This has been explained at length.I think BoJo is about to sail into very troubled waters, with a lot of it coming from his own back benches.
There is a debate scheduled for next Monday.
I think BoJo is going to be on the end of a lot of incisive questioning - a lot of it from his own back benches. And some of the criticisms will be difficult to defend against - such as why he is gradually edging back towards a more stringent lockdown for all ages when the risk of death is far, far higher in the over 65's and minimal below that.
Until now, BoJo has put his policies though without it being subject to scrutiny by parliament. I don't think he's going to be able to renew his powers 'as-is'. There is a move afoot among Tory MP's - who will align with the opposition - to force him to renew the bill on a monthly basis.
Which will both force him to explain a longer term strategy and mean that every decision of his will be subject to regular parliamentary scrutiny.
This is a self-inflicted wound by BoJo.
My guess is a bit longer than that, as he will need to declare a glorious victory over the nasty Europeans on 31 Dec - then probably gone by around Spring 2021, to the back benches alongside some journalism and a part-time sinecure with a bank or hedge fund.I said months back that Boris would be gone by Christmas, but said 'ill health' would be the reason. I still think he'll be gone but now think he'll be pushed out.
Not just the UK mate, Marseilles has just kicked the arrse out of it and is now on severe ROPs.
No bars, restaurants or gyms (as if a certain demographic ever would go there) open at all from Saturday onwards
Even Conservative MPs felt a sense of Downing Street pulling in different directions as backbenchers questioned the PM's priorities. One particularly peevish Tory described "the boss" as "AWOL", running a "Government with no strategy… a Government of third-rate hangers-on and sycophants".
Another said: "It's the inconsistency that is getting MPs down. Number 10 seems to spend a lot of its time panicking and lurching from one crisis to the next. We need a steady hand."
The revolt against the latest lockdown rules, being led by the 1922 committee chairman, Sir Graham Brady, certainly speaks of a disconnect between Mr Johnson and the party faithful who propelled him to power in July last year.
I won't try to pretend that it's all been going like clockwork, but U turns? A handy pejorative label, but covering a wide variety of situations. Personally, I am in favour of changes to policy in light of new circumstances or evidence, whilst I'm less positive about caving to the latest PR clanger.Yep and you will also have seen my post pointing out:
As I've also pointed out before, there is also substantial concern amoug Tory MPs.
- Rishi Sunak only changed direction after 6 months when a new economic policy was required.
- BoJo has not changed his policy on Brexit - he has red lines and is sticking to them.
- He's presided over half a dozen Covid 19 u-turns.
Never has the Prime Minister been more conspicuous by his absence than at Thursday's crucial statement by the Chancellorwww.telegraph.co.uk
When the Tory back bench rebellion against the Covid restrictions is being lead by the chair of the 1922 Committee, it means concern is running deep in the Tory party; not at BoJo's leadership per se, but at his inability to come up with, articulate and stick to a long term Covid 19 strategy.
Out of his depth - is he really? He has had Covid-19 to deal with and has done so probabkly better than most in Parliament. He has a good team who have dealt with the constantly changing issue.My guess is a bit longer than that, as he will need to declare a glorious victory over the nasty Europeans on 31 Dec - then probably gone by around Spring 2021, to the back benches alongside some journalism and a part-time sinecure with a bank or hedge fund.
Not altogether a bad bloke in many ways and certainly an impressive campaigner (barring some, er, integrity issues) but woefully out of his depth as PM - it's a shame he had to find out the hard way.
Apologies for the delay.Mutual emnity aside, could you please explain how a hard border would breach the GFA when the GFA itself is silent on customs, duties and related infrastructure matters?
It's a serious question, so a serious answer please (i.e. not a "meme" or link to Pelosi's blather). I'd be grateful if you could explain.
Companies can't "raid their pensions" you silly.Do you always get your chums to walk you home? It is clearly daylight so perhaps a long lunch! Boris won't raid pensions, the companies will do that to try and keep their business afloat!
Right that gives you plenty to Grrr about!
I like your comment - no chums visible and it looks to be way after 10pm. Cummings is probably still in the pub. Saint Boris of Churchilland can clearly do no wrong. It will be interesting when he raids pensions!
My understanding of the GFA is that one pivotal piece is the freedom of movement within the island of Ireland. The UK has benefitted from being in a Customs Union within the EU which meant that goods could travel across internal borders free from tariffs and Customs intervention.
The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.
During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.
Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".
Did Wets write it?The Independent has thrown its weight into the ring with a world beating piece of journalistic mental and moral gymnastics...
How can this government criticise Labour’s ‘illegal wars’ when it’s breaking international law itself? | John Rentoul (behind a paywall)
Apparently, Boris Johnson's a hypocrite because the Defence Secretary lost his temper and told a former Blairite some home truths:
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, caused a flutter in parliament yesterday when he rounded on John Healey, his mild-mannered Labour shadow, for “your illegal wars”. Healey had accused him of trying to make it harder to prosecute British troops over torture allegations, contrary to Britain’s obligations under international law.
Wallace hit back by saying that “much of the mess we are having to come and clean up today” was caused by “illegal wars” under the Labour government. Healey, who was a junior Treasury minister in Tony Blair’s government at the time of the Iraq war, responded: “That is not worthy of the office of the secretary of state for defence.”
So the Cindy thinks that there is moral equivalence between actually invading Iraq, and potentially disregarding part of a treaty where it is implicitly stated that where bad faith is shown by then it can be disregarded. Never mind that British soldiers have been hounded for years over trumped up allegations, as soon as the Cindy hears Saint Tony being maligned, it roars out of its hutch spitting fire and lettuce.
Okay, it's only the Independent, and its online paywalled circulation is rather less than General Melchett's Top Secret list*, but still this article should be applauded for its effort to twist and distort morality and reality into a textbook piece of whataboutery.
*"You and me obviously Darling..." etc