Dominic Cummings said in a provocative series of tweets that he had always intended to get “the trolley” – his derogatory nickname for the Prime Minister – to “ditch the bits we didn’t like” after beating Labour in the 2019 general election.

His latest intervention came after Brexit minister Lord Frost set out the UK’s demands for fundamental changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol contained in the agreement which Mr. Johnson signed in January 2020.

Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306
Oct 12, 2021
Replying to @Dominic2306

For all those whining, you try solving a once-a-century constit crisis starting on 10% in polls with totally fkd negotiating situation, SW1 hysterical, joke Cabinet, mutinous GLS & a fkd for PM who only understood even vaguely WTF the Customs Union was in 11/20 – not easy!

Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306

No what I’ve said does NOT mean ‘the PM was  lying in GE2019’, he never had a scoobydoo what the deal he signed meant. He never understood what leaving Customs Union meant until 11/20. In 1/20 he was babbling ‘I’d never have signed it if Id understood it’ (but that WAS a lie)

He said that when Mr. Johnson finally realized the true implications of the deal, he claimed he would never have agreed to it – although Mr. Cummings said that was a lie.

During the election campaign, Mr. Johnson repeatedly boasted that the “divorce” settlement he had negotiated with Brussels – including the Northern Ireland Protocol – was a “great” deal that was “oven ready” to be signed.

Mr. Cummings said: “What I’ve said does NOT mean ‘the PM was lying in General Election 2019’, he never had a scoobydoo what the deal he signed meant.

“He never understood what leaving Customs Union meant until November 2020.”

When the Prime Minister did finally comprehend, “he was babbling ‘I’d never have signed it if I’d understood it’ (but that WAS a lie)”.

Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306

We took over a party on ~10%, worst constitutional crisis in century, much of deep state angling for BINO or 2REF. So we wriggled thro with best option we cd & intended to get the to ditch bits we didn’t like after whacking Corbyn. We prioritized.

Mr. Cummings, who was credited with masterminding the successful Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum, said that, when Mr. Johnson entered No 10 in 2019, the country was facing the “worst constitutional crisis in a century” with much of what he called the “deep state” angling for “Bino” (Brexit in name only) or a second referendum.

“So we wriggled through with best option we could and intended to get the trolley to ditch bits we didn’t like after whacking (Labour leader Jeremy) Corbyn. We prioritized,” he said.

He dismissed suggestions that abandoning those elements of the Withdrawal Agreement would mean breaking international law.

“Our priorities meant e.g. getting Brexit done is 10,000 times more important than lawyers yapping re international law in negotiations with people who break international law all the time,” he said.

“EU membership infantilized SW1 (Westminster) as yapping re ‘international law’ clearly shows.”

Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-did-not-understand-brexit-deal-dominic-cummings-b960229.html

The post Boris Johnson did not understand his own Brexit deal, says Dominic Cummings first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

This is a crucial week in the Brexit negotiations. Now where have you heard that one before?

You know the script by now: both sides want a deal, progress has been made but significant obstacles remain, the EU must respect UK sovereignty, the UK must respect EU free market integrity.

Time, though, is now really (really) running out.

The transition period ends in just six weeks on December 31 and not only do both sides have to agree a deal before then but also get it ratified in both the UK and EU Parliaments.

November then is a critical month.

Ireland’s foreign minister Simon Coveney described this as “move week”, a deal still “very doable”, he said, but “very difficult”.

The UK’s chief negotiator David Frost and his team are meeting their EU counterparts in Brussels in an attempt to overcome what have been the same sticking points for months – fishing and the so-called level playing field (deciding which rules on state aid but also workers’ rights and environmental standards the UK should follow after it leaves).

On his arrival in Brussels, Mr Frost tweeted that there “has been some progress in a positive direction in recent days…But we may not succeed.”

So what needs to change?

Fishing

It may be drop in the ocean economically but fishing is now perhaps the biggest obstacle threatening to sink these talks.

The UK is still bound by the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) until it leaves on December 31.

The CFP is detested by the British fishing industry who believe the system of quotas introduced in the 1970s severely limits their ability to fish in UK waters.

They see Brexit as a chance to reverse that and take back control of who fishes in Britain’s bountiful waters.

• Trouble on the horizon or a passing storm? Fishermen prepare for the choppy waters of a no-deal Brexit

• Why the UK’s fishing industry could be the issue that scuppers a Brexit deal with the EU

The EU – particularly, but not exclusively, France and Spain – wants to maintain the status quo and continue to fish at the same rate in British waters even after Brexit.

The UK wants to be an independent coastal nation, deciding for itself who accesses its waters and negotiate fishing quotas each year with the EU, just as Norway currently does.

It is a point on which the EU has already accepted it will probably have to budge, Michel Barnier saying in June: “The EU wants the status quo, the UK wants to change everything…

“If we want an agreement we have to discuss somewhere in between these positions.”

Talks however on this have barely progressed since the summer.

‘Level playing field’

The EU wants to see movement from the UK in the negotiations on the so-called “level playing field”.

In essence, the level playing field refers to a set of rules used to stop businesses in one country (in this case the UK) undercutting businesses in another country (eg. the EU) on things such as state subsidies (the government intervening to help struggling industries), environmental and workers rights.

The EU wants to ensure trade with the UK is fair and competitive and believes a level playing field is essential to avoid tariffs.

It insists any trade deal must be accompanied by the UK adopting the EU’s rules on subsidizing businesses (state aid) or at the very least following rules similar to theirs.

The UK, however, does not want EU law to be the basis of establishing common standards or be under the jurisdiction of EU institutions.

Boris Johnson has said he’s not asking for special treatment – he just wants a basic free trade deal like other countries have with the EU.

The EU, however, says it’s not that simple because the UK is one of the world’s biggest economies and unlike Canada, for instance, the UK is next door to the EU and already deeply integrated with European markets.

These aren’t the only stumbling blocks but unless they are overcome a deal won’t be possible.

No deal will mean the UK and the EU trading on less lucrative World Trade Organisation terms with tariffs and quotas, which would be economically damaging to both sides.

Neither side has given a hard deadline for reaching a deal that would avoid such tariffs and quotas but any deal not agreed in the next two weeks risks leaving too little time for both the UK and the EU parliaments to scrutinize and ratify.

The EU Parliament meets for the final time on December 16.

Dominic Cummings departed No 10 carrying a box on FridayCredit: Yui Mok/PA

With talks now at crunch point, Downing Street has been quick to dismiss any suggestion that the UK could soften its stance in light of Dominic Cummings‘ departure.

Mr. Cummings was until last week the PM’s chief advisor and was crucially the architect of the Vote Leave campaign.

Mr. Johnson’s spokesperson said: “There will be no change in our approach.

“As David Frost set out over the weekend, we are working to get a deal but only one that is compatible with our sovereignty and takes back control of trade, our waters, and our borders.”

• Chancellor optimistic about end of Brexit transition but fails to rule out chaos in the New Year

• Economy surged out of recession in third quarter, but took another hit as second lockdown loomed

• Chancellor defends record on furlough and says government has protected most vulnerable through Covid

  ---

  Source: https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-16/what-needs-to-change-for-the-uk-and-eu-to-make-a-brexit-deal

  [Disclaimer]

The post What needs to change for the UK and EU to make a Brexit deal? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Labour peer and political commentator Andrew Adonis has claimed that the US election result next week could spark the “end of Brexit”.

Lord Adonis, a TNE contributor, provoked a debate after pointing out that if Donald Trump fails to make it back into the White House it could cause a domino effect with populist politicians – including Boris Johnson and his aide Dominic Cummings.

Adonis wrote: “The most important thing that will happen in British politics this year is next Tuesday’s American election.

“The end of Trump is the beginning of the end of Johnson and Cummings and Brexit.”

It comes after leading Brexit voices – including Piers Morgan – acknowledged that only a Trump win would be best for ensuring a Brexit deal with America.

Numerous reports have hinted Johnson will resign in six months, along with his political aide Cummings.

Voices in Johnson’s government have already started to row back on their comments about America, as they “frantically” reposition themselves for a change of administration.

Paul Duncan tweeted in agreement of Adonis’ comments. He wrote: “My sentiments exactly. Expect a softer Brexit trade agreement if Biden wins, disguised of course as a massive victory for the UK”.

Laura Harrison McBride replied: “I’ve been saying that for months. Fascists need company, because they are so mentally and emotionally weak. I’m praying like mad for Trump to lose in a landslide, so it will be over.”

Brexiteer John Scotting also found himself in agreement but was not celebrating the suggestion.

“This is why a transition period taking us until AFTER the US election was a horrendous error. If/when the anti-UK Democrats get in, I expect Boris to cave and we’ll be back on the road to Rejoin.”

Although others were more skeptical.

Chris Painter wrote: “I really hope that’s true, although you can’t end Brexit – it’s already happened.”

Aidan McQuade commented: “I fear the U.K. has many more years of abject humiliation ahead of itself irrespective of what happens next Tuesday”.

Another commented: “Let’s not count our chickens, I have everything crossed, but then who’d have thought the Conservatives would get an 80 seat majority?”

Source: https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/andrew-adonis-on-us-election-result-4809250

The post US election result could spark ‘end of Brexit’, claims peer first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

REUTERS / Hannah McKay

The most serious political crisis that Boris Johnson has faced as British prime minister is getting worse.

Johnson has become a lightning rod for the fury of the British public—frustrated and restless after nine weeks of lockdown restrictions—after his decision not to sack his top aide who was forced to admit that he traveled hundreds of miles during the pandemic, despite suspecting that both he and his wife had COVID-19.

After days of Johnson trying to excuse the actions of Dominic Cummings, as well as an extraordinary televised press conference where Cummings emerged from the shadows in an unsuccessful attempt to draw a line under the crisis, a government minister has now resigned with a furious letter which condemns both the prime minister and his mastermind.

The furious row began on Friday when two newspapers—the Daily Mirror and The Guardian—reported that Cummings drove 264 miles from London to his parents’ estate in Durham, even though he feared that he and his wife had the coronavirus. He later admitted to a separate trip after his family’s 14-day period of isolation to Barnard Castle, a beauty spot around 30 miles away from Durham.

Cummings and Johnson insist no law was broken—but that’s not really the point. People in Britain have been told to stay at home as much as possible and, if displaying symptoms, to stay inside for two weeks. Those rules have forced people to stay away from their loved ones for months, even if they were seriously ill or dying, and to deal with incredibly difficult circumstances without help.

Cummings’ excuse—that he had to drive to Durham because he thought he and his wife were getting sick and needed possible back-up childcare from his teenage niece—does not comfort anyone who was also struggling to look after their children while sick but thought they had no option but to stay home and help prevent further spread of the deadly virus.

There has been an outpouring of public anger, despite Johnson and Cummings’s attempts to explain away the scandal. Cummings repeatedly refused to apologize for breaking lockdown rules during his highly unusual press conference Monday. He told the public: “I don’t regret what I did … reasonable people might disagree.”

Cummings also provided a truly laughable excuse for his separate trip to Barnard Castle. He said that he wanted to test that his eyesight was good enough to allow him to drive back to London following his illness, so he packed his wife and child into the car and drove to the castle in an incredibly risky experiment.

The lack of contrition and flimsy excuses were, unsurprisingly, not effective. At least 20 lawmakers from Johnson’s Conservative party have called on Cummings to quit and, on Tuesday, a junior minister resigned from the government in protest at the scandal.

Douglas Ross wrote: “While the intentions may have been well-meaning, the reaction to this news shows that Mr. Cummings interpretation of the government advice was not shared by the vast majority of people who have done as the government asked.”

Ross added: “I have constituents who didn’t get to say goodbye to loved ones; families who could not mourn together; people who didn’t visit sick relatives because they followed the guidance of the government. I cannot in good faith tell them they were all wrong and one senior adviser to the government was right.”

Ross was only a junior minister, but he’s been strongly supportive of Johnson since he stood for party leader. That he decided to resign and breathe new life into a story that Johnson and Cummings hoped they had drawn a line under shows that the matter is far from over.

Meanwhile, Britain’s Office for National Statistics reported Tuesday that there have been 60,000 excess deaths recorded across the U.K. since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Britons are grieving and angry but, for now, are still largely following the rules given to them by their government. But, the longer Cummings stays in his post, the more people will questions why there should be one rule for them and another for their leaders.

Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/dominic-cummings-scandal-gets-worse-for-boris-johnson-as-douglas-ross-quits?ref=scroll

The post Minister Quits as Britain Boils Over With Rage Against Boris Johnson and His Lockdown-Breaking Aide first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Brussels believes that it has completed almost all the necessary no-deal planning, except it may try to organize improved communication between relevant national agencies and the EU Commission.

It regards the idea being floated by many Brexiter MPs and the CBI that there will be mini deals before 31 October to lessen the shock of no-deal as wholly laughable. ‘The CBI stuff last week was desperate nonsense’ said one EU source. ‘It is not the EU’s job to mitigate Brexit’s impact on the UK. No-deal means no deal – not mini deals’.

So the main residual area of attention for the Commission is to work with Dublin on how to maintain the integrity of the single market in the absence of the backstop and how to limit the damage to the Irish economy. Or to put it another way, if Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings’s cunning plan is to go hell for leather for no-deal in the expectation that the EU will panic at the last and offer them a seamless, frictionless path to a new trade and security deal, sans backstop and with the divorce payment made conditional, they should be prepared to have their bluff called.

So here is the question that will determine the fate of this nation: which of the EU on the one hand and Johnson on the other has the greater reputation for conducting reverse ferrets? And if you think neither will show flexibility, you should be bracing for the pound to fall to parity with the euro very soon and to properly assess how a no-deal Brexit will affect you, and what you can do to soften the impact.

Robert Peston is ITV’s Political Editor. This article originally appeared on his ITV news blog.

Source: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/whos-bluffing-boris-johnson-or-the-eu/

The post Who’s bluffing: Boris Johnson or the EU? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Boris Johnson makes a statement in the House of Commons in London on Thursday. (Photo: AFP)

On Tuesday last week, Boris Johnson won the second round of the Conservative Party leadership election against Jeremy Hunt. He won convincingly, with 66 percent of the vote of the membership. In the early afternoon of Wednesday, Theresa May tendered her resignation as prime minister to the Queen. Later that afternoon the Queen invited Boris Johnson, as leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, to become the 14th to hold that office in her reign. Constitutional decorum having been observed, savagery then followed.

Boris Johnson undertook a reshuffle of his Cabinet, more vicious and spiteful than any seen before. More Cabinet ministers were sacked than had ever been sacked in any previous reshuffle — by far. The main criterion for dismissal appears to have been support for Jeremy Hunt. The main criterion for elevation appears to have been loyalty to Boris Johnson.

The whole process has more resembled a display of pique by a spoilt brat than the assembly of a competent government. To give some examples — the home secretary is now Priti Patel. She had been dismissed from her previous Cabinet position — secretary of state for international development — for pursuing her own foreign policy, in private and unauthorized meetings with Israeli officials while ostensibly on holiday. Dominic Raab is now foreign secretary. Previously, as Cabinet minister for Brexit, it had been revealed that he didn’t appreciate that most of the UK’s trade with the European Union — by far the UK’s largest trading partner — goes through the port of Dover. To top it all, Dominic Cummings, the previous chief strategist for the Leave campaign during the referendum, has been appointed to be Boris Johnson’s chief adviser. The fact he had also been found to be in contempt of Parliament for refusing to answer questions on the use of fake news by the Leave campaign was clearly irrelevant.

The net result of the process has been a takeover of the government by fundamentalist Brexiters, who believe as articles of faith the slogans deployed by Boris Johnson during the leadership election — Brexit on October 31 — “deal or no deal”, “do or die”. Whether Boris Johnson actually believes them, though, is uncertain.

Posing as a hard Brexiter certainly won Boris Johnson the Conservative leadership election. Painting the Conservative Party as a hard Brexit party also makes tactical sense — at least in the short term. The Conservative Party faces an existential threat from the Brexit Party. It was founded only a few months ago by the highly effective and populist Nigel Farage as the party of a “hard” Brexit. By a hard Brexit it means a Brexit with minimal links to the EU, and above all one shorn of the hated “backstop”. The “backstop” is a device which was inserted into the deal with the EU negotiated by Ms. May. In the event that the EU and the UK fail to reach a new free trade deal, the UK will remain in the EU customs union. This is necessary to preserve the soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a foundational pillar of the Northern Irish peace process. This uncompromising stance has been frighteningly attractive to large swathes of Conservative voters.

By repositioning the Conservative Party as a party of hard Brexit, Boris Johnson can hope to blunt the Brexit Party’s appeal. If he delivers a hard Brexit, the Brexit Party’s raison d’être disappears. He is unlikely to do so since the EU has already explicitly refused to remove the backstop from the deal. The next step would then be to present a hard Brexit to Parliament. If Parliament refuses to endorse it, Boris Johnson can challenge Parliament to vote him out of office and trigger a general election. In the election, Boris Johnson can campaign for a hard Brexit, crowd out the Brexit Party and win a majority. In the short term, then, that tactic leads to victory. In the longer term, though, it is playing with fire.

A few weeks ago, I put this scenario to a senior Conservative MP and brave supporter of the cause of remaining in the EU. He didn’t think a general election would necessarily follow a defeat for Boris Johnson. Labour votes would be necessary to call one, but the Labour Party is in no state to fight a general election. Its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is deeply unpopular with the public and its Brexit policy is a masterpiece of casuistry and obfuscation. It, too, is leaching votes — to the explicitly pro-EU Liberal Democrats and Green Party. It probably does not want an early general election. So while Parliament might vote down a hard Brexit, it might not vote for a general election. Instead, it could put in office a government of national unity, supported by a coalition of moderate Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the bulk of the Labour Party. That government could then negotiate a soft Brexit or even call a referendum.

Even if the moves to install a national unity government were to fail and a general election was to ensue, the result is not a given. Recent opinion polls suggest that Boris Johnson has had some success in attracting away Conservative voters from the Brexit Party, but the dynamics of a campaign could change that. The delays and arguments in Parliament have allowed Mr. Farage to propagate a false, but persuasive, narrative of a self-serving elite thwarting the people’s will. Further delays and arguments will only make it easier for Mr. Farage to peddle that myth.

If a general election produces another hung Parliament, it will be no more willing to pass a hard Brexit than the present one. Boris Johnson will then have failed. If on the other hand, Boris Johnson wins a majority, he will face a monumental decision. A hard Brexit will certainly wreak massive economic devastation and will probably lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. The Scots and Northern Irish had both voted convincingly to remain in the EU and would be likely to secede. The Welsh could follow soon after. At that point then Boris Johnson will be put to the test: If he sticks to his word, he destroys the country. If he goes back on it, he destroys himself.

Source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/010819/deal-or-no-deal-brexit-boris-playing-with-fire.html

The post Deal or no-deal Brexit? Boris playing with fire first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.