[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

I wonder if her hectic schedule of being hurriedly ushered in and out, silently unseen, from northern towns has interrupted her usual hourly routine of sucking the life force from babies? Hence the grey face?

Has anyone got the Palpatine Kenobi / May Corbyn picture handy?

It does seem to be more apt every day.

I wonder if her hectic schedule of being hurriedly ushered in and out, silently unseen, from northern towns has interrupted her usual hourly routine of sucking the life force from babies? Hence the grey face?

Don't see why, her favourites are poor northern one so supply isn't an issue

Have you not heard? We eat our own young up here. It's character building

We eat our own young up here

/DailyMailMode-on

Oh, so you're probably claiming benefits on that child you've eaten. No wonder this countries gone to shit! Benefits SCUM!!

\DailyMailMode-off

Here we go
[img] [/img]

I wonder if her hectic schedule of being hurriedly ushered in and out, silently unseen, from northern towns has interrupted her usual hourly routine of sucking the life force from babies? Hence the grey face?

My own delightful Tory MP has just put a campaign poster up on social meedja proudly proclaiming he's 'Standing with Theresa May' and a picture of their two grey soulless faces staring out at you, like the dementors out of Harry Potter

There's also a picture of him stood up talking in parliament. That picture is from when he filibustered the bill to give free hospital parking to carers. It's the one the papers used anyway

Obviously a proud moment. And why wouldn't it be?

.... and they say that Tory's are dead-eyed, frozen-hearted sociopath's, utterly devoid of empathy or compassion? I don't know where that idea comes from

[img] [/img]

Maybe we could all wear a grey ribbon on our lapels to show Enola that we are all feeling her pain. 🙂

Is it just me, or is this Chairman May's bacon sandwich moment?

[img] [/img]

Did she wet herself?

Our boys used to look like that occasionally during toilet training.

[quote=dazh ]Is it just me, or is this Chairman May's bacon sandwich moment?

story please re this?

dazh - Member

Is it just me, or is this Chairman May's bacon sandwich moment?

JY it's a shot from yesterday when she was trying to defend her debate no-show.

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/31/theresa-may-defends-her-no-show-for-the-election-debate-6675754/ ]http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/31/theresa-may-defends-her-no-show-for-the-election-debate-6675754/[/url]

My local tory hopeful (Clark Vasey) has some awesome paperwork - two thirds May and one third pictures of himself with May!
He has helpfully reminded me that 'like most people in my area he voted leave' but it is now all about 'uniting'. ffs.
At least the local UKIP candidate, George Kemp, is amusing (he is the current holder of the 'Worlds Biggest Liar' contest).

That photo of May reminded me of Blakey from On the Buses.

[img] http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10538015.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Conservative-Battle-Bus-tours-the-UK.jp g" target="_blank">http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10538015.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Conservative-Battle-Bus-tours-the-UK.jp g"/> [/img]

Are we just posting funny pics now? 😆

Don't get me wrong I totally love posting pics me. 😛

I mean I really want to join in to post all sort of pics but I wonder if the mods will see my jokes or if anyone of you will accept my jokes about opposition members? 😛

chewkw - Member
Are we just posting funny pics now?

What do you mean, now?
🙂

You lot started with the media manipulation, very proud of yourselves too:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Don't start getting all moral now Theresa's bottled it.

Maybot having a rest

[img] [/img]

John Pilger raises some interesting questions about Theresa 'our foreign policy can't possibly have anything to do with terrorism' May here:

The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy.

Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review".

The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.

The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".

The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?

These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology.

The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know

A good piece from Martin Wolf in the FT on the 'no deal' nonsense (paywall)

https://www.ft.com/content/83396e2a-45ef­-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996

Trade realities expose the absurdity of a Brexit ‘no deal’
The UK has imposed a diversion of effort upon its partners at a testing time

No deal is better than a bad deal. That, as almost everybody must now know, is the position of the woman who is and would be UK prime minister. But this proposition is either empty or nonsensical.

Why empty? The deal the UK will have with the EU has to be worse than the one it has now: that is what Brexit means. Why, after all, would the EU offer better terms to a non-member? So, it will be bad. Theresa May’s proposition only has meaning if she indicates what sort of bad deal, in the range of bad deals, would be worse than no deal at all. But this the prime minister has not deigned to indicate.

Why nonsensical? For trade to continue after Brexit, there must be deals. Brexiters find it difficult to understand that the UK must co-operate with the EU, even after Brexit. Co-operation means deals. The question is not whether the UK needs deals, but rather which deals it must have.

Many seem to think that “no deal” would mean trading with the EU on “World Trade Organization terms”. The UK could in theory trade with the EU in the same way as the latter trades with the US. A series of posts on Conservative Home, a website for Tory activists, discusses what this might mean. But that analysis is done in terms of policy, not the likely effects on trade. The latter is far more relevant.

The UK would be leaving the world’s most integrated trading arrangement. We know that the deeper such arrangements are, the bigger their impact on trade. This is why trade within countries, the most integrated arrangements of all, is far greater than geography alone would suggest. A recent World Bank study argues that if the UK shifted from EU to WTO terms, trade in goods with the EU would halve and trade in services would fall 60 per cent.

Yet a shift to trading on WTO terms is not what “no deal” might mean. Trading after Brexit requires a great many deals on new administrative procedures governing certification of regulatory standards, customs processes and so forth. Trade requires not only such deals, but changes in procedures that would make them work, post-Brexit. So deals will not only have to be reached, but they must be done well before March 2019. In fact, it is hard to see how trade would continue to flow if these deals were not done by the summer of 2018.

Malcolm Barr of JPMorgan has outlined these issues. When the UK leaves the EU, its goods would cease to be “EU goods”. A new set of procedures would be needed to keep trade between the UK and EU running smoothly. Otherwise, the administrative burdens would become impossibly cumbersome. Such facilitation agreements exist between the EU and all its main trading partners.

One difficulty, notes Mr Barr, is that 25 per cent of UK exports to the EU by value go via Calais, which has limited capacity to process non-EU goods. Another is that, without a deal (or deals), UK drivers of heavy-goods vehicles would not be licensed to drive inside the EU. A well-known difficulty is the arrangements to handle the border inside Ireland. Particular difficulties will arise with trade in food and food products, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Quite simply, continuing trade at anything like current levels will require a host of technical deals.

“No deal” is an absurd notion. To this, optimists will declare: yes, but it will be easy to reach agreement with the EU on such technical deals, because it is in the economic interests of the latter’s members to do so. To this glib optimism, I offer two answers.

First, the two sides will have little time to agree and then set up the new procedures. Above all, they cannot start until they know what to prepare for. The framework for post-Brexit trade will first need to be known. They need, for example, to decide soon that there will be no transitional arrangement if they are to shift early enough to WTO terms.

Second, it is ludicrous to presume that the rest of the EU will co-operate enthusiastically in creating the new trading procedures that are needed. Do Brexiters find it so hard to believe EU members would accept some costs in order to satisfy political objectives? Do they ever look in the mirror?

The UK has imposed a diversion of effort upon its partners at an exceptionally testing time. It has undermined the credibility of a project viewed as existential by many of its members, including its most powerful ones. Brexiters have poured ridicule and scorn on the whole venture. Now they imagine the UK can refuse the EU’s terms for an amicable divorce and yet still count upon active and enthusiastic co-operation in ensuring the smooth flow of trade.

The idea of “no deal” is just ridiculous.

Excellent article. Looking forward to one of our learned Brexiteering cheerleaders coming up with a coherent rebuttal...

Only joking - no doubt Brexit means Brexit will suffice.

Guess it could of gone in the Brexit thread but as May is the only one promoting no deal is ok, I've put it hear

****ing experts eh?

Greentricky - fair point - but the tories are focussing the campaign back onto Brexit and the 'fact' that May is best placed to deliver it.
Frustratingly I'm no fan of Corbyn either but I would rather have Keir Stamer at the negotiating table than any Tory minion.

The Tory candidate for South Thanet has been charged with electoral fraud.

So Farage was right

[url= http://http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps-statement-election-expenses/ ]cps statement[/url]

Guess it could of gone in the Brexit thread but as May is the only one promoting no deal is ok, I've put it hear

Corbyn said yesterday there is no such thing as "no deal", WTO tariffs is a deal. Same one as US, China etc

So Farage was right

You seem to be confusing "charged" with "convicted".

No @ransos, Farage said he thought what went on was dodgy. Maybe Farage would have won the seat ?

No @ransos, Farage said he thought what went on was dodgy. Maybe Farage would have won the seat ?

You seem to be confusing "charged" with "convicted".

Excellent. Let's spend the next few days discussing how corrupt the Tories are and whether UKIP are more corrupt (with EU money as I recall).

[quote=jambalaya ]So Farage was right

he is the greatest politician of the last 25 years so obviously he was right 😉

Yes it's important that we not forget what May called this election to cover up.
. it's easy to be distracted by her general incompetence

jambalaya - Member

Corbyn said yesterday there is no such thing as "no deal", WTO tariffs is a deal. Same one as US, China etc

He said a bit more than that:

"Britain is leaving the EU. But let’s be clear, there is no such thing as ‘no deal’. If we leave without a positive agreement because we have needlessly alienated everyone, we still have to trade with the EU. But on what terms?

Theresa May says no deal is better than a bad deal. Let’s be clear: ‘no deal’ is in fact a bad deal. It is the worst of all deals because it would leave us with World Trade Organisation tariffs and restrictions, instead of the access to European markets we need.

That would mean slapping tariffs on the goods we export – an extra 10% on cars – with the risk that key manufacturers would leave for the European mainland, taking skilled jobs with them.

In sector after sector, ‘no deal’ could prove to be an economic disaster – Theresa May’s approach risks a jobs meltdown across Britain."

Corbyn's getting quite good isn't he? I didn't expect that.
Admittedly it's only compared to May, but even so.
I suspect he and Starmer would be better in charge of the negotiations than any of the Tories.

yes but you can prove anything with facts [ though not to him] 😉

Corbyn's getting quite good isn't he? I didn't expect that.

I may not agree with him on brexit, but i get the impression that he is more willing to talk and not instantly alienate. That in the end he is more willing to accept a compromise than May, who despite the evidence still insists that she can get immigration down.

I do wonder if Corbyn is looking realistically at the relationships the EU has with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey and considering them as a goal??? That he accepts a clean break is not in the UKs interests, and a fudge is the best way forward. But isn't willing to say it???

he is the greatest politician of the last 25 years so obviously he was right

than May, who despite the evidence still insists that she can get immigration down

Even David Davies says she (they) can't

Is the expenses charge Chairman Mays "Comey" moment ?

In terms of scandal, it's a toss up between electoral fraud, this:

The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?

These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology.

The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer.

and not forgetting of course the incident where [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html ]a journalist was detained by the UK Border Agency (at the time under the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, Theresa May) to prevent her investigating child abuse on Jersey...

[/url]

Duplicated post above, apologies.