The next PM.

[Doon frae Troon]

Could possibly have either the shortest serving PM in our history, or another X years of a Remain-PM (which would be hilarious if the Tory selectorate did elect Hunt after all the attempts to oust May).

That's how I see it.
Next election the right wing vote will be split between the Tory/Brexit/UKIP votes allowing Labour and Lib Dem shoe ins in England and Wales.
Plaid/Greens/SNP also gaining seats.

As I said months ago Johnson will probably be the last UK Tory PM.
My daughter said that would not worry him as he wants to go down in history as a 'former UK PM'

 

[4LEX]

Johnson when he wins, and with a (mostly) united party behind him would still beat the lame duck Corbyn in a general election. The latter is simply not trusted by anyone of a sane mindset. It's like putting a primary school teacher in charge of a prison! Ain't gonna happen.

Johnson is awful though. His looks uneasy, lacking confidence and missing the charisma that made him popular in the first place.

It's just a good job for the Tories that Labour have such a dire leader themselves. Given the shambles of the vote, the result and the following debacle, Labour should be a total and utter shoe in. The fact they're not says it all.

 

[User62651]

Johnson when he wins, and with a (mostly) united party behind him would still beat the lame duck Corbyn in a general election. The latter is simply not trusted by anyone of a sane mindset. It's like putting a primary school teacher in charge of a prison! Ain't gonna happen.

Johnson is awful though. His looks uneasy, lacking confidence and missing the charisma that made him popular in the first place.

It's just a good job for the Tories that Labour have such a dire leader themselves. Given the shambles of the vote, the result and the following debacle, Labour should be a total and utter shoe in. The fact they're not says it all.

Good summation there.

Politics is highly unpredictable these days -
If Johnson can get UK out of EU, even if a bit later say Christmas, then he is probably safe for two and a half years after that until GE will be due (June 2022 at latest), no matter what happens wrt adjustments of leaving EU.
For BJ to succeed he HAS to Brexit though. If he can't he's done for, ERG will turn on him. If he does that it gets rids of the Farage/BP issue and brings back leave voting Tory voters who probably outnumber remain Tory voters. He could call a GE then too and probably win it, get himself a working majority unreliant on DUP. Beyond that who knows, crystal ball time.
BJ will have a weak opposition to deal with until 2022 as long as Corbyn is in charge of Labour I think and I can't see that changing short term unless Corbyn took ill or something. If Corbyn lost 2 GE's (2017 and 22) he'd surely have to stand down.

To contradict what I said above sometimes I just wonder if Boris found himself, like May, hamstrung by parliament and unable to Brexit, would he ever consider revoking A50? It would cause ructions sure but he'd likely be safe until 2022. He's flip flopped a lot over the years, changes his views with the wind. Would the apparent principle in him for Brexit suddenly soften once he's Prime Minister? Which is more important to him - being PM or leaving EU? Being PM I'd say by a distance. Some thought his Brexit stance was simply to go up against Cameron for PM years ago, a vehicle for change. Has worked too.

 

[jp5]

Wouldn't be so quick to write Corbyn off, as useless as he is. Very feasible that BJ fails to deliver and the Brexit party split the Tory vote.

They do say never interfere while your opponent is making mistakes. Corbyn pushing that to the limit but who knows, the payoff for him could be a permanently split Tory party.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Johnson when he wins, and with a (mostly) united party behind him would still beat the lame duck Corbyn in a general election. The latter is simply not trusted by anyone of a sane mindset. It's like putting a primary school teacher in charge of a prison! Ain't gonna happen.

Johnson is awful though. His looks uneasy, lacking confidence and missing the charisma that made him popular in the first place.

It's just a good job for the Tories that Labour have such a dire leader themselves. Given the shambles of the vote, the result and the following debacle, Labour should be a total and utter shoe in. The fact they're not says it all.

Corbyn has a -44 popularity rating in Scotland......…..Even lower than Johnson
The UK votes to decide which of the two most unpopular leaders is the least unpopular.

 

[MegaSteve]

Maybe he just thinks his private life has got nothing to do with any journalists

Problem is, he adopts the same attitude with regard his 'public life'...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Interesting the Dr Liam Fox has called out BJ on his citing of WTO GATT Article 24 para 5b (see BJ does know detail) as a solution to trade and avoidance of tariffs with the EU immediately on leaving the EU on 31/10 with No Deal. Fox calls him deluded or that he does not understand what it is about and how it works. And so in telling the selectorate/electorate otherwise about how free trade tariffs will roll-over and work under that article, BJ is either being disingenuous or it is a deliberate deceit. As the leader headline in The Times said today - I quote:

If the Tory leadership contenders are serious about a no-deal Brexit, they need to be honest with the public about what this would mean for trade'

and the leader article itself concludes:

Too many senior Tories have for too long been too scared to tell the public the truth about no-deal, not least Mrs May herself. They owe it to their party and to the country to ensure that if Britain is heading that way, it does so with its eyes open

Now I'd basically given up calling for this truth to be told; I was rather hoping Mrs May wold have grabbed the nettle long before now and done so, but she didn't and still hasn't. I most certainly wouldn't have predicted that it would be Dr Liam Fox - arch-leaver and Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade - who would do so - but what should I expect in the insane political time we have been experiencing.

That this will most probably be ignored by most Leave voters as Project Fear and disinformation being spread by the BJ hating MSM - and that The Times was a Remain newspaper in any case - of that I have little doubt - but they can't accuse Dr Liam Fox of actually being a Remoaner.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You're confusing me - not hard I know.

You've said on numerous occasions recently that you accept that the UK will leave without a deal. And you've said you hope its Boris leading the charge - bring it on you say. So whats your problem? Why do you keep repeating it when you've accepted it?

Maybe its the thinly veiled irony which (doesn't) hides the fact you are vehemently opposed to it BUT you think this is the best way to continue your whining about it without the need to argue your case. If I've misinterpreted you I apologise but if I haven't, this version of whining is just as bad as the previous 3 years.

Yes I have said I now accept and, despite all my fears, that we end up leaving on a no-deal because I suspect that any 'deal' that is arrived at will be as a result of a quite significant extension, and would be portrayed as a sell-out to the EU - after all the voting paper said Remain or Leave with no mention of the word Deal (yes I know all that was said before but the view seems to be now that Leave voters voted for us to leave - to sort out a deal afterwards).

Leaving with a deal would (IMO) therefore have the effect of boosting the popularity of Farage and TBP, and whenever the next election comes along Farage and his crew could well have a significant voice in Westminster. As it happens I cannot see us being able to sort out a new deal by 31/10 in any case and we will leave on 31/10 without a deal agreed. And I hope that BJ is our PM at that point. He can lead us to the promised land. This outcome would be 'clean' (which is what Leave voters seem to want).

So Bri - I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place. No-Deal or Farage. I very reluctantly choose No Deal with BJ as PM.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Maybe he just thinks his private life has got nothing to do with any journalists

Ferrari was very clear that the questioning was not about BJ's private life - or indeed anything to do with the photo other than when the photo was taken. Why ask even that? Because whoever provided the press with the photo made it clear that it was taken over the weekend following the bust-up - and so all was well - kill story. But the photo clearly wasn't taken when they said it was. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public and selectorate. Why go to such lengths? Why not simply say something like that he didn't know anything about the photo being provided and that it was a nice picture taken - say - 8 weeks ago.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Heard a really good point on the radio this morning about a Tory MP who said that he despised Bojo but voted for him as they realised we are now in an era of cult like leaders with Corbyn and Farage. And Bojo is the nearest the tories have to being that type of leader, hence he is the only one who would have a chance at an election against the cult of personality and following the other leaders have.

Must be said that whilst I find it thoroughly depressing, there is a lot to agree with there. Have been saying for a long time that people are exhibiting more cult like behavior now in their politics, where any type of rational questioning of some of the guff they all come out with seems increasingly to go out of the window. And leaders are increasingly more bothered about playing to their cult like followers as opposed to actually bringing people together a bit more.

It is indeed desperately depressing hearing Leave and BJ supporters be in total denial over any issues or worries about BJ and what he proposes. It is worse now that some have now started to talk about the MSM (all of it) being anti-Boris and therefore anti-Brexit - because obviously if you are anti-BJ you have to be pro-JH - and JH is a Remoaner at heart. When you reach this point there is absolutely no point in pointing anything out and/or trying to 'move the needle'. And that just adds to why I accept and (if we have to leave) we leave on No Deal with BJ as PM.

 

[Hobbit]

Interesting the Dr Liam Fox has called out BJ on his citing of WTO GATT Article 24 para 5b (see BJ does know detail) as a solution to trade and avoidance of tariffs with the EU immediately on leaving the EU on 31/10 with No Deal. Fox calls him deluded or that he does not understand what it is about and how it works. And so in telling the selectorate/electorate otherwise about how free trade tariffs will roll-over and work under that article, BJ being either disingenuous or it is a deliberate deceit. As the leader headline in The Times said today - I quote:

If the Tory leadership contenders are serious about a no-deal Brexit, they need to be honest with the public about what this would mean for trade'

and the leader article itself concludes:

Too many senior Tories have for too long been too scared to tell the public the truth about no-deal, not least Mrs May herself. They owe it to their party and to the country to ensure that if Britain is heading that way, it does so with its eyes open

Now I'd basically given up calling for this truth to be told; I was rather hoping Mrs May wold have grabbed the nettle long before now and done so, but she didn't and still hasn't. I most certainly wouldn't have predicted that it would be Dr Liam Fox - arch-leaver and Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade - who would do so - but what should I expect in the insane political time we have been experiencing.

That this will most probably be ignored by most Leave voters as Project Fear and disinformation being spread by the BJ hating MSM - and that The Times was a Remain newspaper in any case - of that I have little doubt - but they can't accuse Dr Liam Fox of actually being a Remoaner.

Liam Fox is right. There is no automatic roll over onto Article 24 of WTO terms. However, and this is where WTO may conflict with the EU. Para 10 of GATT 24 says that only 2/3 of participating countries need to agree. My expectation would be that the EU would seek full 27 agreement before signing up to GATT 24.

GATT 24 is a very good halfway house when in the middle of trade negotiations, and also provides an option for a customs union. I'd like to think that if both sides are genuinely keen on an inclusive trade deal but the Oct 31st is a hard deadline, they will agree in principle to use GATT 24 until an agreement is reached.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Good summation there.

Politics is highly unpredictable these days -
If Johnson can get UK out of EU, even if a bit later say Christmas, then he is probably safe for two and a half years after that until GE will be due (June 2022 at latest), no matter what happens wrt adjustments of leaving EU.
For BJ to succeed he HAS to Brexit though. If he can't he's done for, ERG will turn on him. If he does that it gets rids of the Farage/BP issue and brings back leave voting Tory voters who probably outnumber remain Tory voters. He could call a GE then too and probably win it, get himself a working majority unreliant on DUP. Beyond that who knows, crystal ball time.
BJ will have a weak opposition to deal with until 2022 as long as Corbyn is in charge of Labour I think and I can't see that changing short term unless Corbyn took ill or something. If Corbyn lost 2 GE's (2017 and 22) he'd surely have to stand down.

To contradict what I said above sometimes I just wonder if Boris found himself, like May, hamstrung by parliament and unable to Brexit, would he ever consider revoking A50? It would cause ructions sure but he'd likely be safe until 2022. He's flip flopped a lot over the years, changes his views with the wind. Would the apparent principle in him for Brexit suddenly soften once he's Prime Minister? Which is more important to him - being PM or leaving EU? Being PM I'd say by a distance. Some thought his Brexit stance was simply to go up against Cameron for PM years ago, a vehicle for change. Has worked too.

The horror of listening to many BJ supporting Leave voters is that they will not accept any delay past 31/10 - not a day- never mind two months - the sort of timescales I imagine JH could be thinking about. Miss 31/10 and it's Farage and TBP in Westminster (and potentially then cheerio Scotland).

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Liam Fox is right. There is no automatic roll over onto Article 24 of WTO terms. However, and this is where WTO may conflict with the EU. Para 10 of GATT 24 says that only 2/3 of participating countries need to agree. My expectation would be that the EU would seek full 27 agreement before signing up to GATT 24.

GATT 24 is a very good halfway house when in the middle of trade negotiations, and also provides an option for a customs union. I'd like to think that if both sides are genuinely keen on an inclusive trade deal but the Oct 31st is a hard deadline, they will agree in principle to use GATT 24 until an agreement is reached.

But Article 24 as I understand it is designed to enable two trading bodies (such as the UK and the EU) to transition from an existing trade deal to a new trade deal - and for Art24 to apply that deal needs to have been defined and pretty much agreed (and it does not cover the services which make up 80% of our trade); and timescales and a plan are in place to finalise the agreement and move from existing state to the new one.

If we leave on 31/10 with no-deal what is the trading agreement we and the EU are transitioning to?; what are our plans and timescales? Further the EU have said that No-Deal means No-Deal means No Transition; and that they are not going to start discussions on any new trade deal until the £39bn is paid - and BJ says he'll withhold that payment until we have a trade deal agreed - Catch-22. And let's not forget the EU/UK Irish border issue is also an EU trade deal pre-requisite.

Would the WTO allow the EU and the UK to invoke a WTO process that mandates pre-requisites that will not be in place between the UK and the EU. Maybe. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I listened to Jeremy Hunt on the Radio 2 at lunchtime and was pleasantly surprised how well he came across. I thought BJ was a 'shoe-in' to win but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Hobbit]

But Article 24 as I understand it is designed to enable two trading bodies (such as the UK and the EU) to transition from an existing trade deal to a new trade deal - and for Art24 to apply that deal needs to have been defined and pretty much agreed (and it does not cover the services which make up 80% of our trade); and timescales and a plan are in place to finalise the agreement and move from existing state to the new one.

If we leave on 31/10 with no-deal what is the trading agreement we and the EU are transitioning to?; what are our plans and timescales? Further the EU have said that No-Deal means No-Deal means No Transition; and that they are not going to start discussions on any new trade deal until the £39bn is paid - and BJ says he'll withhold that payment until we have a trade deal agreed - Catch-22. And let's not forget the EU/UK Irish border issue is also an EU trade deal pre-requisite.

Would the WTO allow the EU and the UK to invoke a WTO process that mandates pre-requisites that will not be in place between the UK and the EU. Maybe. But I wouldn't bet on it.

It is designed as you say but the 2 countries have to agree to it first.

The £39bn; the law lords have already ruled on that. It isn't a legally binding debt, it isn't even a debt. Article 50, nor any of the other Articles, list pre-existing commitments. Its semantics but in terms of what is written down, which is what the law lords based their ruling on, there is no debt. However, May acknowledged it in, what I feel, was good faith. I also don't feel the EU negotiated in good faith, so basically stuff 'em. I feel it should be paid in stages for the future agreement.

"Would the WTO allow...." GATT 24 is very wide ranging and does allow some picking and choosing. I guess it depends on what the prerequisites are and what an agreement in principle would look like - that's a piece of string question.

I don't necessarily fear No Deal as it will give the UK govt total flexibility to choose where and how much it subsidises businesses through the period it is trying to agree a Deal, and it also allows the UK govt to set its own (tit-4-tat) tariffs. The EU regs hamstrings the EU from setting subsidies. As I've said before, define the consequences of No Deal. So far, all we've heard is armageddon without any detail.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is designed as you say but the 2 countries have to agree to it first.

The £39bn; the law lords have already ruled on that. It isn't a legally binding debt, it isn't even a debt. Article 50, nor any of the other Articles, list pre-existing commitments. Its semantics but in terms of what is written down, which is what the law lords based their ruling on, there is no debt. However, May acknowledged it in, what I feel, was good faith. I also don't feel the EU negotiated in good faith, so basically stuff 'em. I feel it should be paid in stages for the future agreement.

"Would the WTO allow...." GATT 24 is very wide ranging and does allow some picking and choosing. I guess it depends on what the prerequisites are and what an agreement in principle would look like - that's a piece of string question.

I don't necessarily fear No Deal as it will give the UK govt total flexibility to choose where and how much it subsidises businesses through the period it is trying to agree a Deal, and it also allows the UK govt to set its own (tit-4-tat) tariffs. The EU regs hamstrings the EU from setting subsidies. As I've said before, define the consequences of No Deal. So far, all we've heard is armageddon without any detail.

Which is what The Times is telling the candidates that they need to do - clearly given his role Dr LF will have a good idea trade-wise. His issue might be that in the past he has rubbished all predictions around consequences of a No Deal - telling us of the glittering prizes in the brave new world we are heading to. How about they also tell us some detail about the trade deals they expect to strike in yr1 post a 31/10 No Deal departure and then yrs 2,3,4 and 5 then 6-10. We've had long enough to be doing the initial discussions with the various countries...

We know that the 100% certain #1 consequence will be the loss of all trade (and all other) deals and arrangements that we have in place with and through the EU - and it will take time to negotiate new ones and/or roll-over the existing ones (though I am not hearing many more roll-over deals being signed off since SK some weeks back). Besides - no roll-over deal is going to see us better off viz-a-viz trade with that country - at best it'll be the same - and some countries might see a country of 65m as less attractive than a body of 550m and so want better terms for them. But that's all known and nothing new and we are leaving to be better off - supposedly.

Setting tit-4-tat tariffs? - well as we are going to be operating under WTO rules these tariffs will have to apply to all countries trading with us. And that might not be well received - what do BJ and JH and their Leave supporters tell us on such things. We need to hear.

And I have no idea what happens to financial industry stuff such as financial product passporting.

As for Art24 - yes - the EU and the UK will have to agree. Well if we refuse to pay the £39bn we have agreed that we owe - regardless of the legal position that we cite and resaon for not having to pay it - in signing off the WA May agreed with the EU the figure of £39bn - it's signed. Refusing to pay is not going to encourage the EU into given us tariff free access to the EU market - but maybe our S&P credit rating will go up as a result of breaking a signed agreement - I dunno.

I'll also add that a YouGov poll reported today found that whilst support for leaving is at 57% against 43% Remain; support for a No Deal exit was at 28% (note that a Survation poll for the MoS found almost the same figures for L/R - but the other way around and the MoS did not report the figures at the weekend). We are hurtling towards a No Deal Brexit - the claimed 'Will of the People' - when in fact it is the will of a figure of the order of 28%. Democratic Madness.

 

[Foxholer]

Good summation there.

Politics is highly unpredictable these days -
If Johnson can get UK out of EU, even if a bit later say Christmas, then he is probably safe for two and a half years after that until GE will be due (June 2022 at latest), no matter what happens wrt adjustments of leaving EU.
For BJ to succeed he HAS to Brexit though. If he can't he's done for, ERG will turn on him. If he does that it gets rids of the Farage/BP issue and brings back leave voting Tory voters who probably outnumber remain Tory voters. He could call a GE then too and probably win it, get himself a working majority unreliant on DUP. Beyond that who knows, crystal ball time.
BJ will have a weak opposition to deal with until 2022 as long as Corbyn is in charge of Labour I think and I can't see that changing short term unless Corbyn took ill or something. If Corbyn lost 2 GE's (2017 and 22) he'd surely have to stand down.

To contradict what I said above sometimes I just wonder if Boris found himself, like May, hamstrung by parliament and unable to Brexit, would he ever consider revoking A50? It would cause ructions sure but he'd likely be safe until 2022. He's flip flopped a lot over the years, changes his views with the wind. Would the apparent principle in him for Brexit suddenly soften once he's Prime Minister? Which is more important to him - being PM or leaving EU? Being PM I'd say by a distance. Some thought his Brexit stance was simply to go up against Cameron for PM years ago, a vehicle for change. Has worked too.

I can't see Boris - who is almost certain to win - extending Brexit!

However, calling a GE is a very dangerous tactic! Recent elections show how 'The public' turned on existing 'major' parties because of the shambles that has been Brexit so far. But, as a body, it has a short memory of a shambles, once the 'goal' has been achieved!

The default A50 clause - if no agreement by the end of negotiation, then leave with no agreement - is likely to be Boris's 'saviour'! He just has to wait for all the fuss to die down!

The fundamental problem is that Parliamentarians are predominately Remainers - contrary to the Referendum result and in spite of the noisy ERG etc bunches! Factor in Whipping by Labour and it's unlikely ANY Brexit oriented vote would be approved!

 

[Foxholer]

...Well if we refuse to pay the £39bn we have agreed that we owe - regardless of the legal position that we cite and resaon for not having to pay it - in signing off the WA May agreed with the EU the figure of £39bn - it's signed. Refusing to pay is not going to encourage the EU into given us tariff free access to the EU market.

May's signing of the agreement was conditional - on approval by Parliament. As Parliament has rejected the agreement, May's signing of it is irrelevant/null & void!

The £39bn would/will, no doubt, be included/a consideration in any subsequent agreement - WTO A24 or otherwise!

 

[SocketRocket]

But Article 24 as I understand it is designed to enable two trading bodies (such as the UK and the EU) to transition from an existing trade deal to a new trade deal - and for Art24 to apply that deal needs to have been defined and pretty much agreed (and it does not cover the services which make up 80% of our trade); and timescales and a plan are in place to finalise the agreement and move from existing state to the new one.

Services do cover around 80% of our trade but 'Services' cover a vast range of trade that is nothing to do with finance and passporting. Financial Services are around 6% of our trade so lets get it into perspective.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Services do cover around 80% of our trade but 'Services' cover a vast range of trade that is nothing to do with finance and passporting. Financial Services are around 6% of our trade so lets get it into perspective.

OK - but in any case as far as I am aware services aren't in scope of GATT Art24 5b - even if the WTO allowed us to trade with the EU under such a transitional arrangement with other pre-requisites not met.