Jump to content

The Great Theresa May. By FAR the Worst Prime Minister that the UK has Ever had.


Phil Perry
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Theresa may is one of those loyal obeying types - charged by Osborne to cut the cost of the home office and health - she did so... She doesn't always have the foresight required for her role - as the obvious consequences were not able to be foreseen (or were willfully unforeseen) by her. I could not believe, after her reign at the Home Office, the Conservatives would have had her head the party and take the prime-ministership - she comes across to me as a great orator and good deputy - but it was a race no-one who was sane (BoJo and his other mate that back-stabbed him who's name escapes me are hardly considered sane) as the prize was a heavily poisoned chalice.

 

I thought though, she copped the bad end of a stick. The day she took over, the press and opposition derided her for not holding an election and accused her of being undemocratic as she hadn't won an election to give her the mandate to take the UK out of the EU; when she finally succumbed to have an election to try and quell the opposition ranks on her home turf (and fluffed it), she was castigated and crucified for holding an election that wasn't needed.

 

However, her timing for running the election showed her distinct lack of foresight. When she took the reins, she decided against holding a snap election when she had a 26 point lead over the other parties. She could have sold a controversial pay-for-your-own-care-when-you-get-alzhiemers policy as well as we-will-take-your-house-from-you-to-pay-for-brexit if she cared. Instead, when her lead was whittled down to single figures, she decided to call the election (probably realising the euphoria - or is that europhoria - of taking over after the referendum had largely subsided as the actual light at the end of that tunnel was a dim-distant hue and a long way away). On top of that, with a thinning margin she decides, with her advisers (one of which was an Aussie) to release the one and only policy that could fail against Corbyn's fantasy follies: the pay-for-your-own-care-when-you-get-alzhiemers. When it was launched - apparently unbeknownst to most of her cabinet and senior ministers - some obviously shocked at the obvious political suicide just committed - it was roundly condemned by all within her and opposition parties; all sides of the press and even her own aides who were blind-sided by it apparently expressed disapproval. Well, we know the outcome of that election - clutching defeat from the jaws of victory as a complete lack of foresight is exhibited.

 

One of the notable faux pars of her negotiation of Brexit that rests the case of her lack of judgement is proposing the idea that maybe a border in the Irish Sea, effectively keeping Northern Ireland in the EU in all but name and say, would be a good idea - not even 24 hours after Arlene Foster - the leader of the Democratic Unionists Party and the person giving May her majority in the parliament - drew a red line at the regulatory bifurcation of Northern Ireland and mainland UK with respect to the EU. May's idea was promptly rejected by May after Foster had a few terse words with her, along the lines of "Better get the removalists ready for your exit of Number 10"...

 

I do feel sorry for her - I think she is a woman of integrity, is undyingly loyal and will carry out her instructions with absolute unwaivering resolve. However, a leader need to be flexiblem, have foresight and keep their options open - and this is why she woul dbe a good deputy...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa may is one of those loyal obeying types - charged by Osborne to cut the cost of the home office and health - she did so... She doesn't always have the foresight required for her role - as the obvious consequences were not able to be foreseen (or were willfully unforeseen) by her. I could not believe, after her reign at the Home Office, the Conservatives would have had her head the party and take the prime-ministership - she comes across to me as a great orator and good deputy - but it was a race no-one who was sane (BoJo and his other mate that back-stabbed him who's name escapes me are hardly considered sane) as the prize was a heavily poisoned chalice.

I thought though, she copped the bad end of a stick. The day she took over, the press and opposition derided her for not holding an election and accused her of being undemocratic as she hadn't won an election to give her the mandate to take the UK out of the EU; when she finally succumbed to have an election to try and quell the opposition ranks on her home turf (and fluffed it), she was castigated and crucified for holding an election that wasn't needed.

 

However, her timing for running the election showed her distinct lack of foresight. When she took the reins, she decided against holding a snap election when she had a 26 point lead over the other parties. She could have sold a controversial pay-for-your-own-care-when-you-get-alzhiemers policy as well as we-will-take-your-house-from-you-to-pay-for-brexit if she cared. Instead, when her lead was whittled down to single figures, she decided to call the election (probably realising the euphoria - or is that europhoria - of taking over after the referendum had largely subsided as the actual light at the end of that tunnel was a dim-distant hue and a long way away). On top of that, with a thinning margin she decides, with her advisers (one of which was an Aussie) to release the one and only policy that could fail against Corbyn's fantasy follies: the pay-for-your-own-care-when-you-get-alzhiemers. When it was launched - apparently unbeknownst to most of her cabinet and senior ministers - some obviously shocked at the obvious political suicide just committed - it was roundly condemned by all within her and opposition parties; all sides of the press and even her own aides who were blind-sided by it apparently expressed disapproval. Well, we know the outcome of that election - clutching defeat from the jaws of victory as a complete lack of foresight is exhibited.

 

One of the notable faux pars of her negotiation of Brexit that rests the case of her lack of judgement is proposing the idea that maybe a border in the Irish Sea, effectively keeping Northern Ireland in the EU in all but name and say, would be a good idea - not even 24 hours after Arlene Foster - the leader of the Democratic Unionists Party and the person giving May her majority in the parliament - drew a red line at the regulatory bifurcation of Northern Ireland and mainland UK with respect to the EU. May's idea was promptly rejected by May after Foster had a few terse words with her, along the lines of "Better get the removalists ready for your exit of Number 10"...

 

I do feel sorry for her - I think she is a woman of integrity, is undyingly loyal and will carry out her instructions with absolute unwaivering resolve. However, a leader need to be flexiblem, have foresight and keep their options open - and this is why she woul dbe a good deputy...

Indeed Jerry. She tried to be all things to all people and in the end she satisfies noone. Unlike that paragon of virtue and probity, the Right Honourable Anthony Blair..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are our last Two Leaders. . .

 

[ATTACH]49675._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

Theresa May was Home Secretary for 7 years. . .she never stemmed Unlimited Immigration, in fact she allowed it to increase exponentially. NO very small country can absorb so many people of a Totally Different mindset in such a short time and expect them to even Partially Integrate. . .It just Isn't feasible.

 

You say that you feel Sorry for her ? ? ? I don't. She is most obviously out of her depth and I can only deduce that she is working to a completely different agenda, to which the British people voted, With Vastly different values and instructions. In complete opposition to what she promised to deliver.

 

Watch the media in the next few days to see if her Total Surrender to the Lunatics in the EU will get past the Parliamentary vote.

 

I for one will feel a little sorry for her of she succeeds in making the UK a Vassal State. . .for if she does, she is Finished, along with her Conservative ( sic ) Party for a generation, And will herald a Labour Government, which will put us all bak to the Commuinst days

 

How this once sensible country has fallen is amazing to me. .. . .I wonder what the WW1 dead would have thought. . . .

 

Leaders.thumb.jpg.6d695b0427576c280489d7574937b2c1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phil Perry - I feel sorry for her as she is out of her depth and was a little slow in stepping back when it was asked "anyone who wants the poisoned chalice that is the premiership - please step forward".. However, I will give her credit that she sticks to it rather than Cameron who after creating this mess (i.e. Brexit without a plan), promptly did the cowardly thing and resigned...

 

May has now been "forced" to lead a deeply divided and self-interested part in disarray that her predecessor is solely responsible for. She is no leader, and as a non-leader doesn't have a vision... either in terms of Brexit, running the country or anything else.. Her time "leading" the home office proved that..

 

Mind you , I wouldn't be any better at the job...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has been straight out bullied and undermined by a lot of her own Party. Cameron allowed the referendum firmly believing it would Fail. It passed Narrowly in an environment of calamitous confusion, Irish Border and Scottish separation issues and as well as some very poisoned nationalism issues. Cameron goes Missing in action, and hands over the "Poisoned Chalice". Most of the people who were prominent in the stirring are nowhere to be seen in the aftermath..Big Boris lurks around undermining her constantly for the ultimate prize, Leader of the Tories.

 

. I don't agree with this Lady's policies, generally but she's been hung out to dry her own people and saddled with a near impossible task that no one else would touch.. With such friends she needs no enemies. She's shown a lot of guts and has my sympathy and some admiration.. The rest are like Rats leaving the sinking ship but returning to feed off the corpses left behind and claiming ownership of it, for the salvage rights. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron was a twit. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, admittedly, the question posed in the referendum is all but meaningless. Maybe they should have asked:

 

"Should the UK stay in the European Union or leave it? Bear in mind that we have no idea how to leave it, there's several hundred laws we'll have to change, there's a border in Ireland we don't know how to deal with, and we're a disorganised rabble who despite having countless members who visit brothels, would not be able to organise a root in one. Now - do you want to leave or should we remain?"

 

Might have had a better result...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a precis of 'Horrors' which are contained within the 500 Plus pages of 'Legalese' which Theresa May wishes to pass through Parliament.

 

I assume that you will have read some of this already Jerry, and may be able to explain some of the details to others who could be interested.

 

Spectator Coffee House Steerpike

 

The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal

 

Steerpike

 

17 November 2018

 

8:55 AM

 

This week, Theresa May’s government teetered on the point of collapse

 

over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK

 

and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest.

 

However, May’s remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around

 

her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the

 

International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a

 

deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old

 

claim that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

 

So, is Fox right? Mr S thought it best to let readers decide for

 

themselves. In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But

 

the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means.

 

Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which

 

clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent

 

authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United

 

Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at

 

least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be

 

made to last forever (Article 132). And even if a successor deal is

 

agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

 

Just in case readers don’t have the time to go through the lengthly

 

document themselves, Steerpike has compiled a list of the top 40

 

horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal:

 

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or,

 

more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to

 

31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the

 

government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ +

 

extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for)

 

+ all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

 

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK will still be

 

signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules (like VAT and ECJ

 

supervision) for a further eight years. Some clauses have, quite

 

literally, a “lifetime” duration (Art.39). If the UK defaults on

 

transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and,

 

realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition

 

positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no

 

need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they

 

offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice

 

remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. Perhaps most damagingly of

 

all, we agree to sign away the rights we would have, under international

 

law, to unilaterally walk away. Again, what follows relates (in most

 

part) for the “transition” period. But the language is consistent with

 

the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

 

The top 40 horrors:

 

From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a

 

UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is

 

written in Brussels.

 

May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The

 

Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member

 

States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as

 

including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people

 

understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the

 

EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are

 

effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately,

 

excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)

 

The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court,

 

governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens

 

and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to

 

recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United

 

Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under

 

Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the

 

European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition

 

period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European

 

Union”. (Art. 87)

 

The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).

 

The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which

 

it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law.

 

(Article 6(2))

 

Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only –

 

one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK

 

off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign

 

body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of

 

the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it

 

(i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)

 

“UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance

 

of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United

 

Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon

 

the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.

 

The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of

 

losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020

 

because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years**

 

after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on

 

products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the

 

country joined the EU.

 

Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too

 

widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon

 

Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The

 

“goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined

 

– or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus

 

far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.

 

The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to

 

tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil

 

Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels

 

bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune

 

to our tax laws. (Article 104)

 

Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)

 

The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s

 

stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73).

 

There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out

 

of it.

 

The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to

 

guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This

 

does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it

 

need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint

 

Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’

 

rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; © Ireland/Northern Ireland;

 

(d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial

 

provisions. (Article 165)

 

The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the

 

country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall

 

enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for

 

their lifetime”. (Article 39).

 

The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security –

 

yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)

 

The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations

 

stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but

 

unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)

 

All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence

 

after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by

 

the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)

 

Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels

 

to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)

 

The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)

 

Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture.

 

We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.

 

Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.

 

The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)

 

The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)

 

The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement

 

swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be

 

part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article

 

74)

 

The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively

 

forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)

 

We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)

 

The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)

 

The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even

 

in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid.

 

(Article 93)

 

Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)

 

The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells

 

us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).

 

Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)

 

The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022

 

(Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as

 

to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by

 

the EU. (Articles 140-142)

 

The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)

 

The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).

 

The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)

 

And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay

 

it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.

 

The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the

 

European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with

 

irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading

 

to Europe. (Article 155)

 

The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based

 

body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’.

 

(Article 159)

 

The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of

 

the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the

 

terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate

 

expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And

 

if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.

 

And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1919 the Allies, Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and the USA, forced Germany to agree to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes (a British delegate to the Paris Peace Conference), predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace"—and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive. The result of the competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left no one content: Germany was neither pacified nor conciliated, nor was it permanently weakened.

 

As a result of the problems caused by the reparations clause of the Treaty of Versailles, the Allied powers and the new states of Central and Eastern Europe sought to secure the post-war territorial settlement, and return normalizing relations with defeated Germany (the Weimar Republic). The Locarno Treaties were seven agreements negotiated at Locarno, Switzerland, on 5–16 October 1925. The principal treaty concluded at Locarno was the Rhineland Pact between Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy. Hitler repudiated Locarno by sending troops into the demilitarized Rhineland on 7 March 1936.

 

In 2019, The EU, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Germany will force Great Britain to agree to the terms of Brexit. Will this, too, be a Carthaginian Peace? Will those who voted pro-Brexit accept the harsh terms of the EU-devised Brexit agreement? Will they fall in behind an extremist party leader who will gain power through the ballot box and once holding the reins of Government, repudiate the Brexit Agreement and make Great Britain a great, independent Nation again?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Referring back to a question that I asked on this forum,"Who runs the presses' dumbing down agenda for the masses?"

 

Given that journalists are mostly tertiary educated and, one hopes, selected for the job because of their excellent analytical skills, why didn't they do their job and warn their readers that the brexit idea was a purely political vote grab? Problem with representative democracy is there is no formal qualification required of voters before they cast their ballot. A friend of mine recently confessed to knowing nothing about politics but insisted that she had every right to a (totally fact free) opinion! If democracy is the best of a thoroughly bad lot then it still misses the mark by a couple of hundred metres.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the Brexit lot wanting to have less bureaucracy in their lives.

 

The only product of bureaucracy is poverty. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in history, where material progress takes place in the few periods where the bureaucrats are temporarily powerless.

 

For proof of this, you only have to look at the history of Jabiru vs CASA. How Jabiru survived is a wonder.

 

There are many other examples to prove the point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have a vote that's so close to 50/50 you leave things as they are. You need a larger majority IF you are making essentially a constitutional change. There was so much B/S flying around leading up to that vote and not enough FACTs about to get the right decision. those who advocated so strongly won't do the hard yard to implement it. Most Brits had NO IDEA what complexities would result from a decision to leave. The EU can't give Britain a good deal or they will get more break-aways.or have the advantages of membership without the downsides.. Break up of the EU? That would be exactly what Russia wants.. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Nev in that on major constitutional change, the vote has to be materially more than first past to post, especially when almost 30% of the voting public don't vote. But I disagree that most voters didn't know what they were voting for. Like most elections, there were hardliners - those who wanted out at any cost and those that wanted in at any cost. I know of a couple who clearly knew the potential wider effects of the economy very well, but elected to vote out because their perception was their business would profit from a hard Brexit - they own a visa/immigration agency. But looking at the demographics and geographics of the vote, the remainers came from more universally wealthy areas or significantly benefitted from EU and UK subsidies. Those that wanted out were from universally neglected or disaffected areas - I think they knew the potential (and I stress potential) affects of a Brexit, but don't care about that because they could see the rich south east getting richer (and the subsidised region/s being molly-coddled) while they were left behind - partly it would seem a protest vote in general, partly a vindictive vote and partly a vote to dislodge a remote power base that has left them behind. This is a vote that is more the direct result of a fragmented and dsyfunctional society - the fact the UKIP, the party as the main proponent of Brexit has since lost all electoral support mainly because their purpose has been achieved and those who voted them realise they need someone more competent (or less incompetent) to manage what happens next. I don't think the information, disinformation or disingenuity of either side was a material factor in all of this - it did reinforce the opinion, especially of the Brexit voters, that the government is way out of touch, it's policies (collectively - not of only one party) are polarising and there is a disproportionately large number of people that are, well, hacked off. In fact, I would almost argue there was plenty of information available to the public - incredible claims by the Brexit campaign (i.e. obviousl political deceit - and people are not stupid - they knew it) and bullying from the Remain camp (to quote Junkers, "We will punish you if you leave"; Obama, "You will be at the back of the queue to negotiate a trade deal with the USA" - telling in the so-called special relationship).. I think that was information enough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...