Theresa May calls General Election for June 8

[eugenonegin]

2 hours ago, bee said:

just for you eugeneonegin -  

ps - how's your brother alibongo these days --- 
 

 

I have had a brief look at the Brexit thread- just brief, as alibingo seems a buffoon. He has a few valid arguments, but he just endlessly repeats them with different permutations.

I will say, however, that Remainers seem to be in a minority on this forum -but it is appearing that they may not be a minority in the country now the Brexit means Brexit argument is seeming increasingly fatuous and empty of meaning.

 

[eugenonegin]

The queen's speech is being delayed because it is written on goatskin parchment- and because the two ready-prepared speeches (one for May winning, one for Corbyn winning) didn't include a hung parliament result, the civil service has to catch and skin a new goat.

This is true- (Google it) - you couldn't make it up!

A modern dynamic UK ,forging economic treaties with Ireland and Europe- if we can catch and skin enough goats.

[eugenonegin]

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

But oh dear, I fear she may be in need of a reboot.

“What I’m feeling is...”

It appears that she doesn't have any actual feelings or emotions then and when asked questions that aren't in her programming reverts to the default setting, "repeat pre-programmed slogan over and over". 

Have they tried turning her off and turning her on again?

Perhaps re-booting would stop her endlessly repeating "Brexit means Brexit" and "Strong and Stable".

I think she may be a Stepford Wife prop that escaped from the film studio.

[Duke Wellington]

Sky has just told us that not only is May pruning back her manifesto but she is cancelling austerity too!!!

[spud the mackem]

16 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Perhaps in theory, but surely within recorded history everyone has voted on the basis of the party they want to see ruling, and therefore who they want to see as PM. Really the idea that the Supreme Leader has to be a regular MP, "first among equals" and all of that nonsense, is completely obsolete isn't it, how on earth could the prime Minister be expected to be concerned with the concerns of the people of Maidenhead, is it, about the train service or the way that there really ought to be a pedestrian crossing on the A308 outside St Piran's School.  Even Mr. Corbyn, who of course cares deeply about the concerns of the common people, isn't going to have the time to concern himself with the goings on in Islington as he'd like to, would he. Really perhaps they ought to acknowledge that a Prime Minister is now virtually the same as a President, and have it as a separate position rather than trying to double as a regular MP. 

We can't have a President as our Queen rules our Country and we are not a Republic ,

 

[Unusual Tournament]

12 hours ago, stevewinn said:

No one mentioned soft Brexit before or during the Referendum. The Referendum was a simple question do you want to Leave or Remain.

The UK has decided through the democratic vote to leave the Euorpean Union and all then entails.

The two political parties labour and the Tories have said the UK will be leaving the single market. that includes the four pillars of the EU. Once we leave the EU under article 50, none of the free travel of goods services, money or people will come under any EU membership treaty and if such an agreement is agreed it will be outside of the EU treaties as a standalone agreement, just in the same way the USA has 24 trade and services deals with the EU,  If we the UK are out of the EU treaties completely, how is that soft Brexit please do tell. because its just simply Brexit.

No one mentioned it but maybe they should have. Anyway the point is that Brexit is not some generic term that covers all disengagement from the single market. There are many types of Brexit. And people have different ideas on those types. Having a free trade agreement is one type and having a closer symbiotic relationship is another. 

Russia, America and Turkey have free trade agreements. Norway has a trade relationship with unlimited access to the EU.

May wants a hybrid model. The trade advantages without the responsibility. 

...are you starting to get it?

 

[Unusual Tournament]

12 hours ago, bee said:

 

whatever

The British People were more or less conned into the POLITICAL union with Europe anyway -

That was brought in by stealth after being sold originally as a trade agreement - the common market -
.

The British could have left at any time during the last 40 years. Like they are now.

[Chortle]

4 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Potential for economic instability? There's always economic instability. it's what Governments do best. I wouldn't have been holding my breath for that situation to change should Mr. C. have somehow managed to get in. And now that Ms. May's mislaid her majority, she's going to have difficulty just "telling Brussels where to shove it", as  many here were recommending. She may (assuming she's still in office by next week) will have to adjust her stance somewhat. 

I am still awaiting some kind of evidence to this claim that JC would do worse given the evidence points to the tories doing far worse increasing national debt to a figure greater than all the past labour govts. We enjoy one of the slowest growing economies in the G7 as a direct result of investing less than any other.

Regarding telling Brussels where to go Hard brexit seems less likely (not impossible ill grant) particularly given the DUP will want a cushty deal so that it can continue to enjoy straightforward arrangements with the south. If talks are successful with the DUP the real question to ask will be "at what cost?".

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

We can't have a President as our Queen rules our Country and we are not a Republic ,

 

Yes, but that's what the PM has effectively become hasn't it, is my point. Since this is so, perhaps the position of Prime Minister ought to be separate from the common herd of MPs, since they couldn't possibly spare the time to worry about their constituent's issues as well as the weighty issues of running the country,could they.

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

No one mentioned it but maybe they should have. Anyway the point is that Brexit is not some generic term that covers all disengagement from the single market. There are many types of Brexit. And people have different ideas on those types. Having a free trade agreement is one type and having a closer symbiotic relationship is another. 

Russia, America and Turkey have free trade agreements. Norway has a trade relationship with unlimited access to the EU.

May wants a hybrid model. The trade advantages without the responsibility. 

...are you starting to get it?

 

Well, according to the horse's mouth herself, 

Theresa May says 'Brexit means Brexit' 

When asked what floccinaucinihilipilification means, she said "Floccinaucinihilipilification means floccinaucinihilipilification". Shortly after this, she was quietly escorted off by her Minders, and, according to reports, is likely to be sent back to the manufacturers for repair under warranty.  

Edited June 13, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, Chortle said:

 

Regarding telling Brussels where to go Hard brexit seems less likely (not impossible ill grant) particularly given the DUP will want a cushty deal so that it can continue to enjoy straightforward arrangements with the south. If talks are successful with the DUP the real question to ask will be "at what cost?".

That might be one area where the Dups might be helpful, as they seem relatively pro-fairly soft Brexit, and they don't want a return to border controls and what have you on the border with the Republic. Whatever concessions they may ask for in return is entirely their business.

[Space Commander Travis]

* An interesting comparison of the capacity for thought vis-a-vis kneejerk outraged bluster from J. Corbyn and B. Johnson.

Mr. Corbyn, in the aftermath of the Manchester attacks: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.” 

Mr. Johnson, in response to this outrageous statement: “absolutely monstrous; absolutely extraordinary and inexplicable in this week of all weeks that there should be any attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists in this way”.

Who sounds more the statesman here?

[quillius]

Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

* An interesting comparison of the capacity for thought vis-a-vis kneejerk outraged bluster from J. Corbyn and B. Johnson.

Mr. Corbyn, in the aftermath of the Manchester attacks: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.” 

Mr. Johnson, in response to this outrageous statement: “absolutely monstrous; absolutely extraordinary and inexplicable in this week of all weeks that there should be any attempt to justify or to legitimate the actions of terrorists in this way”.

Who sounds more the statesman here?

thanks Manfred, again this highlights how lucky we were that the kids didn't manage to vote him in.....could you imagine a person in charge of the country saying that 'wars our government has supported and fought...along with terrorism at home' so Mr Corbyn, should we stop fighting terrorism at home to stop terrorism...what an idiot

[Space Commander Travis]

44 minutes ago, quillius said:

thanks Manfred, again this highlights how lucky we were that the kids didn't manage to vote him in.....could you imagine a person in charge of the country saying that 'wars our government has supported and fought...along with terrorism at home' so Mr Corbyn, should we stop fighting terrorism at home to stop terrorism...what an idiot

You're saying what Mr. Corbyn said was pathetic and childish and shows that he loves the terrorists? Are you really obtuse or naive enough to believe that nothing we did in ****in' Libya or Iraq or have tried to do in Syria might have had anything to do with provoking or encouraging terrorism? Are you really trying to argue that? For christ's sake, these people came from ****in' Libya and Syria and would not have done so if we hadn't caused ****in' chaos in their countries. Or are you just pretending to be that naive to try to reinforce your political dogmas? Please tell me, since you're clearly a counter-terrorism expert.

in any case, and i'm sure you didn't do  this deliberately, you're quoting him wrong. He didn't say "we should stop fighting terrorism at home to stop terrorism.", he said "we should stop pretending to "fight" terrorism in countries where terrorism would not have arisen if we hadn't attacked those countries". I'm sure you didn't do this deliberately.  

Edited June 13, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[Torchwood]

39 minutes ago, quillius said:

thanks Manfred, again this highlights how lucky we were that the kids didn't manage to vote him in.....could you imagine a person in charge of the country saying that 'wars our government has supported and fought...along with terrorism at home' so Mr Corbyn, should we stop fighting terrorism at home to stop terrorism...what an idiot

you might want to reread the statement because you've clearly not understood it.  

 

[quillius]

4 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You're saying what Mr. Corbyn said was pathetic and childish and shows that he loves the terrorists? Are you really obtuse or naive enough to believe that nothing we did in ****in' Libya or Iraq or have tried to do in Syria might have had anything to do with provoking or encouraging terrorism? Are you really trying to argue that? For christ's sake, these people came from ****in' Libya and Syria and would not have done so if we hadn't caused ****in' chaos in their countries. Or are you just pretending to be that naive to try to reinforce your political dogmas? Please tell me, since you're clearly a counter-terrorism expert.

actually I read it wrong...oops....admit my mistake.........I read it as along with fighting the wars, fighting terrorism at home also caused terrorism.

apologies.

However I do think its somewhat naive to blame our part in wars as the cause of terrorism. The cause, IMO,  is these extremists and their interpretation of the Quaran.

provoking or encouraging is very different from it being the cause.

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by quillius
forgot to say...I still think he is an idiot :)

[quillius]

2 minutes ago, Torchwood said:

you might want to reread the statement because you've clearly not understood it.  

 

yep you are correct...my bad

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Well, according to the horse's mouth herself, 

Theresa May says 'Brexit means Brexit' 

When asked what floccinaucinihilipilification means, she said "Floccinaucinihilipilification means floccinaucinihilipilification". Shortly after this, she was quietly escorted off by her Minders, and, according to reports, is likely to be sent back to the manufacturers for repair under warranty.  

Will they be sending faulty brexiteers back to the manufacturer, too?   

[LV-426]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You're saying what Mr. Corbyn said was pathetic and childish and shows that he loves the terrorists? Are you really obtuse or naive enough to believe that nothing we did in ****in' Libya or Iraq or have tried to do in Syria might have had anything to do with provoking or encouraging terrorism? Are you really trying to argue that? For christ's sake, these people came from ****in' Libya and Syria and would not have done so if we hadn't caused ****in' chaos in their countries. Or are you just pretending to be that naive to try to reinforce your political dogmas? Please tell me, since you're clearly a counter-terrorism expert.

I'll quote you one of my posts from another thread from someone who is a counter-terrorism expert:

On 07/06/2017 at 1:06 PM, LV-426 said:

From someone who has a better understanding of these things than we do:

Kurdish security boss: UK terror laws 'too soft'

"The laws should be changed in Europe.

It is not for me to say but the laws are too soft on some of these people that go and join the ranks of ISIL and they are allowed to come back into the country and run around freely and they put them on the watch.

You cannot put 3-4,000 people on the watch 24 hours a day. So I think first they need to retake a look at some of the laws that exist in Europe.

If we are suspicious of somebody that poses a threat for the stability of this region - then we have to arrest them and until we are 100 per cent sure, these people should not get out, to be honest with you.

It is more important to lock one guy up and save thousands of lives, than allow this guy to run around freely and give them a chance to murder innocent people."

"He said it makes no difference that the UK is a country involved in the fight in Iraq and Syria against IS, adding that the anti-western rhetoric of Islamic State isn't linked to the battles here, but rather in just attacking western society."

[Setton]

25 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

I'll quote you one of my posts from another thread from someone who is a counter-terrorism expert:

If we are suspicious of somebody that poses a threat for the stability of this region - then we have to arrest them and until we are 100 per cent sure, these people should not get out, to be honest with you.

So, guilty until proven innocent? No thank you.

[LV-426]

33 minutes ago, Setton said:

So, guilty until proven innocent? No thank you.

Then what do you believe should be done?

If you accept that IS is simply attacking western society, what do you think should be done, if anything, to individuals that openly support their ideology on British streets? What should be done about those that support their ideology less openly?

Even if you buy into the rhetoric that we're somehow reaping what we've sown, it doesn't change the current situation. What do we do about the tens of thousands of "British citizens" that sympathize with a hateful ideology?

It's mathematically impossible to police, due to the sheer numbers already on the watch list, let alone those that are unknown.

Do we just accept it, light candles, and clean up the bodies after each new attack? Or do we accept that tough times call for tough measures?

[Setton]

3 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Then what do you believe should be done?

If you accept that IS is simply attacking western society, what do you think should be done, if anything, to individuals that openly support their ideology on British streets? What should be done about those that support their ideology less openly?

Even if you buy into the rhetoric that we're somehow reaping what we've sown, it doesn't change the current situation. What do we do about the tens of thousands of "British citizens" that sympathize with a hateful ideology?

It's mathematically impossible to police, due to the sheer numbers already on the watch list, let alone those that are unknown.

Do we just accept it, light candles, and clean up the bodies after each new attack? Or do we accept that tough times call for tough measures?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that, when fighting an enemy that despises our way of life, we should not surrender a pillar of that society that has stood for hundreds of years.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, LV-426 said:

If we are suspicious of somebody that poses a threat for the stability of this region - then we have to arrest them and until we are 100 per cent sure, these people should not get out, to be honest with you.

It is more important to lock one guy up and save thousands of lives, than allow this guy to run around freely and give them a chance to murder innocent people."

so how does that prove that J. Corbyn is wrong and mad and a danger to the people of Britain? If anything, it says that in the opinion of this expert, the current Conservative administration hasn't been doing their job effectively enough, doesn't it?

[Space Commander Travis]

48 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Even if you buy into the rhetoric that we're somehow reaping what we've sown,

I love the "rhetoric" and "somehow", as if it's such an absurd  idea - that we didn't experience any danger from militant Islamic fundamentalism until we started going along with the U.S. President's ideas for imposing his will on the world - that no reasonable thinking person could possibly imagine that it might be a possibility. 

* Oh, your Expert is a "Kurdish security boss", then? well, they wouldn't be without an agenda of their own, would they? They wouldn't be keen to have the West help them as much as possible in their fight (and I'm not saying that they're not doing a sterling job in fighting ISIS, to be sure, but they'll have an agenda of their own, won't they.) 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[eugenonegin]

I'm not a fan of Jeremy, but I recognise he is a thoughtful and sincere man.

Surely most people now recognise such acts as invading Iraq in pursuit on non-existent WMD or Afghanistan in response to 911,without planning an exit strategy, was bonkers at best, and evil at worst?