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

**** 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

cps statement

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).

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

Absolutely and we shouldn’t rest until he’s knighted and canonised.

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 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…

Duplicated post above, apologies.

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.

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.

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.