Forum Topic

Boris's Dilemma

After today's events I'm sure most people are as confused an uncertain about what is going on in UK politics as I am. Things are happening at such a pace it is difficult to keep track.  To make sense of it I thought it might be an idea to step back from the febrile atmosphere of news coverage of events and try and simplify what is going on. To start this it is probably best to accept from the outset that Boris Johnson has no guiding principles. That is meant as an observation rather than a criticism. Before opting to support Leave he laid out both sides of the argument and says he agonised over which to choose. That wasn't because he would have been persuaded by the strongest argument, he wanted to pick which would be best for his career. Boris has cultivated the party membership since he started in politics and, far more than any other Conservative politician has recognised that this is where true power lies within the party. Once he became leader it is now almost impossible to remove him as he will always have the backing of the membership. Getting close to the party rank and file has also made him well aware of their views and he was quick to realise they were unremittingly Eurosceptic. That they generally leaned that way was well known but he picked up quickly that since the referendum they had become obsessed with the issue beyond any other to the point that they would willingly compromise the economy or the Union to get Brexit. This meant that he knew any chance of him not becoming leader would be eliminated by him being the most unreservedly pro-Brexit candidate for leader. Right from the start he laid out his stall and effectively eliminated Dominic Raab who had previously outdone him for unbending Euroscepticism. However, this meant that he need to make pledges such as an unbreakable commitment to leave on 31 October. Having become leader he had to face the problem of his inadequate majority in the House which meant that any meaningful legislative programme was impractical even without Brexit. The normal solution would have been to call a general election but he faced the problem of another inadequate majority — that by which he holds Uxbridge and Hillingdon. If the Brexit party actively contests the seat and the Remain parties form an effective alliance he would probably lose. Therefore he needs to fight the election with some sort of pact with the Brexit party in place. The problem is that they are unlikely to stand aside unless he commits to a very hard Brexit as a campaign platform which his MPs may be unwilling to support. Assuming there is an election on 14 October cabinet would probably want him to say they would go for a negotiated deal without the backstop which the Brexit party say is not Brexit. This probably explains his confused and fairly pointless statement today. It would appear that the legislative challenge to 'no deal' Brexit is likely to work otherwise he wouldn't be threatening MPs with a loss of the whip. He now faces the choice of accepting an extension and missing the 31 October deadline or calling an election but he can't put no deal back on the table as a policy stance. However, an election would be an incredible roll of the dice. There are so many variables but the most likely outcome at this stage seems to be a Remain coalition with some chance that Boris may lose his seat. Of course a lot could happen in the meantime but Boris is essentially saddled with a policy stance that might appeal to his party's members but is unpalatable to the broader electorate. He probably recognises the chance of losing is high. On the other hand toughing it out as PM and reneging on his commitment to leave by 31 October even under duress may end his political career. Even he would have to consider resignation.  Neither of theses choices are particularly palatable for him but at least he has a dog now to give him some comfort.

Gordon Southwell ● 2255d45 Comments

Despite the Supreme Court ruling Boris is trying to tough it out saying Brexit will still happen on October 31. Even the Brexit Party chairman admits Brexit will have to be postponed (if it even happens).I doubt Boris will still be PM on October 31. But where do we go from here?

Simon Hayes ● 2233d

"No deal was never on the table." This double negative can only mean that a deal WAS on the table!

Brian Conneller ● 2236d

Yes i saw Marc Francois(funny how the extreme brexiteers have foreign sounding names) saying that any deal would not get his support. But maybe Boris will sack anyone who votes against this and reinstate any sacked people who vote for it!! That would be a masterstroke!! But a true soft brexit would have labour support. in fact the advantage of a soft brexit is that it is still a brexit but still leaves us in the economic community. something that the tax dodgers and money launderers dont want

Peter Chadburn ● 2237d

Most military coups are done with a promise to restore democracy but they rarely do.The interesting change of tone in the last week or so has been from the DUP. When the Tories were dependent on the confidence and supply arrangement the DUP held the balance of power but now that the government's majority is approaching minus 50 that stranglehold has gone.Arlene Foster's recent statements have suggested much greater flexibility. She has realised that without a veto a deal might be done without her imput so she is playing the consent card with regards to Northern Ireland but not ruling out some sort of solution which involves the Irish Sea as a border in some way. The delicious irony is that this means some sort of deal possibly now could be done but it is one that will outrage the ERG and the Brexit Party. Boris therefore might be in the embarrassing position of supporting a soft Brexit which fails to get through parliament meaning that everyone will hate him.

Andy Jones ● 2237d

>A speaker who has made it clear he wants a sitting Prime Minister to risk prison if he carries out the promises made to the people by both Government and Opposition,Vote Leave promised a deal, it even said it wouldn't invoke article 50 until it was made.>surely the EU Article 50 legislation that includes a No Deal scenario overrides our own Laws on this.The two years article 50 allows is to come up with a deal, it can be revoked at any time if we don't agree on one.>Similarly an opposition forcing the sovereign peopleIt's parliament that's sovereign, we elect representative,s not delegates.> from having any say on the future direction of the Nation via General Election.The Fixed term parliament act defines when or how elections can be called, it's the law.>I'd like to see the Military assist the PM to restore the will of the people, and to oversee a transitional period back to a fully functioning democratically working Parliament.You want a military coup to "restore" democracy?

Paul James ● 2247d

It looks like Boris is attempting to create a dictatorship for himself. Not like a democracy at all.

Philippa Bond ● 2247d

A speaker who has made it clear he wants a sitting Prime Minister to risk prison if he carries out the promises made to the people by both Government and Opposition, surely the EU Article 50 legislation that includes a No Deal scenario overrides our own Laws on this.Similarly an opposition forcing the sovereign people from having any say on the future direction of the Nation via General Election.Plus a Monarchy that has Twice in a year turned against her own Government and her Subjects/People to side with the official opposition, so thereby tearing up the oath made on her Coronation.So who now who do we swear allegiance too? Will it be Queen OR Country? I'd like to see the Military assist the PM to restore the will of the people, and to oversee a transitional period back to a fully functioning democratically working Parliament.

Leslie Bailey ● 2247d

Simon,Part of me also thinks leave and let people realise that they can't blame the eu for their own failures. Our petty officials are the clipboard johnnies that make life difficult. Our politicians will still complain about the eu from outside because we end up being worse off. They will complain that those horrible people would not give us the deal we deserve. well if you want to enjoy the clubs facilities you have to pay the membership fee. the threat over the £39 billion creates a bad feeling. our negotiation has consisted of threats combined with flakiness. i can see them turning us down over an extension if they think boris will still be in charge. when the eu announced the schedule of negotiation and northern ireland was mentioned i though oh my god we cant leave!! but i believe this backstop is a smokescreen to justify the no deal which is favoured by the ERG. Boris has to push for a deal but as it appears it is just a charade.

Peter Chadburn ● 2248d

Unfortunately the government is not being honest with parliament or the public over the full impact of a no deal. David Davis sat in front of a select committee almost two years ago and blithely admitted no impact assessments had been done on the various sectors that will be affected by a no deals that was despite assurances he gave a year before that these would be done.There has been precious little preparation for no deal. There’s work currently underway to build lorry parks in Kent, when I drove up the M20 11 days ago there was construction work being done on a new junction for that purpose although it looked unlikely to be ready by October 31.Needless to say there is actually very little interest among our entitled and moneyed elite to tackle this problem sensibly. It’s purely a political move to ‘take back control’ from Brussels. However, the track record of actually implementing workable or sensible policies from Westminster is dire. Grenfell happened because of a decision made by our government. Leaving the EU won’t suddenly make the NHS problems go away, nor will it invigorate our manufacturing base or help our fishermen (who face the prospect of ruinous delays to exporting their catch because of increased bureaucracy).I’m against Brexit for a multitude of reasons but I’m almost tempted to say give these people what they wish for just to see how many of these ‘marginalised’ areas who voted leave struggle more as a result. I guarantee we’d be banging on Brussels door to rejoin within a decade.

Simon Hayes ● 2248d

You think ? :D :D :D

Paul James ● 2248d

So Leslie, I say this in all seriousness. Can you go away and come back when you're a bit better informed please and stop spouting nonsense.

Paul James ● 2248d

The (very incorrect) claim:"WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020, ITS WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK THIS THE DEAL IS BAD JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIMERS..“What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all."The facts:The Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement which made alterations to some of the key treaties setting out how the European Union operates.It’s wrong to say that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in 2020. It was agreed by all EU member countries in 2007 and came into force in 2009, and has been in place ever since. If the UK were to remain in the EU beyond March 2019 for any reason then the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t suddenly change things.

Paul James ● 2248d

"the Lisbon Treaty kicks in from January"This claim is based on debunked leave propaganda. It's nonsense.https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

Paul James ● 2248d

If they ask the Monarchy to sign the Brexit Delay Bill, that will contravene her Coronation Oath due to the delay taking us past the date the Lisbon Treaty kicks in from January. So let us hope some on the Privy Council advise her of this. Also if (as Berkow hinted), they bypass the Queen, Johnson would still be honouring her Majesty's instruction and signature on the last extension, as well as EU legislation, if we leave with no deal. Benn's new law not going to be as simple as many believe.There is also the chance as some think that Johnson has outsmarted them and has already rejected further extensions of Article 50 with the EU side.

Leslie Bailey ● 2248d

It is time for a general election to be rid of the remainer MPs.

Graham Weeks ● 2248d

I suspect Boris has been spitting feathers all week over the insolence of those within his own party who dare to stand up to him. Like all bullies he’s happy when he gets his way, but finds it hard to cope when he doesn’t.A second referendum would be a sensible and logical step. You would probably have to have a no deal option on there too. The problem is that the leavers don’t want another one because it might negate the previous one.The argument that the last referendum would be binding is a non starter. Parliament is sovereign and we have had an election since that referendum and indeed since article 50 was triggered. The mandate for Brexit has been diluted. It’s certainly time for a fresh start and a rethink by all sides because this country is paralysed now.I’m amazed that there has been talk of stretching, or indeed, breaking the new law prohibiting a no deal Brexit. For the supposed ‘party of law and order’ it sends a very poor message to the masses.

Simon Hayes ● 2248d

actually the sense is that we have a deal that makes sense and then put it into a referendum and then the people confirm again. once the people confirm then the politicians are finally off the hook. the yes no of 2016 had many different flavours of brexit that were flouted. and so we have had everyone saying the may deal was rubbish so what we she have is a referendum with 2 levels of question.1. do you wish to stay in yes or no2.if we stay in do you want further integration or stay as we are.or if we leave do you want the may deal or the labour soft brexit option.this would allow us to express a more exact view over what we want. detailed explanations would have to be sent to everyone. and be explained impartially (but fact checked)politicians would have to have all broadcasts and adverts fact checked!!then when informed with factual evidence we might make the ideal choice for britain. there are many of us that do not want further integration and as a eurosceptic i voted remain because i thought many of the leave proponents were spivs and liars. project fear vs. project lies was a very poor campaign all round. glad to see that Boris is finding things a little tricky!! he has no morality!!

Peter Chadburn ● 2249d

On BBC Question Time just now!!.What Do you think of Emily Thornbury's idea that Labour needs to go to The EU negotiate a deal and then come back, putting it to the people, while asking the people to reject the deal? Would it have made great material for John Cleese and Eric Idol, or even Del & Rodney?What a classic comedy moment. Thank got it went out Live and not recorded like normal.Labour are obviously not fit to oppose, but can you imagine them in Government?

Leslie Bailey ● 2251d

The febrile atmosphere of news is created by the BBC and hacks concerned about losing the millions of pounds the EU has been giving them for years. Sensible people know that Brexit will only improve the British economy. Jettying Scotland is probably something we don't really desire.

Martin Cain ● 2252d

An interesting point was made in Parliament yesterday by Philip Hammond during the no deal debate where he stated that he’d seen the consequences of a no deal Brexit and it was not going to be good for the country. I’ve met him and think he’s an honest and straightforward guy (unlike Boris, who I’ve also met). And as a recent Chancellor he will know all the detail.

Simon Hayes ● 2252d

Yeah but hey ho, Boris and chums control the agenda so can make fortunes by shorting sterling just before they announce prorogation etc.

John Bergin ● 2252d

Yup, total charade.As his brother has worked out."PM’s brother cites ‘unresolvable tension’ between ‘family loyalty and the national interest’ as he announces he will resign as MP and minister"Johnson and Gove ALWAYS said convince the EU we'll leave and we'll get more out of it than we do already.This has shown to be a a MASSIVE miscalculation, they were wrong.

Paul James ● 2252d

So many mistakes along the way. The Plan was to respond to the public feeling stoked by the telegraph, express, mail and sun. So article 50 was invoked without a plan. red lines were drawn in front of the tory party conference. but all along there was never a cohesive strategy that could command broad support amongst the wider population and their mps. So now we have Boris whose strategy of Boris with is hard no deal brexit masked by the charade of his negotiations causing the most docile and loyal and thoughtful conservatives to revolt. So no deal was never proposed to the public. it was always about a deal. the article 50 detail said no deal but that was not the expectation of anyone involved. whether we leave with a deal or without we will always play second fiddle to the big blocks of usa, europe and china. so the answer for me is a soft brexit in which we stay in the EEC effectively but leave the european project. but the current arguments are really about the integrity and trustworthiness of Boris. he is not negotiating at all. he is not proposing anything. it is a charade.

Peter Chadburn ● 2252d

Article 50 should not have been triggered.BOTH leave campaigns stated they wanted a deal, Vote Leave even said it didn't want article 50 triggered until a deal was sorted out.And as we found out, you can revoke article 50 right up until the last second, so this should happen if we are in a no deal scenario as no leave campaign campaigned for no deal during the referendum, and both explicitly stated we'd get a great deal (despite idiots like Dominic Raab stating that they did when it's easy to show they didn't).

Paul James ● 2252d

Re"No Deal was never on the table."Yes it was, it is part of Article 50.Just Triggering Article 50 means it's legislation that "all treaties cease Two Years later, either with a deal if one is reached, or without a deal if one is not reached" is activated. It is EU law not UK law, we cannot overrule bits of it. Labour and Conservatives both agreed to activate Article 50 meaning all it stands for, including the No Deal part. Some Like Yvette Cooper openly bragged about Triggering it too, back then.So No deal "was on the Table" because Article 50 had been triggered, and leaving without a deal is part of it.But come the day Parliament revolted against their promises to Queen and Country, and therefore telling us that Laws, Rules, and Pledges from Parliament mean nothing.

Leslie Bailey ● 2253d

Also Boris as the person to restore trust is quite laughable. Cheated 2 wives, had a baby with an art dealer destroying her marriage, sacked twice for lying to bosses. His assurances carry no credibility. That is his problem. The Tory party know he is popular but they don't trust him. His plan is no deal with a charade of trying to get a deal. So as Merkel's 30 day challenge is ticking he has not proposed anything apart from vagueness. He is backed by dodgy finance and we can see that industry does not support him. The same spivs, money launderers, friends of russia, tax avoiders and hedge funders that support the brexit party are his friends now.

Peter Chadburn ● 2253d

No Deal was never on the table.

Paul James ● 2253d

We've been at the bottom of the barrel since both Government and Official Opposition chose to revolt against the original with or without a deal deadline promised to Queen and Country.Corbyn for one has totally swapped sides and is going against his own beliefs.Johnson knows the people no longer trust politicians or Laws made by them. He has to do something about that.If he does not put this right it will forever effect both Tory and Labour, and all because they refused to honour the pledges made.Johnson to me is trying to honour the original promises to be out on whatever the scenario was on 29th March, everyone else wants to revolt against that.

Leslie Bailey ● 2253d

He’s discovering that bluster and bullying don’t work when it comes to complex constitutional issues. Too many big beasts in Parliament for him to handle.Quite staggering that he claims to be negotiating with the EU when they say nothing has been put on the table by the UK. He also cut the negotiating team from 90 to 24, which doesn’t indicate any great urgency in reaching a solution. He got caught out by his own (now former) colleagues who repeatedly asked him yesterday to provide details of exactly what he was negotiating about. He couldn’t provide the necessary because there is no necessary. If there had been then the revolt wouldn’t have happened.We really are at the bottom of the barrel with our politics.

Simon Hayes ● 2253d

Worth pointing out for Boris to get his legislation through to make way for election in October or November will be somewhat scuppered by the fact that he has prorogued Parliament from 9th September!!

Leslie Bailey ● 2253d

We are reaping now the absolute lack of foresight shown by the political class in 2016. It beggars belief that you would initiate a process that would result in a seismic shift in the basis of the country’s economy without properly exploring how to do it first, and ensuring those changes are as least damaging as possible. These are people’s lives you are dealing with, not random figures on a chart.The billions being spent on preparations, including Operation Brock which is seeing large lorry parks being built in Kent, is an insult to people who have endured years of austerity.

Simon Hayes ● 2254d

And let's not start quoting leave supporters like Farage who said the "Noway would be a good option" (Norway in not in the EU but is in the single market)

Paul James ● 2254d

Utter nonsense.Even Micheal Gove said he didn't campaign for a no deal exit...Boris Johnson is trying to AVOID a no deal exit.No deal has no mandate with the people.

Paul James ● 2254d

How many votes are made without full possession of the facts?You base your decision on the data available to you at the time of voting, incomplete or imperfect as that my be.If you feel that you voted 'the wrong way' then at least you voted and have every right to bemoan the decision. If you did not vote then you have no right to complain that the decision was wrong.

N V Brooks ● 2254d

We see a man who is prepared to lay his country down for the sake of the wing of his party dominated by hedge funders, speculators and friends of oligarchs. We had project lies vs. project fear. But the defence minister who let the cat out of the bad about the prorogue being to enable him to get brexit done at least was truthful. By choosing the backstop as the one item to negotiate shows that boris was always going for the no deal as he knew that was one thing. they could not drop. the 30 day challenge from merkel was a clever move to put the onus on britain and we await proposals. the eu team are waiting and we have no hint of any progress. If he admitted that no deal was the choice then he would be out of a job. but if he carries on the charade and calls an election then the brexit party will oppose him. so the deal is just a charade and boris wants people to blame for the no deal when people suffer. firstly in the areas that voted leave any increased unemployment is the will of the people. then there is labour for not agreeing to the deal that he and his chums rejected. then there is the eu for not taking out the backstop. then there is larry the cat. Boris will of course be the churchillian hero. however Winston's grandson is part of the rebel alliance!! So whilst calculating and devious is one thing. The fact that not a single person in parliament trusts you must be quite a difficult thing to handle. My feeling is that we are still headed for a no deal which would be terrible for many people. As for the settled status being easy so many people who have been here years have been rejected. My wife has to provide proof for years in which she has National Insurance contributions. Sounds like another windrush in the making!! It would be fun if Boris got defeated as an mp. He deserves that. He wants loyalty and yet he was the carrier of the knife for Theresa May.  Interesting times eh!!!

Peter Chadburn ● 2254d

You haven't really grasped the point. It is perfectly logical for someone to have felt at the time of the referendum that they didn't have a full enough understanding to commit either way but now, after three years of extensive coverage, they have decided on which side of the debate they stand.  

Gordon Southwell ● 2254d

Of course you are entitled to an opinion.However, any vote is only authenticated, under our system of voting, by a simple majority.If you do not vote, you have no moral position to complain that the result is not what you wanted as the ability to achieve a different outcome was in your hands.

N V Brooks ● 2254d

Why does not voting mean that you are not allowed now to have an opinion? Given the complexity of the issues involved it was a perfectly rational choice not to vote because you felt you didn't fully understand the issue. If you look back at what politicians and experts on both sides of the debate said during the referendum it is clear that their grasp of the situation was far from perfect.

Gordon Southwell ● 2254d

The referendum result is only binding on the country in as much as any other vote would be. That’s why we continue to have elections, democracy doesn’t stand still and people can - and do - change their minds.The issue here is that the outcome of leaving without a deal will cause a great deal of hardship for a large number of people, mainly those on low incomes or in insecure employment, who may end up losing their jobs. We have already seen certain sectors hit hard by Brexit (steel, for example) and others will contract further in the event of no deal. While some people may think that’s an acceptable price to pay for ‘taking back control’ try explaining that to someone who can no longer feed their family. I said at the time if one person loses their job because of the referendum it’s not the right result.It’s interesting that we don’t have referendums on other aspects of the political system that people may not like. Why not have one about the tax regime, which is over complicated and appears to be abused by the wealthiest in society? Why not have one on our military involvement overseas? We don’t because governments are supposed to run these things for us.The problem is that David Cameron abdicated his responsibility over Europe as a sop to certain factions in his party. This was seized on by non Tory groups, notably Farage, to promote the myth of ‘taking back control’. In reality countries are run by multinational corporations, who locate business in a jurisdiction because it offers the best incentives to maximise profits. That’s why our banking sector became so big. Leaving the EU might attract some business but it will see the departure of far more who want unfettered access to the single market. That will inevitably have a negative effect on our economy.And it may be coincidence that some of our elected representatives (step forward J Rees-Mogg) have a personal stake in ensuring we leave rather than have their business affairs falling under new EU regulations that might affect their fortunes.And this is before we consider the Irish question. The biggest achievement  the UK government in the 1990s was the peace process which continues to this day. It’s naive to underestimate the strength of feeling on both sides of the sectarian divide about the reintroduction of a hard border in Ireland.I doubt there will be a civil war here if we don’t leave. I suspect there would actually be a sense of relief for the most part.

Simon Hayes ● 2254d

Summed up for me by an interviewee on the BBC protesting vehemently about 'the Brexiteers destroying our country'. Asked if they voted to leave they replied that they did not vote in the referendum.Well, if you did not exercise your right to vote you have absolutely no right to complain now.I wonder how many 'remoaners' are in the same position.

N V Brooks ● 2254d

No, the only way to resolve it is to honour the Mandate and Promises made. Anything other than NO-Deal/WTO will be a total betrayal of the original promise that whatever the scenario is on 29 March @ 2300 hrs.As for there was no mandate for No Deal, The terms of the 2016 referendum were "If we vote to leave there can be NO  FURTHER RENEGOTIATION and No second Referendum".I hope the forthcoming uprising scares the hell out of our MPs, as it will not be a soft loony left one.

Leslie Bailey ● 2254d

I can see your point but it is impossible to claim that most MPs would have voted to initiate Article 50 if they thought it would ultimately lead to no deal. There was an assumption that a deal would be made, which it was with the British Government. There is no 'People's Mandate' for no deal which, at best about a quarter of the population support. The fundamental problem is that parliament pretty faithfully represented the views of the nation a substantial portion of whom wish to stay in the EU and those that don't cannot agree on the basis for departure. The only way to resolve this is to give the final decision a genuine 'People's Mandate' by putting it to another referendum.

Andy Jones ● 2254d

The way I see it, the mess Johnson inherited was down to Parliament openly revolting on the people and the promise both Government and Official Opposition made on 2017.When they both agreed to sign Article 50 they knew it's legislation said all treaties cease two years later "With or Without a deal in place", so both side then openly promised exactly that on TV, "With or Without a deal we will leave on 29th March at 2300 hours. There are plenty of videos still online showing Tory and Labour remainers promising this. When the date came T. May (who did not want to leave) allowed the opposition to carry the blame for revolting against those promises. From then on, Parliament is in open revolt against it's own people by tearing up the promises and Laws put in place following the biggest Mandate in UK history.Then came the remainer's calls for a second referendum, despite the original 2016 one carrying the "There can be NO Second Referendum" as one of it's terms (as told to the people by Cameron on TV). As the original deadline was for "With or Without a Deal" there really was no valid reason to not leave in March.Now we Have a split political system with most MPs and Lords determined to revolt against the people, and just a few including the PM insisting the People's Mandate must be carried out and siding with the people.Now the opposition and remainers have tagged Boris and the leavers as fascists, far right etc, even now attacking the Queen for Proroguing Parliament, we now see on the leave side Forces Veterans and many still serving as well as 1000s of others reaching boiling point.All wanting to fight for the original scenario of there being no deal on the table at 2300hrs on 29/3/2019, as that was the Parliament's promise to it's people.To those on the leave side, the opposition has led this revolt against the British People, fanning the flames of resentment among the left to take to the streets to try and overturn the People's Mandate. The leavers are now organising their own demonstrations to counter those of the remain/left wing. Talk now is of a Civil War with people openly talking of spilling their own blood in order to get what was promised in March 2017, but the opposition took away from them despite the Mandate and Promises.We might all laugh at Boris Johnson, but he is one of a very few who has chosen to side with the people's mandate, and hopefully restore some trust in our politicians, as right now, Laws, Promises and Pledges coming from Parliament and MPs mean absolutely nothing. and all because Parliament, in Particular the opposition parties chose to go into open revolt against the mandate of the people, a mandate they themselves asked the people for, and a mandate they themselves promised to carry out in March 2019.

Leslie Bailey ● 2254d

Don't forget Boris will have alienated a significant number of voters in the constituency by his failure to follow through on pledges about Heathrow.

Andy Jones ● 2254d

Lots of interesting thoughts here Gordon but isn't it wishful thinking that Boris might lose his seat. Even if the Brexit party contest Uxbridge, even the dimmest leaver would recognise a Boris defeat would end any hope of Brexit.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 2254d