessburg's. Does this mean the press weren't invited to the hospital or that Johnson didn't say 'there are no press'? I'm confused. 

Well, he's a Labour supporter and there is a very strong case that the Tories have been underfunding the NHS. So, presented with the opportunity he is far more likely to confront the PM about this than a Tory supporter. Does this mean the press weren't invited to the hospital or that Johnson didn't say 'there are no press'?

Well I think his motivations are based on the fact he is a Labour supporter who was presented with an almost unique opportunity to confront the PM about his party's policies in front of national TV, what about you?  Does this mean the press weren't invited to the hospital or that Johnson didn't say 'there are no press'?

What are you on about? In fact, I'll reword that. What are you on?

'The point is that the the Euro system makes these imbalances almost inevitable and stops the natural adjustments that floating currencies enable.Every cycle will therefore see a a similar outcome unless radical change is undertaken.'

Define 'radical'. Patently the enthusiastic adoption of the Euro by countries completely out of line was a mistake but that is water under the bridge; the euro has survived and is a viable currency. It's existence contributes massively to the competitiveness and efficiency of Europe (as well as being a massive convenience to its' inhabitants.)

You're quite right, different mechanisms will need to be found to deal with different economies sharing the same currency. But they will be found, and we will be left watching from the sidelines with egg on our face or, to add to the mixed metaphors, we'll be left watching the Eurozone steam ahead as we fall behind, grounding on a mudbank. 

Or the Eurozone grounding on a mudbank. 

I think quite a few people have predicted that. Hasn't happened yet though. 

As they say, experts have predicted nine of the last three Eurozone crises.

What is that? A search online drew a blank. Is it a typo or an invented word? Either way, I like it!

I disagree with just about everything you say on here, but that was funny.

As you predicted all of his supporters have won gold medals for their defense (or lack of admission) of Johnson's lie. With the vaguely honourable exception of Pan Ron, who kind of admitted that Johnson lied but couldn't quite say so without reservations - so a bronze for Pan Ron.

'Raises hand' Where they exist, patriarchies can oppress men too, in making them 'the main man' in being the bread winner and having certain roles men need to fulfil, due to there not being the space to be different, or for roles to taken on by men and women depending on their skills and personalities. You wouldn't get house husbands and women who work in the same families in certain countries in the world, for example. 

I was tempted to say liars and compulsive manipulators like you, Boris, Cameron and all those throwbacks to the 1870s+ in not just India (up to 1943)and China but the whole world but I've held myself back. 

I assumed I'd  been on your list for years. Up the revolution, comrade!

  This is what we can call the Italian Job reply (Hang on a minute lads, I've got  good idea"), the problem being that nobody has that idea. Simply saying "they'll find an answer" isn't an answer. It's an article of faith. Simply asserting that the Eurozone will steam ahead to the "sunny uplands" does not make it so. I've presented the problem. It behoves the remainers to present either a solution or an explanation as to why it isn't a problem.

No answer has been found so far except, as Wolf points out above, to employ increasingly undemocratic powers to impose policy from the centre. It has long been an explicit strategy of Brussels to use a crisis to accelerate "integration" To quote Juncker ""We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." As Monnet didn't say but did think ""'Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.'"

The problem is that the further integration required to achieve the Euro "solution" requires both hard working Germans to agree to finance the Greeks etc  indefinitely and Greeks etc to accept being told how to run their country by the Germans. Do you think this is likely to be accepted in the foreseeable future, or will it simply be imposed from the centre?

 And this is a problem not for the future, but for now. Italian per capita GDP growth is below the level of 2000. Unemployment remains at over 10% cross much of southern Europe etc etc. There will be a next recession, because there always is. And there appears to be no Euro Plan B to deal with it so they'll be left with Monnet's plan A.

  Having made a quick check, I can't see anyone supporters of Boris on this thread. It's instructive that you imagine there are.

You are right and its an issue that has yet to be resolved in any large economy including (especially) the UK. Who's our monetary policy run for, London or Liverpool?

And it's long been a policy of Westminster to use a crisis to make no attempt to integrate but to shore up London and the well off.

  Well, exactly! Thanks for making my case. That's largely true. The difference being that the UK is already a nation state which embraces unified fiscal policy and permanent fiscal transfers from the centre to the regions and constituent parts. And even in this case the single currency works imperfectly, which is one of the (maybe indirect) reasons for the Scottish independence movement and the regions' disaffection with Westminster. And this in a nation state which largely shares  a history, culture and language and similar economic structure.

  So, if it works imperfectly in the UK example, how do expect it to work with or without a unified or federal State and also  without the shared language and cultures and with radically different economies?

I tend to think integration isn't such a problem because it won't happen exactly for the reason you say - it won't be be accepted.

I think the EU will continue to roll along with economic fluctuations despite the continuing warnings of immediate danger going back decades. 

This statement could be true if it's 10% growth now compared to 11% then or -10% then and -11% now so it encompasses economic triumph and deep recession. Can you rephrase that point?

PS  i think UK per capita growth was higher in 2000 too.

  Essentially you are saying "there is no problem". Given the close shave during the recent Eurocrisis, which necessitated the anti-democratic integrationist measure alluded to above. And given that none of the underlying imbalances or structures have been changed and that the monetary ammunition is virtually exhausted there is no basis for your view except that "we scraped by last time". But if you are one of the 40% of youth who are unemployed in parts of southern Europe there is already a massive problem!

  It's not a little ironic that people predicting economic disaster post brexit in the UK are so relaxed about the disaster that has already happened to much of the Eurozone.

  It is possible that you are right,that it'll muddle through, but it is also likely that if so, at best,  there will be a continuation of the sclerotic growth of the continent of recent decades. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement

  The word "growth" should be deleted but I noticed too late to do so. So it should read: Italian per capita GDP is below the level of 2000.(at least as of Nov 2018)

Of what? For who?

What I find perplexing is that you will spend hours analysing the failings of the EU (and I’m sure they’re many and varied) but ignore the failings of U.K. governments that have led to the many problems and the dissatisfaction among voters that led (in part) to the leave vote. It really doesn’t hold water. You’re like a doctor treating a fungal nail infection and ignoring the tumour. 

   That's just rubbish. Just ask Jon Stewart!!

  I've spent ages on here discussing the UK economy and political structure for 15 years+ and the potential economic negatives of brexit have been hauled over a million times. I'd hazard a guess I've wasted more hours on UKC crapping on about the UK economy than anyone else in the world!

   I am trying to get people like you to engage with the issues confronting the EU, because the whole thing is a relative argument. Is the UK better out than in? Well we have to have a view on what it looks like "in". So, are you going to engage or just try and change the subject? What is your view on how the eurozone issues will be resolved? I don't think I've ever heard you discuss the failings of EU and how they should be reformed. Fire away!

I see lots of problems and my viewpoint is definitely  skewed towards northern Europe but I also see that there is little and declining appetite for Grexit etc in Greece etc.

The EU has crazy high approval ratings in northern Europe but merely very high in southern Europe.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-irel...

   You are not addressing the issue. It's not about current opinion polls. (I've not made any argument that eurosceptism is at a high). It's about whether the economic and financial system is sustainable and what it's impact will be.

  Northern Europe is benefiting  at the expense of massive volatility in the South.

  All you have said is "well,people seem OK with it at the moment". Well yes, but it's not addressing the issue.

A state or in this case organisation with a populace unified in their support tends to be stable enough to deal with crisis. 

Also the economic system looks more sustainable than the warnings it isn't. After 5, 10 or 20 years of warnings at what point do you accept the evidence the EU is more sustainable than the warnings?

Ah - the "Trump" gambit.  Accuse the other side of those things you know yourself to be guilty of.  Problem with this particular approach is that it only works on the terminally stupid. 

The EU asks us to stay in the EU as we are stronger together and you say no. Then you tell Scotland, NI and Wales to stay in the UK as we are stronger together but you expect them to say yes. Why is it OK for England to reject the EU but not OK for the rest of the UK to reject England? It looks as if you want everything your way and won't listen to anyone else which highlights a democratic deficit in the UK that is exactly what you accuse Brussels of. I think Britain and its constituent parts are stronger together and so is the EU and its constituent parts with us in it.

Are we to think that you care about unemployment in Greece or could it be that you want us to turn into a little America by leaving the EU which will lead to homeless cities here like there are all over there and much greater poverty with millions unable to buy health care and huge prison Populations and much greater wealth inequality just to make you and perhaps all the billionaires more wealthy?

You talk as if you care about the unemployed in Greece when you are the first to attack people like JC who want take the current 4 million Brits who live in deep poverty out of this dire situation for them. You backed austerity and hammering the poor but we are supposed to believe that you care about Greeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/29/uk-deep-poverty-study-auste...

And you wonder why people don't trust some of what you say or your motivations ?Don't get me wrong I don't mean all that you say as much of it is very knowledgeable on finance and economics and you have much respect from me as an intelligent person in those fields whose expertise most on UKC defers to. I genuinely mean that even though I joke about it. 

   That's just not so. Public opinion can change in a moment. But anyway, I am not predicting a mass breakup of the EU, or even the Euro (possible but so disasterous it likely won't), so why are you spending so much effort saying it won't happen?

   Really? It almost collapsed during the eurocrisis ,required desperate authoritarian measures to sustain it , none of the issues are resolved and the continent hobbles along on the cusp of recession.

What measures will be taken in the next recession?

It works. Don't forget that.

And the BoE has printed £430 billion or so for quantative easing since 2009 just to keep the UK economy from sinking so don't make out that everything has been rosy here. 

It is less effort to be cynical about  a warning  than  repeat that warning for 5, 10 or 20 years.

Eventually I have to conclude the warning might be right but maybe not in my lifetime.

I'm a clear and determined Remain supporter who is very concerned that EU democracy needs serious improvement and that reform is urgently needed (but much better for the world that we do this from the inside) . I absolutely believe the Greeks were 'stitched up' by the EU project and that the German government are rank hypocrits when they pressurised for harsh settlements .., the German economy gained for years due to their currency moving into the Euro undervalued and they purchased large sections of the Greek economy and sold the greek citizens ludicrously more goods than vice versa. The forensic accounting commonly available at the time demonstrated the Greek Euro entry bid was fraudulent.. the EU and the Germans must have known, but instead of saying "wait", they played politics; while northen industry metaphorically rubbed their hands with glee for the extra market opportunities.

We need arguments around these tricky subjects to be based in evidence not ideology. There are lots of real reasons for EU concern irrespective of the propaganda of myths.

  On which subject, the history of the Cameron initiatives that have been in the headlines this week are very illuminating.

He basically thought the same as you.

  I'll caveat my comments by saying(as I have before) that things may have been different if the UK had engaged in a more whole hearted manner from the beginning, forming alliances and pushing for wholesale reform. But that is a big maybe and it's ancient history.

  I had always thought that if Cameron had aimed higher and negotiated better he could have got more back, but the evidence now available suggests that this is simply not so. The documentary on the negotiations a few months ago showed Tusk (I think) saying "You've got enough exceptions. You got your rebate. You're not in the Euro and you're not in schengen. That's you're lot" . The interviews and documentary this week showed the same thing. The history of Cameron's relationship with the EU seems to have been one of trying to get pretty minor reform but being persistently blocked, blinded sided or lied to. It's frankly amazing that he was still a remainer.

  The EU is a Franco-German creation along Franco German lines. They hold the purse strings and the bureacracy is committed to this way of doing things and committed to the goal of further integration. Cameron presumably took the advice of experienced EU civil servants on how to go about things, and got stuffed.

I simply don't see any credible chance of achieving anything but superficial reforms or any chance of changing its direction.

As an aside: with hindsight I think my mistake about brexit was thinking that this was the last chance to leave before further integration made it impossible. It now looks increasingly like the last chance to leave was at the time of Lisbon or even Mastricht. I suspect that was also the last chance to achieve real reform or change of direction.

 You're big on the strawmen today!

  For the record: I don't think everything in the UK garden is rosy and have never said so.

   I wouldn't and haven't "told them to stay in". I think that Scotland and rUK would be better off within the union but if the Scottish people think otherwise, so be it. There are similarities between the EU and UK but they are not the same so the comparison should not be overplayed.

  I don't have any interest in making the UK into a "little America"

  I don't think JC is wrong to want to take people out of poverty. I think that is a praiseworthy goal. I think his policies will ultimately create more poverty and that a well run market economy reduces poverty.

  I am fully aware that you and many others disagree with the last statement but that doesn't make people who believe it into supporters of poverty any more than JC's destructive policies make him (or you) a supporter of poverty.

That rather presupposes he actually wanted things to change much. IMO not so. He was, quite understandably, pleased with UK's 'deal' within the EU, with its rebate, massive trade and movement benefits, lack of Euro and veto on all things critical. The objective of his EU tour was to try to convince UK voters that he'd been successful in improving something, given that many of those same UK voters had been press-barraged into believing that the very same UK deal within the EU wasn't nearly as beneficial as it actually was and that there was a real problem to be solved. Only a year or two earlier, the EU was very low on the priority list of issues of concern for UK voters, and during that time very little of genuine substance changed from a UK perspective.

Obviously this is a loaded question.  Bur equally obvious,  of Brexit, and those benefits to impact the general population particularly the area away from the M25.

Now there is of course a sovereignty issue I'm sympathetic to. But there has also been a clear degree of misinformation (350m a week on the bus will live forever) that implies that leaving brexit will , after a few bumps in the road and then , happy times.  I think this is clear and disingenuous hoka, but well see. I suspect a contracting uk economy, a reliance on the uk gov to replace eu regional funds and a creeping removal of workers rights will cause a reduction living standards that wont do anything to address the protest vote component of the Brexit result.

You also make arguments that the EU is doomed, particularly economically.   I dont see a future model for the UK economy that's very bright, whether you're in or out if you follow current trends.  .  The problem isnt the EU, it's the lack of a clear notion of what you want to be, and a clear plan on how to honour the soundbites...

But the UK does have to leave.  It cant be in Europe just hanging around whining. 

  Well, he had a long history as something of a eurosceptic so presumably he wanted to make changes. I guess we'd have to read the book to find out (which even the Graundiad describes as "honest") but I think that would be too depressing.

Well it's taken a while but I think we finally found a point on which we can agree

  No it wasn't. The discussion was about Europe not about the UK so I wanted to clarify if that was your subject or whether you had changed topic. You had.

  At the time time of the referendum I reckoned that the benefits might start being apparent after five years and certainly after ten. The main period of risk was likely to be during the period of uncertainty leading up to reaching a deal and leaving so I've have been pleasantly surprised on the upside by the past three years.

  However, as I noted last week, the extension of the negotiations of the withdrawal agreement (which I now feel is having a serious negative impact on the economy) and the likelihood that, mainly because the UK cannot formulate a consistent approach,  the completion of a final agreement may take many years, make me less sanguine. The uncertainty is likely to go on and that will probably negatively impact investment and then consumption etc.

  Hence I am back on the fence until we have more clarity.

I've not seen any of the TV interviews with Cameron & like you haven't read the book. Has much focus been put on his decision to reove the Tory MEPS from the main centre right grouping & to create a new group with some fairly dubious minor parties ? Had they remained in the same political group as Sarkozy & Merkel I suspect Cameron may have had more influence when it came to possible reforms

Which is exactly the sort of diversion from the embarrassingo riginal point Boris would appreciate 

As someone who's bought the book ... It is. I'm persevering because someone has to, but apart from very moving passages about his disabled child, he's coming across as even more self righteous, complacent and ignorant than even I imagined. Not so much ToryBoy as Boy in a Bubble.

I don't think anyone's in any doubt about Johnson's sustained record of mendacity, but I'm not sure that's the most useful light to judge these recent events in.  To me they suggest that he's really not a good retail politician - he just can't think on his feet.

I was at the Rotherham event where Johnson denied making the comment about the police "spaffing money up the wall" on child sexual exploitation investigations.  It came after a rather flat speech; his jokes fell flat and he was completely thrown off balance by a heckler.  The national press had been kept out (presumably because his handlers were worried about difficult questions), but the local press did fine, with some entirely appropriate but pointed questions which he struggled to deal with.  The "spaffing money up the wall" question came from a young reporter from the Rotherham Advertiser who was so nervous he could barely get his words out, but Johnson struggled to say anything coherent in response, apart from his mendacious denial.

My impression was that Johnson isn't really a politician at all, he's an entertainer.  Like all good entertainers, he draws energy from the enthusiasm of an audience, and faced with indifference or hostility he just seemed to shrivel up.

Apologies for returning to the original subject of the thread...

Brilliant summary I feel.

Agree with most of what you say, except your description of him as 'an entertainer'. The average entertainer has hugely more audience awareness than Johnson, who above all is blinded by a gigantic sense of self-importance.

I take your point - he certainly didn't seem to have a good entertainer's ability to read a room.  Perhaps he should have spent more time paying his dues on the club circuit.

I suppose you think he is "good entertainer" because he tries entertainers' techniques. Personally, I think he is fourth rate at that. But, heh, that's probably where he should be - on the Improv circuit. BTW, I would personally recommend you as his promoter or manager. 

Wow! Twin thing again. I hadn't seen your replies when I made my post.

  It’s s diversion, yes.

 But it’s more interesting than endless versions of “Boris is a dick” ,which is probably true and warrants being reminded of but isn’t very insightful when endlessly repeated.

It’s hard to find one these days that does reduce poverty. The neo-liberal version doesn’t. A well run market economy means extensive regulation to curb the tendencies to oligarchy and concentration of wealth in a tiny minority. A social democratic model in fact. 

Yes. This piece by Kenan Malik in today’s Observer is about the way the central message has been obscured by outbreaks of messenger-shooting from both sides:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/22/truth-will-be-lost-if...

II don't think we embrace it, we don't know any different and have never been offered an alternative. Like you say there is a lot of dissatisfaction and the right wing have successfully channelled that into anti-EU sentiment rather than spreading the wealth between different regions and groups. Easy to draw parallels with the EU but a reason the EU might be accepted long term in the rest of the EU is that the less well off countries are seeing visible signs of economic improvement and see the EU as a good thing, even Greeks came around to that view. Likewise Germany and France seem happy to continue to be support the EU project and obviously see the benefits of a levelling up of EU economies. Probably most dissatisfied will be the traditionally wealthy but currently straitened countries like Spain and Italy. Easy to see how countries that have had fascist govts in the past might be susceptible to a populist right wing movement that will scape goat the EU, rather like we have had here. Supporting a populist movement hell bent on destroying the EU solely because populist movements hell bent on destroying the EU in other countries might succeed seems a bit of a circular argument though.

What if the EU survives and gets stronger? What if having turned the UK in to a low tax haven we are worse off? Where does the dissatisfaction turn then with no EU to blame?

Your reply to John simply said that during the transition phase it would be akin to a soft Brexit but that is the transition phase after that, what was proposed by May's deal was not soft. If May's deal was soft tell us what a hard or medium Brexit would look like?

  By "embrace" I simply meant that this is how nation states work, not that the electorate has a particular affection for it.

  I am not clear why you attach so much importance to current views within the EU about the EU. I haven't raised the issue and I don't think it very relevant in telling us whether or, more realistically how, the euro system can survive further recessions.

  You haven't at all, as far as I can see, addressed my question of why you think that a system that works imperfectly in a nation state should work so much better in an alliance or federation of very different states.

  I would assume that if the UK does worse than the EU over the medium to long term then the UK government will be held responsible. Is that a bad thing? It seems to me that the inability to defect responsibility to the EU should lead to governments doing what is necessary eg. for regional development.

I keep on asking people this but are you referring to the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration?

The situation is confusing because what is often understood as "May's deal" is the red lines set out in the Lancaster House speech, but actually is smudged all over in the WA and PD (as far as I can see) - because these red lines are fundamentally inconsistent with reality.

  Is it? I was thinking of "May's deal" as the withdrawal agreement. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to regard it as the withdrawal agreement+the political agreement which is why I keep asking the question.

  I don't really understand why it should be regarded as the Lancaster House speech which was just that; a speech.

Because that was when May revealed the policy: was it a "soft brexit", a "hard brexit", or as it turned out, a load of words that didn't make any sense but tried to keep opposing factions of her political party happy (but in fact pissed them all off royally).

The whole thing, disingenuous not to.

Another day...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/22/boris-johnson-urged-to-jus...

“In 2017 Priti Patel was forced to resign as international development secretary following a conflict of interest arising from secret meetings with the Israeli government. Patel was brought back into government in July when Johnson appointed her as home secretary.”

Following recent precedent, he’ll resign and come back as King.  

I think Cameron’s mistake was disengaging with Europe early in and then trying to force changes without the platform to build a  coalition on. The Single Market and expansion to the East are both testament to the UKs ability to influence the fundamental shape of the EU.

  A hard brexit would not have such a  soft transition period. The political declaration would not have indicated no tariffs, fees or quotas on trade and the possibility of staying in the customs union, or equivalence for the financial sector or in depth security, defence and foreign policy co-operation.

  Personally I think the withdrawal agreement is a red herring. The media and most politicians obsess about it but the only thing that matters is that the transition period is finite.

  I would acknowledge that the political agreement is not "soft" but then again it doesn't compel the UK and EU to agree anything, and it does not stop them from agreeing something very different to what is suggested in the draft. It leaves open a number of  questions. eg. on whether the UK and EU would be in a customs union with a common external tariff. So, if all the objections had been about the political agreement I could sort of get it, although anyone who really thought that a Swiss or Norwegian deal was a long term solution must have been on drugs.

  So, if I'm understanding correctly, the rationale (aside from purely politics) for the Labour rejection of May's deal is that if the Tories stay in power they will be able to do a final deal that is simple a Canada ++ free trade deal and a continuation of much of the defence and security and foreign policy etc co-operation. Is that right?

  My concern is just the opposite: it is that any final deal has to go through parliament, that no deal will get a working majority, so we will be stuck in a never ending repeat of the experience of the past three years. It's particularly odd given that Corbyn thinks he is going to be PM so he could aim for a final deal very different to the  political declaration.

  Makes no sense. If a football manager declared a plan to play defensive football and aim for a draw but then played attacking football and won (or lost) 3-0 you wouldn't review the perfomance on the back of his pre-match decaration of intent.

Yes, writing in parallel, 140 miles apart ...

Well I wouldn't know what that meant, much like the way most people don't have any idea what's in the WA and PD.

But people do know that May set out a load of red lines that sounded like a fairly hard Brexit. I think you're taking me too literally when I referred to the Lancaster House speech - I should perhaps just have said "May's red lines" when trying to explain what I think a lot of people understand "May's deal" to be. People understand it that way because that's what she said on the telly. She didn't stand up and read out the WA line by line!

The red lines rule out any kind of "soft brexit". In fact, they rule out any deal at all by virtue of being pure cake-and-eat-it bollocks, and that's a pretty hard Brexit if you ask me!

Because one of the more rational arguments I've heard in favour of Brexit is that we can put clear blue water between us and a collapsing EU. I don't agree with it as I don't think it provides any additional insulation and I don't believe the EU will collapse in that way but it is at least more rational than 'we voted to leave' bullshit we normally hear. If you've never made that argument then I must be misremembering.

You cannot make it perfect, it's impossible, which is why I've never made that argument. I'll leave that sort of 'cake and eat it' nonsense to Brexiters. I just gave a reason why the imperfections might be more readily accepted. 

At the cost of turmoil, lost growth, these regions falling further behind etc. in the interim.

Why does it matter? We'd already be 6 months through that 2 year transition period of it had been accepted by the ERG

You're not seriously asking me (or anyone else) what Labour's Brexit thinking is are you?

In some respects it makes no difference what's on the PD if Labour are in favour of Brexit, except that if it had have been given it a smooth passage then there would be no Tory defections, no prospect of an election for a couple of years and the Tories could implement a hard Brext and also point to the fact that what was in the PD had the backing of Labour even if they weren't bound to it legally (in the same way we weren't legally bound to the result of the referendum). Similarly it is stupid of the ERG to vote it down based on £39 billion over many years (unless you agree with me that the arguments about alternative technological arrangements are wrong and being made in bad faith).

  I still don't understand what current popular opinion polls are relevant to the points. You seem to be mixing together lots of things. I am arguing (amongst other things) that the euro in it's current form is unsustainable, that huge change to the eurozone structures will therefore be necessary, that these will probably imply major further integration and that the UK doesn't want and shouldn't be part of that.

  What have current popular views within the EU got do with any of that?

  It's not about "making it perfect". You argued that the sterling union  didn't work very well in the UK as if that supported the case for the eurozone. I've no idea why you argued that because it argues the opposite.

  What it says is the best chance for (an imperfect but functional ) reform of the eurozone is to transform the eurozone into a nation state or a  federal state (ie.like the UK) with consolidated  fiscal policy and political union. This is what I've been saying all along and I don't think that it works for the UK either as part of it or as an EU member outside of a fiscal and political union.

  Well, if you're right, but I don't accept either your premise that the UK has to turn itslef into a low tax/low regulation state or that it will fail. I think it will become a State that can decide it's own framework and benefit acordingly.

 Well, that's what I said!!

  What started me thinking was various people on here's assertion that Labour's refusal to sign up to May's deal was because it was a "hard deal" rather than because, as I think, they were simply playing politics. Hence my question about which bit was "hard" You have acknowledged that you don't know their reasons, which is fair enough.

  Well, as I said in another thread, I think the ERG were being ridiculous as well because what's in the WD is not very relevant to the final outcome. The only rational and real sticking point is the Irish question.

I believe the bad faith is on the part of those failing to work hard over the past three years to explore whether alternative technological arrangements are indeed possible.

  Regarding Labour, you seem to be thinking that they had to object to May's deal in order to force an election. Maybe.I don't know. I don't accept the comparison the the legal implications of the referendum because the Corbyn could have done the opposite this time ie.said that Labour doesn't consider itself bound by the PD.

The red lines rule out any kind of "soft brexit". 

You mean for during the transition or in the final settlement? How would a Labour government or even Labour in opposition be bound by the red lines when the latter is being negotiated?

Not really as you say below and have said at the time of the indy ref that the UK should stay together. 

It's been a complete disaster that required a stupendous £430 billion in QE to save the UK which makes moans by British about the EU finances look hypocritical. 

There are 4 million British people in deep poverty created by the party you tell us are best, caused through their austerity policies. Now you say youth unemployment levels in Spain-commendable - mean we should vote to leave the EU. Do you see the disparity where you find poverty here fine and we should vote for the party that creates it but in Spain it means we should vote to change it? 

I think you do. I think you as an ' anti-socialist', hate the NHS because it is a socialist institution and you are a huge advocate of a ' Market economy', which as you have previously supported Milton Friedman shows that your true colours are pretty much like his which is like America. 

But it hasn't. 

I can't believe a Tory is talking about destructive policies after all these years of Tory austerity. 

  Thanks for your reply but it's making so many assumptions, misunderstandings, misrememberings or misrepresentations and generalisations that I really don't feel inclined to spend a lot of time clarifying to no effect.

The final settlement. I don't think Labour had any real beef with the transition period.

By voting for the WA & PD, they would be voting for May's policy of a hard brexit, as described by her red lines and smudged over in the PD, via a transition period.

Are you saying that while Labour had every right to disagree with May's policy of hard Brexit, they should have voted for it anyway, because there was to be an acceptable transition period first? How does that make any sense? How would they have got their soft brexit (or possibly remain, who knows) policy through if they were supporting the government that was pursuing a hard brexit and was meant to be there until 2023?

Labour didn't agree with May's policy (transition period then hard brexit) so they didn't vote for it. By not voting for it, they could bring down the government, force a GE and get their policy in place. What's the difficulty?

  Congratulations! You've made more sense of it than any journalist! Although, to be fair to journalists, maybe I've not been following the nitty gritty as closely as I should have done.

  But the PD still keeps the CU in play which is Corbyn's big demand and demands very close relationships across most areas. The Tory party is unlikely to hold together during the final deal negotiations anymore than it has so far so Labour could have fulfilled their Article 50 commitment and left much to play for.