Brexit will be a Titanic Success - Boris Johnson

Nellybee

Welcome to the United Kingdom of London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Pincher

Time for a Doctor Who Christmas Special.

I want to see a Brexit theme please.

Some Galactic businessman offers to buy Great Britain, in a Private Equity deal. "Sir" Phillip Green guest stars.

Obviously, he has no intention of servicing the National Debt, and fill the state pension black hole, but let's keep it quiet, when we put it to the shareholders, i.e. THE PEOPLE, for a carpet bagging demutualisation of the millennium. We must vote DEAL or NO DEAL.

As the various great estates and national institutions are asset stripped and sold off to the highest bidder, the Doctor must preserve his beloved England in the face of Galactic Capitalism.

Biggles

Glen_Clark wrote: »

In his speech at the Spectator Awards Ceremony Boris Johnson said
'BREXIT WILL BE A TITANIC SUCCESS'

In his defence (for once) I imagine he said 'titanic success' and our beloved media decided that they had heard 'Titanic'.

bowlhead99

Marktheshark wrote: »

May should have served article 50 on her first day, she is the one who has betrayed the voters.

Yeah that would work well:
UK:"hey EU guys, we're off"

EU:"where to?"

UK:"Don't know yet, it will take us some time to decide"

EU:"Haven't you already discussed it internally and decided where you want to go?"

UK: No, we just asked our population 'remain or exit', and they said exit, just about, so I've opened this door immediately and we'll close it behind us in 24 months. Maybe over the 24 months we'll agree where we would like to go, because the people who said exit all fancied going different places."

EU: "Oh, that's strange. Hey, you want to take anything with you?"

UK: "We haven't had time to think about that, marktheshark just said we need to exit right now and I need to immediately open the door that I have 24 months to pass through. How about we work it out over the next couple of years, and let you know what we'd like to take just before the door shuts?"

EU: "Well you can't just take whatever you like, only what you can convince us we should let you take. It will probably take several years to agree that, and there's less than two years before the door closes and you're stuck in the cold. So good luck presenting us a proposal that 27 of us can unanimously agree on, if you haven't got that finalised already!"

UK: "Well look, I don't know where I'm going, beyond 'not here' and I don't know what I want to take with me other than as much as possible that you've got that I want, and nothing that I don't want. Unfortunately what you've got that I want or don't want is a matter of furious debate right now because we haven't asked the public what they like or don't like, we only asked them stay or leave. All we have to go on, is what the individual well-briefed MPs say would be best, so we could debate that in parliament I suppose... but might conclude that we shouldn't leave at all, and people wouldn't like that".

EU: "Seems like you are in a bit of a pickle then. Maybe you shouldn't have invoked the article to open the door until you had sorted out where you were going. Hurry up and slam the door behind you, we're getting cold now."

UK: "I had to open the door and start the timer immediately because Marktheshark said I would be a traitor otherwise, and he is clearly an expert economist and political negotiator who has tried to exit a continent-sized economic and political union before, so he must know best. But don't worry, we'll work out what we want in a few months or years. Meanwhile we'll go and set up some trade agreements with other countries which we'll need when we've left, they might take a few years so better get started on those."

EU: "I thought you didn't have any trade negotiators because you haven't needed any for decades because all negotiations with other countries go through the EU. And the few you do have, are working in the negotiations with us? Still, FYI, you can't negotiate any deals with anyone else while you're a member, that's one of the reasons you're leaving, remember?"

UK:"OK, scratch that. Well, watch this space, I'll come back and haggle out a good deal with you in a few months and hope we conclude it in time - before the door closes and we get forced out with nothing LOL wouldn't that be fun!"

EU: "Sure that's fine with us, you go girl! I understand your media and many of your MPs have said you should have some very long and detailed and public discussions on exactly what you want out of us ideally, and exactly what the very bare minimum terms you would accept on every issue, before you come back with a proposal on what you would ideally like to have..."

EU "... which suits us, because we will watch those parliamentary debates which are a matter of public record to find out exactly how far we can push you to ensure you get the worst possible deal you would accept. It won't be a negotiation so much as us telling you "non" until you cave and get whatever we fancy giving you, which is nothing, because we can't set a precedent for people leaving and taking good stuff with them. So good luck with your plan, I guess you can blame Marktheshark if it goes badly, for pushing you into it too quickly. Hopefully everyone else will forgive you"

UK: "ok bye. I'm just off to curse myself for listening to Marktheshark trying to pressure me to do something monumentally stupid in a big hurry"

veryintrigued

Interesting that a lot of remainers seemed to be pushing for article 50 to be instigated as soon as possible citing 'uncertainty' and 'market stability'.

Does this ruling provide this?

colsten

jimjames wrote: »

Bizarre that there seems to be such fury amongst Leavers about the verdict. I must have misunderstood the message from their campaign about giving control back to Parliament and being the cornerstone of our democracy.

British judges in a British court making sure that British people get their rights under British law and aren't being ruled by unelected people (aka "taking back control" and "I want my country back"). I thought that was roughly what the Leavers wanted but now I am not so sure any longer.

colsten

Do people know about the Crowdfunding for the Supreme Court hearing? £46K pledged already in under 5 hours. Lots more will be needed as such court cases are incredibly expensive.

https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/peoples-challenge/

ManofLeisure_2

Marktheshark wrote: »

May should have served article 50 on her first day, she is the one who has betrayed the voters.

The referendum was advisory and not mandatory. If it had been mandatory then S50 could have been invoked last July - but it wasn't.

talexuser

The founding fathers in the US thought long and hard about a constitution which would contain checks and balances against limitless power. It's time we got rid of the Royal perogative, which effectively gives the monarch and prime minister arbitrary power to enact what they like without recourse to Parliament and the people under common law. Something so anti-democratic in this age is unacceptable, and the government willing to spend a lot of taxpayers money on expensive court cases to keep it also unacceptable.

Apodemus

Biggles wrote: »

In his defence (for once) I imagine he said 'titanic success' and our beloved media decided that they had heard 'Titanic'.

Quite agree! His use was perfectly correct for his context. Dictionary definition of titanic gives "of exceptional strength, size or power" etc. Which is why the name was chosen for the ship. (not often I agree with old Boris, but for once...)