| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Boris Johnson on delaying Brexit: 'I'd rather be dead in a ditch' |
| 2019-09-06 |
| [WASHINGTONEXAMINER] British Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted he'd "rather be dead in a ditch" than ask the European Union to delay Brexit again by granting an extension. Johnson made the comments while speaking at an event for police recruits in West Yorkshire, which also signaled the unofficial start to his call for a general election to be held on Oct. 15. A reporter directly asked him after the speech if he could promise not to delay Brexit. "Yes I can. I’d rather be dead in a ditch," Johnson responded. Johnson was then pressed if that meant he would rather resign than ask Brussels to delay Brexit, but he instead criticized members of Parliament for strong-arming him into an extension that would cost "a billion pounds a month" and achieve "absolutely nothing." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #24 I'd always seen the EU project as a way to launder Europen history and pretend that the British and French were no longer guilty of imperialism, and Germany were no longer the ex-Nazi's they were just Europeans. The other nations went along because the big powers were going to inject money into their economies and allow them a standard of living they otherwise wouldn't have. Brexit is about the British realizing they don't really have that much guilt over their imperial past, and in fact they did a lot of good in addition to the bad. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2019-09-06 22:18 |
| #23 No, the ideal is that voters elect representatives who make it clear what they think and like it. After 4 years they can decide whether they still do. Btw Boris voted for the May plan. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 21:46 |
| #22 It actually was a socialist idea not to put representatives in Parliament but "Räte" (Soviets) who had to do what the voters told them and could not vote according to their conscience. Conscience? More like personal preference. Voters don't elect politicians so they can implement the politicians' personal preferences. They elect people who will do what voters want. In Europe, that's obviously a foreign concept - the unaccountable aristocrats are dead, long live the unaccountable aristocrats. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-06 21:32 |
| #21 It actually was a socialist idea not to put representatives in Parliament but "Räte" (Soviets) who had to do what the voters told them and could not vote according to their conscience. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 21:12 |
| #20 Dan Hannan on TINO Remainers: When British MPs defy public opinion, they often quote Edmund Burke’s 1774 speech to the voters of Bristol, in which he explained that he was their representative, not their delegate. The MPs rarely go on to mention that Bristol booted Burke out at the next election. My guess is that something similar will happen when polling day comes. Even many remain voters balk at the idea of dragging the argument out any further. I’m going to stick my neck out here: Boris is going to win. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2019-09-06 20:07 |
| #19 I wouldn't mind some substantial comments (or refutations). |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 19:38 |
| #18 What number Reich is the EU? I've lost count. |
| Posted by: Regular joe 2019-09-06 17:39 |
| #17 I posit that Boris' run for govt was never about delivering brexit. Brexit was a convenient sentiment latched onto because more than half the population was for it. May was already burning down, and somebody had to step in. Better for a 'die hard Brexiteer', a Trump wannabe step in. It doesn't matter one bit. The theater is only to make the voter believe it's a democracy. If a politician in opposition knows the majority of a people want something - no matter how impossible or impractical it is to deliver, you can be pretty sure it's going to be top of the manifesto and he'll have a plan for it. I used to think the only man really shooting for brexit was Nigel Farage and Johnson, like other MPs across the floor was a pretender, riding a 'majoritarian charismatic' image for as far it will take him. Now, Farage too seems to be making overtures to Johnson so his Brexit party doesn't go the way of his UKIP. This is what I think will happen in the coming days. There will be a delay announced. People who voted for an exit from the Eww will be led to believe that all these honest men are parleying with Brussels to deliver brexit. The self-serving Irish will whine about No-Deal, and whoever Britain elects shall fuss about with 'finding the right deal'. And all this while status quo shall allow the real Eww beneficiaries to either readjust to coming administrative strictures, or re-invest their accumulated resources into new pipelines depending on how far they can take this farce together. A continental enterprise of corruption and thuggery worth £ 100+ billion won't just pack up because some lowly citizens voted 'LEAVE' in a silly referendum. I hope I'm proved wrong though, for the sake of the British people. For sure, if brexit is delivered, and is followed by a boost in the UK's prospects, if the foreseen famines and plagues never arrive, Italy shall be next. After that who knows ... |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2019-09-06 16:05 |
| #16 Just hown the f*ck the World managed before EU & WTO? Seriously EC, EU is going down - it can do so peacefuly, or it can get smashed. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru PB 2019-09-06 15:54 |
| #15 In order to trade under WTO Law, the UK will have to establish its own schedules, which have to be accepted by all WTO members. WTO rulings are uncertain The UK could proclaim unilateral free trade. This could boost trade, but also destroy manufacturing in the UK. Trading on WTO terms means the UK will no longer trade with the EU-27 on privileged terms. Therefore the same tariff will apply, no matter if a product is imported from New Zealand or Belgium. The EU may impose non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping, countervailing or safeguard measures. Falling back on WTO Law means industries dependent on a highly integrated EU supply chain would be affected the most, e.g. the automotive industry. Damages would need to be mitigated by government subsidies, but WTO Law often prohibits those subsidies. Under the GATS, the UK’s financial services sector would lose of a number of benefits it enjoys under EU Law, especially passporting rights resulting from the financial services single market. In contrast, WTO terms lead to significant limitations and regulatory requirements, which can be expanded at all times. British aviation service sector, which is the third largest in the world, will also suffer if the UK becomes a third country. Licenses given to UK air carriers will become invalid and they will lose access to intra-EU air traffic rights. The UK could not fall back on bilateral air service agreements between individual EU Member States, as these were abolished during the extension of the EU Single Market. The GATS does not contain regulations regarding air services, either. Consequently, both UK and EU 27/EEA air carriers will be unable to fly between the UK and EU-27 countries. Additionally, the UK will not be part of the EU’s open skies agreements, as concluded with the US. A no-deal Brexit would therefore not only affect the aviation service sector within the Single Market but also outside of it. UK air carriers will have no legal basis to fly to and from the concerned third countries. Also, EU-27 air carriers will not be able to fly between the UK and those countries. Well Heathrow and Gatwick suck anyway. Sure, given enough time, these problems could all be resolved, but it could take many years. And since the UK market is small in comparison to the EU market, it is unlikely that the UK will strike conditions as beneficial as those negotiated by the EU. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 15:40 |
| #14 #10 from the movie |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru PB 2019-09-06 15:37 |
| #13 WTO deal you say? The UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states. There are no default terms Britain can crash out on. The UK has been blocked by WTO members from simply relying on the EU’s existing tariffs and tariff-free trade quotas. Think about the sheer volume of domestic legislation that would need to be passed before being able to trade under WTO rules. The UK government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, I don't think you have any idea what a no deal actually means: A very long recession in the UK. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 15:18 |
| #12 Neither the UK nor the EU want new physical checks or infrastructure at the Irish border. If I'm talking crap then please offer a solution. Boris couldn't come up with any. No deal means hard border in Ireland. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 15:07 |
| #11 EC is talking crap. All this talk of no leaving without an EUSSR deal is just a way to not leave. The EUSSR is incentivised to offer a crap deal in order to keep the UK citizens extorted money. There's only one good deal and that's the WTO deal. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2019-09-06 14:56 |
| #10 #9 Enough talk - Conan O'brien or The Barbarian? |
| Posted by: jpal 2019-09-06 14:32 |
| #9 Enough talk - Conan |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru PB 2019-09-06 14:19 |
| #8 If the British still want Brexit (with the risk of a no deal) they will vote for Boris in November. If they prefer to remain (or want a Brexit with a proper deal), they'll vote him out. So this time nobody can claim she/he wasn't properly informed about the consequences. Precisely. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2019-09-06 14:19 |
| #7 "On Wednesday afternoon, MPs passed a motion obliging the government to seek as many extensions as the EU wanted." This is not correct. Just ONE extension. Boris will get his election, but only after he has sought this extension. This was an act of self defense to mitigate the damage caused by a five week prorogation of Parliament in such a critical time. If the British still want Brexit (with the risk of a no deal) they will vote for Boris in November. If they prefer to remain (or want a Brexit with a proper deal), they'll vote him out. So this time nobody can claim she/he wasn't properly informed about the consequences. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 14:15 |
| #6 This is interesting, from the Washington Examiner: There will still be an election in the UK, and Brexit will still happen |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2019-09-06 13:59 |
| #5 A bumbling fool can be alive. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 13:47 |
| #4 He's 10 times more alive than Merkel |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2019-09-06 13:43 |
| #3 I'd rather say Boris has suffered floccinaucinihilipilification. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 13:20 |
| #2 I cant wait for the UK to leave the EUSSR. Good wishes to the German economy as they remain in the protectionist titanic they will need a lot of luck to recover from merkels gimmigrant geveaway. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2019-09-06 13:11 |
| #1 Actually he can't, at least not without triggering a serious constitutional crisis. Parliament has ordered him to seek an extension if no deal can be reached before October 17 (not likely). If he refuses to comply and the UK crashes out there will be hell to pay. Boris won't get his election before November. He could still win it, but it seems a lot more uncertain. Listening to his rambling speech during which a police officer fainted I'd say he's not up to the job. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-06 13:04 |