Shard

I don't think she was mad at all. There was a huge humanitarian crisis going on. She underestimated the numbers of migrants that would abuse the support offered for refugees. In retrospect it might seem somewhat naive, but the pressure on developed Europe from migrants is not going away anytime soon. Too much of a wealth disparity. This, like climate change or terrorism, is the type of problem we are far better able to solve as a union rather than competing nation states.

dbd33

I woke up to the headline on the phone "Johnson denies lying to the Queen". He might have, he might not have, he might have told her he was proroguing as a jolly jape. Perhaps they had a laugh together at the expense of Parliament and the plebs. It's not a good headline for a tory though, good grief.

Jingsamichty

I wonder if Boris Johnson's parents ever told him the story of the boy who cried "Wolf!"...?

Shard

He's not worried, he's unleashed his inner Trump.

Atlantic Xpat

dave_j

I don't disagree with the argument.. but the woman is a world leader and what she says has implications for countries other than hers. Being naive is a luxury she couldn't afford. I'm no international expert but I realised immediately what effect her words would have, not just for Germany but the region as a whole. If you want to generate an anti-immigrant mentality then Merkel tested that to the extreme.

scrubbedexpat142

In September 2015, Merkel said "we will accept them" - referring specifically to the hundreds of thousands already milling around Europe, having forced their way into Europe. By doing so she made a pan European problem a German problem, thus relieving the rest of us of that same problem. If she was naive, then that was because she forgot that others, not in Europe at that time, would take her statement as an invitation.

Shard

Dave for Chancellor then.

Shard

Yes, that's my take on it too. I admired her for making some attempt to make amends for German history.

Oink

Opinions and predictions about about politics, especially British parliamentary politics are not my area at all, but I did find this funny.

dave_j

Every now and again you see results from someone who has a way with words.
This headline's effective on at at least two levels. Headline writer is wasted at the Scottish Sun.

Jingsamichty

It's interesting that the Scottish Sun is politically completely different to the English Sun... their front page was much less hostile to Johnson.

(The best ever headline was in the sports pages of the Scottish Sun, when Inverness Caledonian Thistle (Caley) beat Celtic 7-1.... "Super Caley Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious!"

dave_j

Wheels within wheels.
As I understand it the UK is resistant to the 'Backstop' because there is a chance that should the ensuing trade negotiations not sufficiently cater for UK requirements then the UK will be locked into the Backstop arrangements indefinitely without influence as to EU rules governing how it works, hence the undemocratic argument.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-breakthrough
But now there are possible reports that the DUP may modify it's refusal to agree to an Irish Sea/EU border arrangement thereby hiving itself off from the UK by inventing something called a 'Stormont Lock' which is a mechanism that inserts itself into the EU such that Stormont will have an indefinite veto on EU decision making that involves the region.
In other words, as so nicely put in the article, it's the "Backstop's" backstop.
It's all getting a little too complicated for me. I can't work out who has the better position if this comes about, other than to say that Northern Island, open to both the EU and the UK seems to get the best of both worlds.

Oakvillian

I think this is likely to prove a bit of a red herring. The EU negotiators have been pretty categorical that their agreement will need to be with the UK government in Westminster; they won't agree to any proposal that gives such power to a region without it being passed through the national government. Compare the issue with the provisions of CETA, for example, that had an objection from one region of Belgium (Wallonia?). The EU didn't get involved directly with the region; it was up to the government of Belgium to deal with its internal disagreements, and present a compromise solution to the EU at a national level once they'd resolved their internal matter.

dave_j

I tend to agree with your reasoning... but I wonder how attitudes could change were Ireland to look on the proposal, if that's what it evolves into, favourably?
The EU has deferred to Ireland in this matter in the past but, as you say, I can't see it allowing others to have access to a veto over it's affairs, whereas it's prepared to do the same to others.