Let's have a look at Labour's six base requirements - which were
1. Does it deliver the exact same benefits as currently we have in the SM & CU
2. Does it ensure a strong future relationship with the EU
3. Does it ensure fair migration across the EU
4. Does it defend rights and protections
5. Does it protect national security
6. Does it deliver for all regions/nations in the UK

What does that suggest - remain is the only way of delivering the above - so let's not kid anyone that Labour wanted to observe the result of the referendum. Anyone who thinks it is otherwise is as disingenuous as the Labour offer in their manifesto to support the result of the referendum - they had no intention and have demonstrated such at every opportunity. 90%+ of all Labour MPs voted to remain.

I know that you have posted some of this previously, although I done ever remember you advocating a "no deal" Brexit and acceptance of WTO terms etc - I thought that you were more in the "Germany will need to sell their Mercs" camp but, no problem.

However, your stance on N.Ireland is utterly ridiculous.
The UK signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, which, you and the Tories are now throwing on the bonfire.
I dont know how old you are but, I dont think you are a "kid" and to suggest that a return to the troubles of the 70's and 80's, in order to deliver Brexit is quite vulgar.
It would send a clear message to ALL of the people in N. Ireland that The UK Government doesn't give a toss about their plight and give a green light to the "paramilitaries" on both sides to start killing each other and lets not forget that the troubles weren't isolated to the border towns of Ireland - I'm sure that you will remember the bombings in Brighton and Warrington - sorry but, to give the "ok" to a repeat of this is abhorrent and you really should think a little harder before advocating such stuff.

So the whole country should suffer so a few religious nuts wont kill each other, really. They can't even form their own parliament why do we give these idiots any credence whatsoever - as I said we allow gang killings every week in East London I don't see you complaining. Why is Ireland a special case? We have an example of yet another Islam-related killing last week yet we think its unacceptable to criticise - if we do we are labelled racists, again why should Ireland be such a special case? Why should this miniscule minority its issues hold us all back?

Who is to say it will return or that the Good Friday agreement will stop a repeat - let's face it as soon as the Catholics have ascendency in the north the protestants will be second class citizens and violence will commence once again. They can't even have a democratic assembly.

Okay, what you’re doing here is devaluing other people’s values, beliefs, perspectives and even to some extent humanity, as they are in the way of your priorities.

Now we all do something similar to some extent, i imagine, but generally most of us are aware that if we run too far with it, we’ll look really bad, selfish, cruel, etc. and lose the argument

I mean, I read your position as ‘there’s gang violence in London, so there’s no reason not to have a super hard brexit’. It’s one of the most random grab bags of nonsense i’ve ever seen, outside of a Donald Trump speech.

Imagine if my position was that ‘we shouldn’t be forced into this appalling mistake by a bunch of <insert every prejudiced stereotype about Brexit-voters>, because there is too much domestic violence and nobody is talking about that.’

Basically, you condone wife-beating, because you’re not woke and voted for Brexit.

Tbf, that is the rhetorical spirit this general election campaign is being conducted in, with two bogeyman leaders motivating the other side’s base. What a massive failure.

It's far worse than that.
To effectively trash a peace deal in Ireland for some ideological "power grab" against a "perceived" economic enemy is quite vulgar and then to justify it because we "allow" gang violence on the streets of London.
I'd suggest that we should be dealing with the drug related violence and not trying to deliberately add to it, may be a better solution.

Aye, if you could disregard any negative consequence of an action because there are other negative things in the world, then it would be easier to advocate a position.

Never mind the democratic mandate for Brexit, it’s not like they have democracy in North Korea, is it? And we allow that.

What I am saying is this - is it fair that the will of 17.4m people be thwarted because it potentially impacts a very small minority? What I am saying why is everyone so protective of the GFA yet seem oblivious to killings of young black people? Could it be that its yet another excuse not to deliver on the referendum.

In life we all have to make compromises - the police have accepted it couldn't stop the drug dealing/flow so it tries to minimise the impact of gang wars by allowing the flow for the most part but intercepting an occasional shipment makes everyone think they are doing their best.

What has wife beating got to do with Woke? What I do think is if you have a penis you are a man even if you choose to wear a wig and a dress - not a tough concept. If you were born a woman you are a woman not a sis-woman.

I reckon you've got it about right with '[ia bit[/i'.
I mean, come on Flashman, look at the state of the bumbling eejit.
Oh yes, every woman's dream.
No doubt.

We’re not oblivious and uncaring though, are we? That is just something you made up, in the same way I have decided you are unconcerned about the suffering of domestic abuse victims. The reason there is concern about the Good Friday Agreement, with reference to how Brexit is managed, is that there’s a relationship between them, in a way that there isn’t directly, that I’m aware of, in terms of drug-related violence and domestic policing approaches to the illegal drugs trade.

What has wife beating got to do, directly, with your views of transgender and cisgender people? Are we embracing absurdist non-sequiturs for the Festive season? What I do think think is that cheese is a type of meat, a tasty yellow beef.

There are lots of interconnected threads and for every decision there are a combination of positive and negative externalities - something you are very aware of. If we decide to increase spending on the NHS that money has to come from somewhere so the negative externality is everyone poorer - is that a price worth paying? So if we want a clean break from the EU the GFA has to be compromised - is that a negative externality worth considering? You Corbyn devotees will no doubt agree that going into Iraq to removed Hussein has led to a rise in Isis was that a price worth paying. So yes we can be very uncaring when we want to be.

Wife beating is a criminal offence - transgender is nothing of the case it is an individual decision - to compare the two is absurd.

With both of the main parties embarking on a spend, spend, spend agenda, why on earth is Boris so desperate to offer tax cut's of any type.
Surely, those funds would be put to better use elsewhere ?

He has said he will increase personal allowance on NI - suppose Tories look boring compared to Labour who seem to be giving everything away. The polls don't seem to be shifting so this is just a consolidation excercise

Fundamentally, giving tax cuts, whilst increasing borrowing and spending, just looks daft and wrong.

I cannot disagree but as long as increased borrowing is to support capital projects then if the economy can support increased spending on the NHS, Schools etc whilst supporting some tax incentives for the lower paid I'm all for that.

Johnson has now bottled it for interviews on ITV and BBC.

If he can't stand up for himself in a tv interview how is he going to stand up for our country in trade negotiations?
Probable answer is that he isn't because he can't.

Indeed, hence the thread title.
Andrew Neil has tried to provoke him but, his backside dropped out a couple of weeks ago so, dont hold your breath

The other world leaders must be rubbing their hands at the prospect and he still thinks that he will negotiate a free trade deal AND in record time

Not according to his buffoon followers in the right wing rags, who believe Andrew Neil is bullying him. You couldn't make this stuff up.

The Tories seem to be showing a significant lead in the polls - so the election is theirs to lose. Why would you do anything to disrupt that - Blair and Cameron would be doing the same. The less he is seen the less damage can be done.

We have seen what exposure of Corbyn, Swinson and Queen Nicola have done for their popularity - it would be madness to follow suit.

I see lemon-faced Long Bailey was once again taken to the cleaners on Today this morning over the "alleged" £6,700 savings per family - it was shown up for what it is - complete b0ll0cks - she couldn't even say approximately how many families would see the whole benefit. Why because its pure fantasy and virtually nobody we see the whole benefit.

He had better hope that what happened to May who was actually in a stronger position but avoided debate does not happen to him. I think we can finally put to bed the theory he is a great debater and negotiator because he isn’t. When it comes to telling lies he is one of the best. He adopts the Trump teaching that regardless of what is the truth keep repeating the lies until it becomes the truth to some.

I agree he is not great debater he mumbles and doesn't appear as confident as I thought he would be. They are all as bad as each other when it comes to telling lies - as soon as they open their mouth they are lying

I think, in politics generally, there has been a shift from the half-truth, misleading statement and failure to keep one’s word, to shameless bare-faced lying. Presumably because it is effective.

However, I think Johnson is different; he is utterly wedded to falsehood. He prefers things this way. An issue with a lot of politicians has been that you can’t trust what they say to be true. Counter-intuitively, you can kind of trust Johnson because EVERYTHING he says is rubbish, consistently and without any important exception that I can think of. You’d think the odd bit of truthfulness might slip through accidentally from time to time, or align with his own frightening narcissistic self-interest - but no, it never does.

I think the likes of Trump and Johnson have created a new paradigm by being open about lying, and some people seem to see someone being honest and unashamed about their dishonesty as progress. In fairness, I think Trump is genuinely delusional as well, which adds another layer.

Andrew Neil tries to bully everyone but, the issue here is that Johnson is clearly running scared, which really isn't a great trait for any leader and the world is watching.
For all his ambition and well spoken bluster, Boris has been found out - I still dont get how ANY traditional Labour supporter can vote for him.
Some people really need to give their head a shake.
Also, I dont think that Labour have played a great hand in the election campaign.
Of course it's been mentioned but, the 10+ years of austerity cuts, hitting those with the very least, the hardest, is and always was the Tories achilleas heal and this above all else should have been exploited.
The Tories tried to dent Labour's armour with promises of spending on education and health but, they have been let off the hook for the last 10 years.
Education and child poverty have been shocking (and continue to be so) but, it does seem that some have forgiven them way too quickly.

It should be an interesting head to head this evening although, I hope that everyone has their Boris bingo cards ready because this guy has very little actual substance and will quickly revert to soundbites.

The problem is that people are obsessed by Brexit at the expense of everything else. They may get Brexit but they will also get further austerity made worse by Brexit. I expect if when we find out that the report today is accurate he will blame the E.U.

Which completely gives the game away that he's nothing but a fraud, a liar and a charlatan. Even his own party and advisors know it.

I listened to that and thought to myself, "the interviewer is pretending they don't understand how averages work in an attempt to overtly demonstrate their impartiality".

It was a bonkers waste of time when they could have been asking about the substance of the Labour party's policy proposals.