When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[nw1]

Actually, this is not by any means certain. The Scottish border is not as porous as the Irish one, and there are only around 20 road border crossings between the two. Most of them are very small and minor, so by my count, there would only be five major international border crossings. They would be on the M6, A7, A68, A697 and A1. The other ones would probably be EU + rUK only, and possibly only open from 5/6:00 until 22/23:00.

The major issue are the rail crossings, but the ECML at least could have border controls in Waverley, and the WCML in Glasgow, with Newcastle and Carlisle as the first/last stops accordingly.

So, I don't think a hard border is necessarily unrealistic in the long run. The question is whether there are benefits to Schengen that the current CTA doesn't provide, and whether or not the rUK would tolerate EU ID card holders having free access to Scotland in the same way that they have free access to the UK from Ireland.

Do you not think, though, that few if any people would tolerate border restrictions between two countries in which there have been absolutely none for a very long time?

The anger would be immense and protests would be on a scale not seen in modern history, I suspect, and I also suspect that the feeling of popular opinion would bring down whichever government, be it the UK or the Scottish government, that tried that one on. Many of us were prepared to protest, repeatedly, about Brexit; multiply those protests a hundred times to give a picture of what I believe would happen if a hard border between England and Scotland were introduced.

If EU issues are a driving force to any hard border, it's more likely the UK would be forced to re-introduce freedom of movement if Scotland became part of the EU. Only the most extreme right-wingers would believe that the reintroduction of freedom of movement to and from the EU is worse than introducing hard border controls between England and Scotland, surely. Even more so given that the current fashion for restrictions on freedom of movement will surely have faded somewhat by then.

 

[The Ham]

Do you not think, though, that few if any people would tolerate border restrictions between two countries in which there have been absolutely none for a very long time?

The anger would be immense and protests would be on a scale not seen in modern history, I suspect, and I also suspect that the feeling of popular opinion would bring down whichever government, be it the UK or the Scottish government, that tried that one on. Many of us were prepared to protest, repeatedly, about Brexit; multiply those protests a hundred times to give a picture of what I believe would happen if a hard border between England and Scotland were introduced.

If EU issues are a driving force to any hard border, it's more likely the UK would be forced to re-introduce freedom of movement if Scotland became part of the EU. Only the most extreme right-wingers would believe that the reintroduction of freedom of movement to and from the EU is worse than introducing hard border controls between England and Scotland, surely. Even more so given that the current fashion for restrictions on freedom of movement will surely have faded somewhat by then.

Given that people who supported Brexit have noticed that they can no longer take a picnic from home when traveling to France I suspect that it's not unlikely that some level of easing of restrictions of movement could be desirable to quite a few people.

 

[nw1]

Given that people who supported Brexit have noticed that they can no longer take a picnic from home when traveling to France I suspect that it's not unlikely that some level of easing of restrictions of movement could be desirable to quite a few people.

Didn't realise that restriction even existed. Tax reasons? Surely a picnic would be below the tax-free threshold even after Brexit.

 

[bspahh]

Didn't realise that restriction even existed. Tax reasons? Surely a picnic would be below the tax-free threshold even after Brexit.

There were stories in January 2021 about ham sandwiches being confiscated at the Dutch border

Brexit: UK driver has ham sandwiches confiscated at Dutch border

Dutch TV films officials confiscating ham sandwiches from UK drivers under new food import rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[nw1]

There were stories in January 2021 about ham sandwiches being confiscated at the Dutch border

Brexit: UK driver has ham sandwiches confiscated at Dutch border

Dutch TV films officials confiscating ham sandwiches from UK drivers under new food import rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting - but not good. While I am stridently anti-Brexit, this sort of officious "reverse Brexit" nonsense is just as bad.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do you not think, though, that few if any people would tolerate border restrictions between two countries in which there have been absolutely none for a very long time?

The anger would be immense and protests would be on a scale not seen in modern history, I suspect, and I also suspect that the feeling of popular opinion would bring down whichever government, be it the UK or the Scottish government, that tried that one on. Many of us were prepared to protest, repeatedly, about Brexit; multiply those protests a hundred times to give a picture of what I believe would happen if a hard border between England and Scotland were introduced.

If EU issues are a driving force to any hard border, it's more likely the UK would be forced to re-introduce freedom of movement if Scotland became part of the EU. Only the most extreme right-wingers would believe that the reintroduction of freedom of movement to and from the EU is worse than introducing hard border controls between England and Scotland, surely. Even more so given that the current fashion for restrictions on freedom of movement will surely have faded somewhat by then.

Whatever happens is extremely speculative of course since it depends on lots of hypothetical things happening between now and then, but I think that, if a hard England-Scotland border was the price of an independent Scotland joining the EU, then the most likely result would either be that we get a hard border, or that that becomes a decisive issue causing Scotland to reject joining the EU. The English Government is not going to get brought down over a decision that will very obviously be Scotland's responsibility and beyond the control of the rest-of-UK Government.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From Pippa Crerar of the Mirror via Twitter (https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1541385561075847170?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1541385561075847170|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jun/27/boris-johnson-tories-g7-government-latest-updates):

This posting is best read with the Buddy Holly song "That'll be the day" playing in the background.

 

[bspahh]

Interesting - but not good. While I am stridently anti-Brexit, this sort of officious "reverse Brexit" nonsense is just as bad.

Sorting out issues like this needs careful, detailed negotiation, with trust and goodwill from both sides.

If anyone tells you that they have quick fixes for trade issues like this, they are lying, and/or don't know what they are talking about.

 

[The Ham]

Didn't realise that restriction even existed. Tax reasons? Surely a picnic would be below the tax-free threshold even after Brexit.

I believe that it's to do with the movement of food items and the EU needing to know the source of the items.

Interesting - but not good. While I am stridently anti-Brexit, this sort of officious "reverse Brexit" nonsense is just as bad.

For clarification I want suggesting a rolling back of Brexit, rather that there could be support from many for a scaling back of some of the restrictions which have been implemented. Especially in the context of a English/Scottish boarder (i.e. at least a few years away from now).

I suspect that there was probably a fair few who voted for Brexit who thought that we'd remain in the trading block but not be part of the EU, or at least some other form of softer Brexit than we currently have.

 

[nw1]

I believe that it's to do with the movement of food items and the EU needing to know the source of the items.



For clarification I want suggesting a rolling back of Brexit, rather that there could be support from many for a scaling back of some of the restrictions which have been implemented. Especially in the context of a English/Scottish boarder (i.e. at least a few years away from now).

Yes, I did get that point, I was just surprised about the ham sandwich law as I missed that one!

I suspect that there was probably a fair few who voted for Brexit who thought that we'd remain in the trading block but not be part of the EU, or at least some other form of softer Brexit than we currently have.

I would agree there. I think in all honesty that was my expectation too, and the Leave campaign were not entirely honest about their true intentions.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, I did get that point, I was just surprised about the ham sandwich law as I missed that one!

I would agree there. I think in all honesty that was my expectation too, and the Leave campaign were not entirely honest about their true intentions.

To be fair I suspect that only some wanted things to be like they are now. Many probably expected things to be softer than they turned out.

However that was part of the problem with the vote, it was like asking "do you want to not have pizza?" and all those who wanted Chinese, Indian, Roast, Thai, etc voting them down and then only a few actually getting what they wanted.

 

[Gloster]

And the saga rolls on... It appears that some of those who worked at No. 10 have had to leave their jobs; at least in some cases this involved leaving the civil service. Names haven’t been given and some may not be career civil servants, but they do appear to be from among the fairly low level staff who were apparently told that if they owned up to the Met. they would only get a token slap on the wrist. Meanwhile those higher up got advice as to how to dodge as much of the consequences as possible. (I will make clear that some details are not yet clear and may not be for a while, but this seems a reasonable summing up of what is known.)

 

[DarloRich]

Surely keeping Johnson in place is now beneficial for the opposition parties? He is a liability and driving voters away from the political party once known as "Conservative"

Johnson remaining in power is terrible for the country, obviously.

 

[Mikw]

Surely keeping Johnson in place is now beneficial for the opposition parties? He is a liability and driving voters away from the political party once known as "Conservative"

Johnson remaining in power is terrible for the country, obviously.

Total liability. Trouble is we've seen steps put in to reduce human rights, and people are now having equipment seized and labelled as "violent" by ministers on social media.

How much more damage will he do before he goes? And then there's the matter of will he even go if voted out?

 

[edwin_m]

Guessing the opposition parties would prefer Johnson to stay, though they obviously won't say that in public. If he's replaced the Tories can claim to have a new face as with Thatcher to Major, say Partygate is in the past as the chief perpetrator has gone, and deny all responsibility for everything that happened before that.

In practice any leader that's likely to be elected by the internal Tory process will face exactly the same problems: economic damage that can't be resolved without admitting they were wrong on Brexit, the need to maintain public support in both Walls, and the need to pander to the ERG and other Tory factions. The likely contenders are mostly more stupid than Johnson and on closer scrutiny may turn out to be similarly venal. So it's unlikely they would be able to do much different, and any replacement might actually be worse for the country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

people are now having equipment seized and labelled as "violent" by ministers on social media.

Really? Could you give some examples to substantiate that allegation

n practice any leader that's likely to be elected by the internal Tory process will face exactly the same problems: economic damage that can't be resolved without admitting they were wrong on Brexit,

This seems to me to show a misunderstanding of the arguments for Brexit that keeps coming up over and over again: To be clear, lots of people voted for Brexit because they wanted Parliament/the UK to be sovereign in a way that they felt was not the case as long as the UK remained a member of the EU. Many of those people heard all the arguments that this would cause some economic damage, and - so far as we can tell - felt that this was a price worth paying for what they saw as 'independence'. They voted for Brexit, we got Brexit, and as anticipated there was some economic damage. I don't see how, in that light, having the Government take action to help the economy somehow implies ministers having to say they were wrong on Brexit. And that's even before you factor in that Covid and Russia have each separately caused massive economic damage, and separating out those impacts from the consequences of Brexit is very hard to do with any precision, which makes the whole area very fuzzy anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All these well-meaning postings on this thread of what should take place about Johnson makes for plenty of postings on this thread, but will have no effect whatsoever on what will eventually happen, but as in the press and media, it all goes to make for what was the name of a film..."The never-ending story".

 

[DarloRich]

Really? Could you give some examples to substantiate that allegation

Not sure about violent but that fella who stands outside parliament shouting at Tories had his equipment seized. You know, the bloke around whom the Tories framed an entire piece of legislation

 

[Busaholic]

The unbelievable has happened and Grant Shapps, having made a total dog's dinner of his Transport brief, is seriously being touted as the next Conservative leader! Is Chris Grayling unavailable?

 

[py_megapixel]

The unbelievable has happened and Grant Shapps, having made a total dog's dinner of his Transport brief, is seriously being touted as the next Conservative leader! Is Chris Grayling unavailable?

In what way has he made more of a dog's dinner than Grayling? I didn't think that was possible!

 

[Busaholic]

In what way has he made more of a dog's dinner than Grayling? I didn't think that was possible!

Because he's utterly engrossed with being Johnson's no. 1 cheerleader, drawing up spreadsheets to try to identify the 40 ministers who voted against his hero in the estimations of the paranoid. Plus, his refusal to get involved in the negotiations with the RMT even though we know it's the government who hold the pursestrings. So, neglect rather than incompetence, but that's worse imo.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because he's utterly engrossed with being Johnson's no. 1 cheerleader, drawing up spreadsheets to try to identify the 40 ministers who voted against his hero in the estimations of the paranoid. Plus, his refusal to get involved in the negotiations with the RMT even though we know it's the government who hold the pursestrings. So, neglect rather than incompetence, but that's worse imo.

Was it not the RMT who "threw down the gauntlet"? The RMT must be furious that their carefully engineered plan of attack has been totally ignored.

 

[Runningaround]

Whatever happens is extremely speculative of course since it depends on lots of hypothetical things happening between now and then, but I think that, if a hard England-Scotland border was the price of an independent Scotland joining the EU, then the most likely result would either be that we get a hard border, or that that becomes a decisive issue causing Scotland to reject joining the EU. The English Government is not going to get brought down over a decision that will very obviously be Scotland's responsibility and beyond the control of the rest-of-UK Government.

What English government is that then?

 

[baz962]

Was it not the RMT who "threw down the gauntlet"? The RMT must be furious that their carefully engineered plan of attack has been totally ignored.

I wouldn't say ignored. It's been on question time and Preston. Mick Lynch was interviewed by Kay Burley and was on another political programme, I forget the name. And Grant Shapps is posting regularly on Twitter and LinkedIn. Might not get what they want, , but definitely not ignored.

 

[Lost property]

And the saga rolls on... It appears that some of those who worked at No. 10 have had to leave their jobs; at least in some cases this involved leaving the civil service. Names haven’t been given and some may not be career civil servants, but they do appear to be from among the fairly low level staff who were apparently told that if they owned up to the Met. they would only get a token slap on the wrist. Meanwhile those higher up got advice as to how to dodge as much of the consequences as possible. (I will make clear that some details are not yet clear and may not be for a while, but this seems a reasonable summing up of what is known.)

Karma may be along shortly. This little snippet from a report in the Guardian..

No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate, committee says​

The Commons privileges committee has issued a statement after its first meeting to consider its inquiry into whether Boris Johnson lied to MPs about Partygate. It has issued a wide-ranging call for evidence, and it is inviting whistleblowers to give evidence anonymously if they want.

 

[nw1]

This seems to me to show a misunderstanding of the arguments for Brexit that keeps coming up over and over again: To be clear, lots of people voted for Brexit because they wanted Parliament/the UK to be sovereign in a way that they felt was not the case as long as the UK remained a member of the EU. Many of those people heard all the arguments that this would cause some economic damage, and - so far as we can tell - felt that this was a price worth paying for what they saw as 'independence'.

But what does "sovereign" and "independence" mean? It's rather meaningless if you do not support the ruling party. In all honesty I felt that being in the EU diluted the power of the UK government slightly and, at least in the 2010s, that was perhaps a good thing Besides, is "sovereignty" and faux-"independence" (we always were an independent country, it's ludicrous to claim otherwise) a price worth paying for making emigration to the Continent more difficult and adding bureaucracy to trade? Words such as "sovereignty" in this context are rather airy-fairy to me, and based on emotion rather than reason. It's not as if the EU controlled the majority of our laws anyway.

Because he's utterly engrossed with being Johnson's no. 1 cheerleader, drawing up spreadsheets to try to identify the 40 ministers who voted against his hero in the estimations of the paranoid.

Didn't realise Shapps was such a brown-noser of Johnson. See: Matt Hancock for "moderates" turned sycophants.

 

[bspahh]

Karma may be along shortly. This little snippet from a report in the Guardian..

No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate, committee says​

The Commons privileges committee has issued a statement after its first meeting to consider its inquiry into whether Boris Johnson lied to MPs about Partygate. It has issued a wide-ranging call for evidence, and it is inviting whistleblowers to give evidence anonymously if they want.

However, there are 7 members of the Commons privileges committee. Private Eye 1576 notes that:

Four are Conservative MPs, three of whom have already demonstrated their distaste for dropping colleagues in it. Sir Bernard Jenkin, Alberto Costa and Laura Farris all voted earlier this year to stymie sanctioning by the standards committee (on which they all also sit) of the now ex-MP Owen Patterson over his paid lobbying. The ruse failed, with a U-turn following the inevitable outcry.
Jenkin had declared that he wanted a "proper judicial-style panel where there can be proper hearing and proper cross-examination of witnesses and natural justice" - implying he might now be reluctant to sit in judgement on Johnson. Farris found it "very off" for "MPs to pronounce on their colleagues". Costa described the committee's role in the Paterson case as "repugnant to the principles of natural justice". The other Tory member of the privileges committee, Andy Carter, abstained in the Patterson vote.

 

[simonw]

All these well-meaning postings on this thread of what should take place about Johnson makes for plenty of postings on this thread, but will have no effect whatsoever on what will eventually happen, but as in the press and media, it all goes to make for what was the name of a film..."The never-ending story".

The same can be said for the majority of posts, including yours (and mine) on this or any forum. Yet we continue to post..

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The same can be said for the majority of posts, including yours (and mine) on this or any forum. Yet we continue to post..

It makes you wonder if there is a still unlocked thread running on this website that has countless postings on...."Was Lord Fitzroy Somerset Raglan to blame for the Charge of the Light Brigade?"...

 

[Howardh]

It makes you wonder if there is a still unlocked thread running on this website that has countless postings on...."Was Lord Fitzroy Somerset Raglan to blame for the Charge of the Light Brigade?"...

Would that charge be payable online?

When I get my bus pass I think I'll be packing in the car, it's getting far to complicated to handle these days, park and pay by phone, or an app, have you got it right? Then there are the zones, used to be the London Congestion Charge, now it seems everywhere. Not to mention road congestion. As it stands the only thing I use it for is going to Lidl once weekly, so if they started deliveries then seriously what's the point?

I read that the government is trying to clamp down on parking "cowboy" firms, but that's delayed. Don't get me wrong, environmentally I'd love fewer cars on the road, but governments must fully fund public transport. How can they though if the fuel duty collected goes down as people like me stop driving?