I'm not sure of that. I watched the C4 interview with 2 of Johnson's biographers, who clearly know him well, and they said what drives him is his need to be liked - that's why he's so jolly and effusive and ethusiastic, rather clown-like. He just wants to be loved. But that means that when it comes to being tough, forcing what is best through against the opinions of the more vocal of his MPs and against the blaring of the right-wing press, I don't think he's got the bottle.

We've seen that in America, where Trump takes his policy position from Fox TV. I can see Johnson being a slave to whatever the owners of Daily Mail (who don't pay any UK tax of course) tell him to do.

Thank you for your response, I'm a Conservative party member and have voted Conservative in every election since Ted Heath in 1973, but the Conservative party as it is now is not the one I joined and I'm not convinced I can support it going forward. Conservative voters who wanted a moderate, economically-intelligent, Brexit (and the others who wanted to remain) have been cast aside and made politically homeless - the party could well come to regret that in the years to come. I'm pretty certain that after Brexit, every bit of economic bad news will be blamed on Brexit, and it will become more toxic than "the nasty party" image.

Like many, I voted in the referendum based on what Leave promised, including "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it" and "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave".

Many people seem to think that the referendum win was a mandate to leave the EU at whatever cost and whatever the implication for the UK economy, the UK standing in the world, even the very survival of the Union. It was not.

The referendum win was a mandate to deliver Brexit as promised by Leave: extra £350/week to NHS, control of laws, borders., money, tariff-free access to all of the EU, the ability to live, work and study in the EU as we do now.

If the next PM doesn’t deliver Brexit, the Conservative party will be in the political wilderness for a long time. But if he delivers a Brexit which lowers people’s living standards, cost jobs, crashes the economy, even leads to the break-up of the Union, the impact will be the same: the Conservatives could go the way of the Whigs.

The one, big advantage we have over Labour and Lib Dems is that we can be trusted with the economy. Brexit is essentially a political project – there seems to be no obvious security or economic advantages to leaving the EU. The PM needs to deliver Brexit whilst preserving the “safe pair of hands” image of the Conservatives if we are to retain that economic trust. But is Johnson the best mand to do that? I’m not sure.

Like many, I voted in the referendum based on what Leave promised, including "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it" and "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave".

Many people seem to think that the referendum win was a mandate to leave the EU at whatever cost and whatever the implication for the UK economy, the UK standing in the world, even the very survival of the Union. It was not.

The referendum win was a mandate to deliver Brexit as promised by Leave: extra £350/week to NHS, control of laws, borders., money, tariff-free access to all of the EU, the ability to live, work and study in the EU as we do now.

If Johnson doesn’t deliver Brexit, the Conservative party will be in the political wilderness for a long time. But if he delivers a Brexit which lowers people’s living standards, cost jobs, crashes the economy, even leads to the break-up of the Union, the impact will be the same: the Conservatives could go the way of the Whigs.

The one, big advantage we have over Labour and Lib Dems is that we can be trusted with the economy. Brexit is essentially a political project – there seems to be no obvious security or economic advantages to leaving the EU. Johnson needs to deliver Brexit whilst preserving the “safe pair of hands” image of the Conservatives if we are to retain that economic trust.

If you think the EU want our money either as a divorce settlement or as an on-going payment then you've listened to May and Davis too much, and not what the Eurpeans are saying.

They have 2 objectives, one out in the open and one hidden:

1. The plainly stated objective is cohesion of the rest of the EU. To that end, they need to make absolutely certain that Britain is worse off out of the EU as a third party than it is as a member. They have said this numerous times, and they mean it. So, when it comes to a trade deal, they will ask for more than £350m / week to get free market access - they have to , to stop other EU nations think thet would be better off outside the EU than in it.

You might therefore think "we won't pay the money then, we'll leave with no deal." The problem with that is that (a) some things we can only get at the quality and price we want from the EU, and (b) even if we could get those goods at the same quality and price from, say, South America or Asia, the cost of transport may well be more than the cost of paying the tariffs. A container lorry through the Chunnel costs £186, a container from South America costs £5,000. Believe me, if companies can buy stuff we consume cheaper from outside the EU than from within it, they are already doing so.

2. The less-clearly stated objective (but the French, Germans and Irish have talked about it, and it's an open secret) is that some EU countries want the wealth of the City of London, that underpins our economy, to move to their country. Paris is hosting weekly visits of financial services executives and key workers to the city, offering them tax breaks and other inducements to move their operations to France. Frankfurt and Dublin are doing the same, but the big attraction of Paris is the easy commute. We already know that Euro clearing (and the jobs that go with it) will move out of London, and the French, Germans and Irish are trying to show City firms that they will make more profit if they move thier whole operation out of London, rather than having it split between 2 different places. If Germany loses 1 bn euros of BMW exports to the UK, but gains 10 billion euros of financial services business from the City, they will be rather chuffed.

And that's what you need to think about when you consider the consequences of Brexit and the nature of the deal we achieve - or fail to achieve. There is no point in "regaining our sovereignty" if, in doing so, we go broke and have to hand political control of the UK to the IMF, and end up having to cut benefits, pensions, armed forces and the NHS in return for them keeping us solvent.

I don't think Brexit will happen, and for one very good reason: the IMF won't allow it.

As we approach the exit date with no deal, and financial services companies relocate to Paris - along with the 15% of the government's tax income they contribute each year - the economy will go into recession, the deficit will shoot up, and the UK will not be able to borrow on the money markets as their rating goes lower than Greece's. Our only option will be to beg a bail-out from the IMF, and it's guaranteed that they will insist that we stay in the EU to try to recover our financial wealth.

We'll have a choice at that time: either stay in the EU and attempt to recover from the economic damage we've caused; or turn down the bail-out, leave the EU, double taxes, halve pensions and health spending and have the poor and old dying in the streets.

Quite frankly, the Conservatives have painted themselves into a corner from which I think there is no escape. The only way they'll get a decent deal which will protect our economy is to continue or even increase our contributions, accept Free Movement of People and guarantee EU nationals equal rights to UK nationals. If we don't do such a deal, the economy is doomed and the Conservatives will become as relevant as theWhigs, But if we do a deal which protects our economy, the Conservatives will be blamed for a weak Brexit by the old and xenophobic and UKIP will arise from the ashes.

When the Euro came into being, 1 Euro was worth 75pence. Now 1 Euro is worth 87pence. The Euro countries are therefore worth 12% more compared to the UK from when the Euro was launched.

So why do you think it would have been wrong for us to have become a richer country? All this talk of "the Euro is a disaster" is complete fiction. If you drive through Holland or Austria or Denmark, you will quickly see that they are much more prosperous than us: neat, tidy, little litter or graffiti, houses well-maintained, lower crime rates and social problems.

Any argument that we would have been worse off if we'd switched to the euro is not supported by the evidence of the comparative worth of the UK and the northern EU countries that are in the Euro.

Both Germany and France are DESPERATE to get the City of London to move to Paris or Frankfurt - it does account for 15% of our tax income, and they would love to have that in their coffers instead. Equivalence is the last thing they will agree to, and only if we have agreed to the divorce bill, continued EU contributions and FOM.

In 2 years, the City will be as desolate as Consett was after the steel works shut.

I think you're right. I predict that we'll leave the EU without a deal, financial services will move to Paris, our tax income will collapse, we'll call in the IMF within 2years and be begging to re-join the EU at any cost within 5.

By that time, Scotland will have voted for independence, the Conservatives will be ended as a political party of any significance and Farage will have hung himself when he realises what he's responsible for. And thousands of poor pensioners and children will have died from malnutrition and poor health as benefits and social care are dramatically curtailed under the IMF restrictions.

Think it won't happen? Well, you might be right! We may be lucky a strike a free trade bargain with the EU without making contributions or agreeing to free movement of people. The point is, we just don't know. Anyone who promises a land of milk and honey after Brexit without acknowledging how bad it could be is being dishonest, just as anyone who predicts doom without acknowledging the possibility that it will all turn out wonderful is being malicious. However, the signs are not looking good, and it's important that we all have a view on what we should do if, by the middle of next year, companies start to leave the UK, we go into recession, unemployment climbs, inflation makes us all poorer and tax receipts fall significantly: should we leave the EU to be ruled by the IMF, or should we ask the people to think again?

If we don't have a free trade agreement with the EU that includes financial services, most financial services companies (and 15% of our tax income) will move to Paris or Frankfurt.

Without that 15% of tax income, we either have to have 15% austerity measures (15% cuts in health, pensions, defence, etc) or 15% higher taxes on those of us left in the UK. I'd give us 2 years before we're begging the IMF for a bail-out . . .

I find it hilarious, in a sad way, that all you blinkered Brexiteers are willing to swop our membership of the EU, where we do have a voice in decision-making, for rule by the IMF, where we will just have to do whatever they ask.

Why swop the prosperity we had to end up a beggar-country like Greece?