[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

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.

[quote=igm ]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.

It appears he can do a TV debate AND think about Brexit.

I've written it before, but anything is preferably to a bloody difficult woman who's prepared to walk away as if she's buying a used car, in a situation where we hold little power and the best results will be achieved by compromise. But of course her stated position plays to those who she's trying to get to vote for her.

[quote=mrmo ]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???

I thought he had got very close to saying that? At least my expectation of the deal with Corbyn in charge would be something similar to what Norway has - which TBH is probably the best possible outcome at this stage as it avoids the awkward problem of "ignoring" the referendum result, whilst getting as close to what the majority of people actually want. I'm reasonably confident if he went to the EU with this as an aim and asked them to work with him to provide a deal the British public would accept they'd be more than eager to do so.

be worth it just to see Jacob Rees-Moggs head explode.

Can we stick JRM's head in Farage's gob before it explodes. It would be almost poetic.

😆

Not sure anyone but those in the know can comment on likely or not Brexit deal - there is a huge incentive for EU to make the deal as poor as possible for UK or risk other nations follow suit.

Deciding whether 'no deal' is better somewhat depends on the deal that is negotiated to surely?

Deciding whether 'no deal' is better somewhat depends on the deal that is negotiated to surely?

only if you think a negotiated deal would somehow be worse than moving to the WTO arrangement.

How can one negotiate a deal worse than WTO?
even I dont think the tories are that bad 😉

I think the Eu will accept many things as long as it remains true to the four pillars* and keeps EU integrity
Many things ranging from switzerland style to ETA
What we wont get is better than we have now, no, or even reduced payments and the freedom to choose on which of the pillars we adhere to

The Eu is a somewhat all or nothing on its rules, as are most clubs

* the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. we wont get the three we want without the fourth we dont.

[quote=jet26 ]there is a huge incentive for EU to make the deal as poor as possible for UK or risk other nations follow suit.

Not necessarily - the deal just has to be worse than staying in. It's clear to everybody apart from the deluded Brexiteers that applies to any deal. It also seems that the population of other EU countries has noticed and there is little appetite elsewhere to leave (Brexit is largely a peculiarly British thing, based upon the notion that we are somehow superior). The reality is that the incentive for the EU is to make the best deal for their members - that might sometimes seem like making the deal as poor as possible for the UK, but that itself won't be a major driver for them. The reality is also that given a suitable negotiator who is prepared to compromise the EU would like to have a deal close to what we already have.

Deciding whether 'no deal' is better somewhat depends on the deal that is negotiated to surely?

Well yes - but that relies upon the assumption that they'll somehow negotiate a deal which is worse than not having one. Not only that but the whole "no deal" thing is a bit of a fallacy - even if we don't have a negotiated deal we still have to have a relationship with the EU. It's not like walking away from a used car.

Would be interesting to see some useful data on what those who voted leave actually want 'leave' to mean - I am not entirely clear what people were voting for if they voted leave.

unfortunately neither were they 🙁

They were promised so much some did it to return freedom, some as a protest vote to the establishment [ these folk should have the right to vote removed]. some to leave the EU politically but still trade, some to leave entirely in all respects. some to "save the NHS" and some to stop Muslims coming here
there was no unanimity in their vote.

Most leavers did think and want a trade deal, and the campaign expected to get one* so i think its reasonable to say most were not voting for a hard brexit.

* apparently they need us more than we need them as we have a deficit with them - of course this ignores the fact its 45% our exports and 4% of theirs and they are 5 x the size of us in GDP terms - and the EU wont be as daft as do something that would harm trade - incredibly they faith the EU is not as stupid as they were being. I am not so sure this is the case and whilst the May stick [ difficult woman] may play well here with some/core tory voters it is harming our chances of an agreement

Good luck with that! I'm not sure those who voted Leave even know.

I'm very confident though that a Norway style deal would have the support of a majority of the population right now (even if you ignore those Leavers who've changed their mind).

It was a fairly simple question Jet26

They were voting to leave the EU

I really don't know why you think there is a need to try and break down and analyse it beyond that just because you didn't like the outcome.

Good point ninfan - because nobody cares at all what happens now.

that is like claiming if i ask do you want to go on holiday and my family say yes that they all agreed on where we were going.

yes the country voted to leave but for very different reasons and not all expecting the same thing.
To argue otherwise is disingenuous - hence you are giving it a go 😉

We know some of what it meant, but there is a lot unsaid in the answer....so we need another vote to see if we like the choice of holiday destination 😉

Both of those could be potentially valid points

Perhaps you, and the rest of the Remainders, would have been better making them in the aftermath of the vote, actually engaging in a debate about 'where do we go from here' instead of bitching and whining like sore losers trying to get the vote overturned or ignored?

As usual, the lefties stayed stuck on transmit instead of switching to receive for a while.

that is exactly what I said to the kids about the holidays. That sure showed them.

Sorry though you might have gone for sensible for a few more posts or tried to argue there was agreement between brexiters - actually you are not that daft are you. That is more jamby than you as you like to at least have a pretence of fact to your point.

Hey, Junky, make no mistake, i said this at the time, that we ought to discuss where next

But you lot were all too wrapped up in how e-petitions, court challenges and protest marches could stop Brexit

[quote=ninfan ]Perhaps you, and the rest of the Remainders, would have been better making them in the aftermath of the vote

Wow - you're really being incisive today. Because this is [url= https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literally ]literally[/url] the first time anybody has made that point.

course you did and its our fault, we are very sorry we were to busy whaling and gnashing our teeth to hear your diplomatic tones for unity, after victory, and agreement moving forward. Boy do we feel foolish now for not listening to your one nation together speeches you made unendingly on here - I am only hoping saying this makes you scurry of to your excel file of posts you once said to prove your point as I like to waste your time to 😛

Mindanao I'm not taking issue with the result. The whole debate around what is a good deal is a moot point though if it is entirely unclear what the leave vote wanted.

How do you know if you've got what you want if you don't know what you want in the first place?

Hey, Junky, make no mistake, i said this at the time, that we ought to discuss where next

But you lot were all too wrapped up in how e-petitions, court challenges and protest marches could stop Brexit

Some of us have moved on labrat. We are just waiting for you brexiters to defeat yourselves, and then we will go to work.

El-bent - Member
We are just waiting for you brexiters to defeat yourselves, and then we will go to work.

It will take, at least, another two generations to come up with another "global system" coz we are just starting to dismantle the current ones. 😆

The dismantling will fall apart quickly Chewkw. We have no fears there.

Ninfan - plenty of remainers were asking what leave actually meant last July, but the Brexies were stuck on transmit about leaving now. Remember the Brexies trashing Polish property? Only now as it's becoming clear it's all falling apart for Brexit are you fools starting to listen. But you're still mainly trying to blame others.
If you check back on this thread you'll find my suggestions of what a decent Brexit deal might look like back in about July (four freedoms as a minimum, no need for grants for farmers, and leaving the European Parliament etc if we must). But I have to be honest - idiot Brexy behaviour since then has hardened my attitude against Brexit somewhat.

Perhaps you, and the rest of the Remainders, would have been better making them in the aftermath of the vote, actually engaging in a debate about 'where do we go from here'

We did, a lot. Were you not here for that?

Actually though, it would have been more important BEFORE the vote.

Maybe it's just me, but Chairman May is being quietly skewered by the audience on QT. Completely unable and unwilling to answer a question straightly. Even the self declared tory voter seems to despise her!

Even the self declared tory voter seems to despise her!

To my eternal shame I have a couple of Tory councillors on Facebook. Normally they're very active online, very engaged with their local community and campaigning hard when there's a vote at hand.

Right now, utterly silent!

@dazh Yes and no. Some tough questions to give satisfactory answers to.
She's answered some, and twisted her answer to avoid some others quite well.
Based on what i just saw i'm not quite sure why she's been hiding from debates/media, she seemed just as competent as anyone else.

if only she shared your confidence

did not get a shoeing but she does waffle a bit /speak like a politician*
Corbyn speaks much more "normally"

* eg education I want the best or every child etc but not actually saying much or answering the question.

Oh yeah, 'politician' speak is extremely frustrating. We certainly need more that just speak their mind.

* eg education I want the best or every child etc but not actually saying much or answering the question.

This is the thing for me, she holds pretty much the most powerful position in the country, she's paid very well, she's got a guaranteed gold plated retirement plan, plus other business interests I'm sure. Her husband isn't exactly Skint.

I'm not nessesarily against that but I'd expect certain calibre of person to step up to what is a very tough life consuming job if it's to be done properly and justify the benefits.

I'm not seeing that from May, she strikes me as shrewd opportunistic chancer who'll be laughing all the way to the bank when her time is up regardless of what happens.

That's not head of state material.

Ooh, Corbyn utterly losing the room there

Arent you tories meant to be singing Mays praises rather than just attacking corbyn?

Lol @ the stooge. Jez nearly used the name but err'd back to "the person you're talking about".

Ooh, Corbyn utterly losing the room there

As the young lady said, the fact that some people are obsessed with the idea of killing millions of people is a bit bizarre.

Arent you tories meant to be singing Mays praises rather than just attacking corbyn?

Why? I've said for ages that Rees-Mogg or Wee Ruthie should have been leader.

ninfan - Member

Why? I've said for ages that Rees-Mogg or Wee Ruthie should have been leader.

Nice work there Ninfan.... 🙂

Well JC's surely having quite a hard time of it. And he's written the front pages for the next couple of days by refusing twice (or 3 times?) to say he'd press the button.

He's done quite well at deflecting questioning about the money tree though.

Well JC's surely having quite a hard time of it.

He was certainly challenged, yes. His response though was to answer the questions honestly and in some detail, and didn't once try to obfuscate or evade. Unless of course you think his dislike of wanting to kill millions of people by using nuclear weapons is a bad thing. 😕

Quite frankly it was a far more honest, detailed and passionate performance than May, who again just waffled her way through it.

[quote=ninfan ]Why? I've said for ages that Rees-Mogg or Wee Ruthie should have been leader.

Don't worry, they'll be getting their chance soon enough.

@aracer - Imagine, a political party that is happy to drop a leader if they're not doing the job.

IMagine how different things might be this time next week if Labour had the balls to do that

Corbyn smashed it apart from the nukes which was the most awkward moment of the night.

May just droned on saying as little as possible. Dimbleby let her get away with it a bit.

Didn't actually think either waffled less than the other. Saying we want everyone to be equal in various ways doesn't get to the detail.

Neither of them were great.

Doesn't she look tired?

@dazh, he was evading inside the first 2-3mins when challenged on how he could be trusted to be responsible with spending. He more or less dodged it completely and just told us more of what he wanted to spend money on.
And ALL he did on the 'button' question was evade. 'Politician' speak with the odd sprinkling of honesty today from both sides.

Corbyn smashed it apart from the nukes which was the most awkward moment of the night.

To be honest an awkward response is the correct one. It shouldn't be easy to come to an abrupt decision.

Besides what is it with red faced fat blokes pushing for the red button ? Idiots. Britain first rejects.

Dimbleby let her get away with it a bit.

Tory media ? 😀

Absolutely agree I'm just thinking how it'll play in the media/ public.

He pulled it back slightly with the talk of frigates, aircraft carriers etc

Dimbleby pushed him on nukes Q more than he pushed May on any question.

And ALL he did on the 'button' question

Nice euphemism. Lets just be clear what that means, which is the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of civilisation in another country, and more importantly HERE, as it will result in inevitable retaliation. But still yeah, lets just carry on like it's a schoolyard fight.

As someone on twitter just said, debating a hypothetical nuclear war is much easier than figuring out how to fund the NHS or solve homelessness.

It shouldn't be easy to come to an abrupt decision

In case you hadn't noticed it's one of those situations where an abrupt decision is exactly what you [b]will[/b] have to make

and more importantly HERE, as it will result in inevitable retaliation.

Committing to no first use I think the audience, and most people, wouldn't have any problem with, it was when he tried to fudge the issue of retaliatory use that he dug himself into a nuclear-bomb sized crater

Neither May nor Corbyn 'smashed it'.

Both performed to a similar level - some direct answers, some evasion & some uncomfortable moments.

Can't see tonight's performance causing any elector to change their mind.

At the end I knew no more than I did at the beginning.

In case you hadn't noticed it's one of those situations where an abrupt decision is exactly what you will have to make

Maybe in the public's Hollywood version of good versus evil.

It's the measure of a person if your focus is on war rather than peace.

As an aside these IRA and Red button questions are getting quite intolerable. They've been in every debate as the media wranglers know they inflame single cell organisms.

In case you hadn't noticed it's one of those situations where an abrupt decision is exactly what you will have to make

No it's one of those situations where everyone just dies or suffers a long and prolonged period of horrific suffering and/or starvation. If it it satisfies your warped sense of machismo though then carry on.

it was when he tried to fudge the issue of retaliatory use

Lifelong peace activist admits not wanting to murder millions of people shocker! I love how nuclear weapons bring out the real men. Congratulations.

No it's one of those situations where everyone just dies or suffers a long and prolonged period of horrific suffering and/or starvation.

More scaremongering, there have been literally hundreds of nuclear explosions, and nobody has died (for a very long time)

In 1946, no one died
In 1947, no one died
In 1948...

People are worried annoy if Corbyn will kill millions in our defence??

My worry is far more immediate and needs correcting immediately. Not hypothetically!

I'm worried about the people ding NOW due to Social Care falling apart and an NHS that is barely holding together at the seams. I've experienced it first hand helping others with social and health care issues.

That tragedy happening NOW.

MAY DOESN'T give a damn about that. Not a blink of sleep lost over it I'm sure.

I'll take my chances on being nuked if it means I get to see my friends and family being cared for NOW and in the future in this country.

Over time I've gone from thinking Corbyn is a joke to thinking he is the only hope we have.

I can't imagine anyone that ever thinks they will need the NHS (most of us)even contemplating voting Conservative. I just can't comprehend the mentality.