Another general election

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
61

rastone:
I think that Mrs May wanted to remain but accepts the vote so is just doing that.This lady is a very strong woman.You lorry lads have turned round somewhere in the wrong street and and get out of it.Shut your chops and let her get us going the right way

In which case how do you explain her delaying and actually not implementing Brexit then unnecessarily chucking away a small but perfectly viable parliamentary majority administration.That majority likely to be wiped out by the remain Con vote voting LibDem,who are on record as intending to reverse the referendum decision.Just as happened in the case of Richmond Park.Also how is it that Conservative,Labour and LibDems are all united and happy about dissolving parliament now on that basis.When if it’s supposedly about her doing it to help Brexit not stop it then the remain opposition Parties would obviously have been expected to have voted against it not help her do it.

That doesn’t seem like the actions of a remainer turned leaver to me.When that ( would have been ) expected to be a case of her using her parliamentary majority to implement the referendum decision in full and long before now and in a way that made the type of Brexit we’d voted for irrevocable well within the life of that now dissolved administration.Just as the Cons promised to do before the referendum. :unamused: On that note even Stevie Wonder could see that the remainer Cons are still in control of the agenda and have been since they lost the referendum vote and that the Richmond Park stitch up of Zac Goldsmith was just a rehearsal for the main event which is exactly what she’s now put into action.Which is all about doing what’s good for the remainers in her own Party and their ‘opposition’ allies.

Which leaves the question.Assuming May and her Cons really have turned from Remainers to Leavers.Then why would Carswell,or May,or her voters,see a parliament,in which a few UKIP seats either just add to or even hopefully hold the balance of power with the Cons,as a problem ?.When if that was really the case they’d obviously be expected to welcome UKIP being onside with them in parliament to help face down the combination of an inevitably belligerent EU,regarding the supposed Brexit negotiations,and its remain supporters in parliament at home. :unamused:

The truth is as I’ve said the Cons are just LibDems in blue clothes.Which is why we’ve already got Cons using a Conservative mandate to impose a LibDem type transport policy having told us the war against the motorist was supposedly over and who obviously prefer to ally themselves with the LibDems than UKIP, regarding the issue of Brexit and domestic policy.

While also telling us on the door step that they intend to protect the green belt areas.While at the same time imposing massive development quotas on the home counties based on the release of green belt land for development using the centralised powers within the NPPF,which they drafted with the help of Lib Dems,to impose it.Having told us that the NPPF was supposedly all about the transfer of development powers from central government to local government and local democracy.

Will I shut up calling a spade a spade concerning these liars.No I don’t think so.While assuming the electorate allows itself to be fooled by her then it will have got what it deserved when we find ourselves back where we were in 1979.On that note even Corbyn is now starting to make more sense than her. :imp:

62

Nicola Sturgeon April 17th 2017:
The Prime Minister isn’t even elected, at least I have a mandate from the people, she should hold an election!

Nicola Sturgeon April 18th 2017:
This is an absolute outrage, what a disgrace to call an election!

If May’s elected (Which I think she will) then this will shut people up about her not being elected.

She will also have her own mandate which I think will ditch alot of old Tory Cameron policies after all she claims she wants everyone to be looked after.

It would not be hard for her to get more votes if she offered stuff for those who’ve been hit by the cuts like those who are disabled. She could actually appeal to a lot of Labour voters.

I just can’t see Corbyn as a Leader. He’ll never get my vote while he’s a spineless rat anyway.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

63

JaxDemon:
Nicola Sturgeon April 17th 2017:
The Prime Minister isn’t even elected, at least I have a mandate from the people, she should hold an election!

Nicola Sturgeon April 18th 2017:
This is an absolute outrage, what a disgrace to call an election!

If May’s elected (Which I think she will) then this will shut people up about her not being elected.

She will also have her own mandate which I think will ditch alot of old Tory Cameron policies after all she claims she wants everyone to be looked after

She would obviously have a lot more money to spend on our own people if we stop giving away loads of it to the EU,in the form of contributions,first.In which case why the delay of Brexit.When logically surely she’d have wanted to get Brexit over with as quick as possible well within the existing administration term.‘Then’ go to the country on a supposed increased public spending ticket with a lot more cash available to meet the increased spending requirement.Also with no chance of the Brexit issue effecting the outcome of the vote because it would obviously have all been done and settled at that point.

As for Sturgeon no SNP MP actually voted against the decision to dissolve parliament.Which seems strange assuming Sturgeon is supposedly so against it.While if May is supposedly as strong and the leaver she says she is then she would have been expected to say that a so called Nationalist,standing on a Federal EU rule ticket,or let alone the fact that Sturgeon is happy to take 56 seats for less than 1.5 million votes within the joke of the UK electoral system,has no right to talk about democracy.The fact that May didn’t confirms everything about May’s true agenda.

As for May being elected,no PM is actually elected by the the electorate they are appointed by their respective Party.In which case assuming the Cons even actually get a majority,exactly what would have changed.Either regarding her own constituency mandate or the rest of her administration assuming all the same MP’s,including her, are going to stand for the same constituencies ?.

64

express.co.uk/news/uk/794548 … xit-remain

It seems clear enough that the Cons,as a Party,had/have no intention whatsoever of honouring the referendum vote if it went Leave.With May having now dissolved her government as part of that agenda. :unamused:

65

CF, like you have i have grave fears over Brexit now, but not just Brexit.
Funny, my Mrs said the day the day the OUT vote was declared last June, ‘we won’t be coming out at least in the true sense of the word’, and she has an uncanny knack of being right about a lot of stuff.

I don’t believe for one minute that the reasons given for calling the election are as stated, only weeks ago election was ruled out by Teresa Cameron in lippy and high heels, they’d struggle to lie straight in bed, but i don’t believe halting Brexit or altering Brexit is the main reason, though that was going to happen anyway.

I think there’s something nasty on the way, either a massive downturn, possibly global, one which makes 2008 look like a minor blip, or massive interest rate rises which will have a slightly different effect, in that the nation won’t be able to service it’s ridiculous debt, and millions of households who believed the spin that the economy is in safe hands (now Osborne’s gorn off to edit some propaganda of his own) and have themselves ■■■■■■ money up the wall like it was going out of fashion, feeling wealthy cos their already overpriced houses bought with mortgages which can’t possibly stay at these levels appear to be still going up in value, and borrowed heavily for new German or Jag/Range Rover/Tata motorised tat to impress the neighbours.
I fear there is some serious crap on route on a direct path to the fan, around 2019 at a guess.

66

Juddian:
CF, like you have i have grave fears over Brexit now, but not just Brexit.
Funny, my Mrs said the day the day the OUT vote was declared last June, ‘we won’t be coming out at least in the true sense of the word’, and she has an uncanny knack of being right about a lot of stuff.

I don’t believe for one minute that the reasons given for calling the election are as stated, only weeks ago election was ruled out by Teresa Cameron in lippy and high heels, they’d struggle to lie straight in bed, but i don’t believe halting Brexit or altering Brexit is the main reason, though that was going to happen anyway

The only bit I disagree with you about is that the agenda isn’t mostly if not all about reversing the EU referendum vote and decision.

While it’s anyone’s guess as to how the electorate and even Farage can be so gullible as to believe a word she says.

independent.co.uk/news/iuk/h … 88546.html

When even she says one minute that her existing parliamentary majority was sufficient then she contradicts herself by rambling on about supposedly being obstructed by the opposition.Which can only mean that she’s lying.In that a majority means a majority and the one she had was obviously good enough to get the job done whether it was a parliamentary majority of just 1 or 100.Assuming that is the Cons were telling the truth about them being bound by whatever the electorate decided.Which has obviously been shown to be a blatant lie with the remainers among the Cons refusing to back down and get on with delivering Brexit.

In which case,assuming that she wins this unnecessary election,either possibly with a larger majority or a smaller majority or the same majority,what would have changed in that regard.While it’s obvious that losing her majority,which is the most likely result,will definitely mean the end of Brexit with her then deflecting the blame onto the majority opposition parties,all as cover for what was actually a pre planned remain Con Party stitch up from the time of the referendum result.That being to delay the Brexit process in order to buy time,so that they could then call an unnecessary election.Which is effectively a re run of the referendum but on constituency boundary lines which the remainers know they can’t possibly lose. :imp:

The big questions now that needs answering is how do the Cons and May supporters explain the contradiction in her ( rightly ) saying that the size of the Cons majority wasn’t an issue in the delivering of Brexit.Then dissolving her government and calling an election without even having got the Brexit process irrevocably well under way ?.Bearing in mind the example of what happened in the Richmond Park by election.On that note her agenda seems clear enough.

67

You really believe they’d not honour Brexit?

Don’t you think if that happened then UKIP would walk the general election 5 years later?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

68

JaxDemon:
You really believe they’d not honour Brexit?

Don’t you think if that happened then UKIP would walk the general election 5 years later?

It won’t be ‘they’ because if they lose their majority they can divert the blame onto the remain opposition parties.

While if they intended to ‘honour Brexit’ they would obviously have implemented it the day after the referendum vote to leave.Not put it on hold for around a year and then call an unnecessary election in which a very likely result is that the remain opposition parties,who are on record as wanting to overturn the result,either in the form of remain or EEA,gain a combined majority together with remain Con MP’s.Meanwhile how can UKIP ‘walk’ any election when their best shot is effectively nothing to show in parliament for 4 million votes with remainers holding an undoubted unarguable majority on a constituency boundary vote basis under the present electoral system.While your idea completely misses the issue of the Conservative remain vote in that regard,allied with the LibDem,SNP and Labour remain vote.With the Richmond Park by election result saying everything in that regard.With no reason to think that the LibDems won’t take more seats from the Cons on that basis.On that note this list also misses Raab’s seat here among others like
Kingston,Twickenham and possibly other large remain areas like Guildford.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 … rexiteers/

To which the Cons answer is that they intend to supposedly take loads of Labour Brexit votes.Yeah right when they’ve already had the chance to deliver and deliberately stalled it and in the knowledge that her Party is full of lying remainers who won’t want to give up the cheap labour opportunities provided by the EU single market,probably including herself.

Which leaves the questions if the Cons really intend to deliver Brexit why did May prefer to delay it and then dissolve her government for re election with the risk of the Richmond Park type effect.Rather than get Brexit irrevocably finalised,using her existing parliamentary majority,first ?.Or for that matter why/how did we end up with a committed remainer as PM instead of at least Davis or Raab etc ?.

69

If voting made any difference, do you think they would let you?

Every country, throughout history, has been ruled by a self serving group of people. Wether a king, an emperor, an African dictatorship, or a ‘elected government’, those in power are there to see their own, and their close friends/allies, wealth increase. These self serving rulers have not, and never will, ever given those whom they profit from, a choice. If, as in the case of a ‘modern’ 'democracy ', they let you vote, they set the goal posts to suit them. And, in the case of our ‘modern’ 'democracy ', these ‘rulers’ are little more than a front.
Even a revolution, will merely replace one set of self serving ■■■■■■■■ with another set of self serving ■■■■■■■■. See the French Revolution.
And whilst we are at the ‘delusions of fair play and equal rights’ stage. You know your famous Magna Carta? Fought for so hard to set free the common man from the tyranny of the King? For common man, read Barons. They wanted to better themselves. They cared not about the common man, who was as much a slave to the barons after Magna Carta as before. Spin doctoring was not invented by Mandelson you know…

70

Bang on ND

71

the nodding donkey:
And whilst we are at the ‘delusions of fair play and equal rights’ stage. You know your famous Magna Carta? Fought for so hard to set free the common man from the tyranny of the King? For common man, read Barons. They wanted to better themselves. They cared not about the common man, who was as much a slave to the barons after Magna Carta as before. Spin doctoring was not invented by Mandelson you know…

Let’s just say that by the standards of the day Anglo Saxon society was a lot more civilised and forward thinking than the invading Federalist Franco Norman dictatorship that took over the country from 1066. :frowning:

brh.org.uk/site/pamphleteer/ … democracy/

britainexpress.com/History/a … rdship.htm

With Magna Carta obviously being part of the latter not the former.With as usual the people being gullible enough to not chuck them all out when the so called ‘Conqueror’ had died.No surprise that there is no place for an England as a nation,with an English parliament,for the English people,within the Cons ideology.Just as they want to sell out and tie even the resulting Federal UK,to an even bigger Federal Europe.While pretending the opposite.Just like those Franco Norman barons pretending that they were for the freedom of the English.

Just as then we won’t fix the problems by just sitting around and moaning about nothing changes.Which leaves the question what happened to Farage’s call that ‘we want our country back’.With May’s delaying of Brexit and then obviously handing the agenda to the remainers on a plate,by dissolving her government,in an obvious plan to take out the supposed Con Brexit MP’s and create an unassailable remain majority in parliament,in no way fitting that call.

72

Carryfast:

the nodding donkey:
And whilst we are at the ‘delusions of fair play and equal rights’ stage. You know your famous Magna Carta? Fought for so hard to set free the common man from the tyranny of the King? For common man, read Barons. They wanted to better themselves. They cared not about the common man, who was as much a slave to the barons after Magna Carta as before. Spin doctoring was not invented by Mandelson you know…

Let’s just say that by the standards of the day Anglo Saxon society was a lot more civilised and forward thinking than the invading Federalist Franco Norman dictatorship that took over the country from 1066. :frowning:

brh.org.uk/site/pamphleteer/ … democracy/

britainexpress.com/History/a … rdship.htm

With Magna Carta obviously being part of the latter not the former.With as usual the people being gullible enough to not chuck them all out when the so called ‘Conqueror’ had died.No surprise that there is no place for an England as a nation,with an English parliament,for the English people,within the Cons ideology.Just as they want to sell out and tie even the resulting Federal UK,to an even bigger Federal Europe.While pretending the opposite.Just like those Franco Norman barons pretending that they were for the freedom of the English.

Just as then we won’t fix the problems by just sitting around and moaning about nothing changes.Which leaves the question what happened to Farage’s call that ‘we want our country back’.With May’s delaying of Brexit and then obviously handing the agenda to the remainers on a plate,by dissolving her government,in an obvious plan to take out the supposed Con Brexit MP’s and create an unassailable remain majority in parliament,in no way fitting that call.

I don’t know. Saxons came from Europe. Romans came from Europe. Danes came from Europe. Normans came from Europe. Then there was Willem III who came over from Holland for 30 years, to be replaced later by a succession of German royals (when royalty still ruled). Half your modern day politicos are from North 'o the border.
And as for the whole ‘taking back our own country’, why not give the Scots back theirs? The Welsh? But no, you use exactly the same arguments Europe uses to stop Scotland from gaining independence. Hipocricy at its finest.
And lest we forget, it took a bloody war before India regained it’s independence, and what exactly gave Britain any right to deny India it’s independence?
Regards Brexit, the reality is, that half the population want out, and half want to remain. Many of those who voted either way, did so either in error, because they thought they voted for something else, or because they erroneously believed the scaremongering that constituted ‘campaigning’. I am a remainer, but don’t think we should have any other referendums, because the result will always be a snapshot of ‘of the cuff’ voting by a small minority who determine the outcome. That small minority believed the hyperbole that all our whoes are the fault of European immigration, and that Brexit would mean a stop of all immigration.

73

the nodding donkey:
I don’t know. Saxons came from Europe. Romans came from Europe. Danes came from Europe. Normans came from Europe. Then there was Willem III who came over from Holland for 30 years, to be replaced later by a succession of German royals (when royalty still ruled). Half your modern day politicos are from North 'o the border.
And as for the whole ‘taking back our own country’, why not give the Scots back theirs? The Welsh? But no, you use exactly the same arguments Europe uses to stop Scotland from gaining independence. Hipocricy at its finest.
And lest we forget, it took a bloody war before India regained it’s independence, and what exactly gave Britain any right to deny India it’s independence?
Regards Brexit, the reality is, that half the population want out, and half want to remain. Many of those who voted either way, did so either in error, because they thought they voted for something else, or because they erroneously believed the scaremongering that constituted ‘campaigning’. I am a remainer, but don’t think we should have any other referendums, because the result will always be a snapshot of ‘of the cuff’ voting by a small minority who determine the outcome. That small minority believed the hyperbole that all our whoes are the fault of European immigration, and that Brexit would mean a stop of all immigration.

Firstly the referendum result didn’t end up at 50/50 while even if it did that still shouldn’t justify handing over the sovereignty of the country to the EU.That realistically being nothing much short of unanimity while still retaining the right of secession at any time in the future.

While the key point in all that is that a true Nationalist respects the right to self determination of other states.On that note yes I’d agree that it’s a contradiction to be anti Federalist in the case of Europe but not the UK.As I’ve said a Confederal government system would fix all of that both in the case of the EU and the UK.With ironically no party either understanding or wanting to understand the difference in democratic accountability,between a Confederation of sovereign states v a Federation of subservient non sovereign states.In which England has historically been no less subject to that one size fits all undemocratic centralised dictatorship as Scotland has been.Just as the Franco Normans and now the EU and its Federalist Conservative government puppets here have planned it all.

As for the immigration issue no one is saying that all our problems are the fault of immigrants.The issue is all about numbers either over supplying the labour market and over loading social provision or diluting the indigenous culture and identity.IE we have allowed in enough nothing more nothing less.While that should be our decision and ours alone not Merkel’s or Juncker’s or Tusk’s.

Having said that you obviously haven’t also pointed out the contradiction in so called Scottish ‘Nationalists’ supporting the idea of foreign Federal rule in the case of the EU,but not the UK.Which is no different to the hypocrisy and contradiction in those who are rightly opposed to the EU Federation but not the UK.The question then being is it actually possible for anyone to actually believe in that contradiction as opposed to having another different agenda.I think we can safely say that both the Cons and the SNP are all about Federalism and the liking for centralised government of Socialism respectively.

Which is why we’ve now got May having dissolved the government without having implemented Brexit as part of a remain alliance with the SNP etc to overturn the referendum decision.

With UKIP having lost the plot because they haven’t even worked out whether they are Federalists ( UK ) or Nationalists ( EU ) let alone having the intelligence to see that they’ve been played by May in that regard,as part of that ridiculous contradiction in their constitution in which they see the ideologically Federalist Cons as their natural allies. :unamused: Or for that matter that they would actually have been better off standing their ground in the European parliament and instead pushing for a Confederal Europe together with other Nationalist European groups.Which by definition should also include Scotland being given back its sovereignty as part of that. :bulb:

While the point is and what is certain here is that May hasn’t dissolved her government to help Brexit.More like exactly the opposite by using the remain vote to purge her supposed Brexit MP’s,as in the case of Zac Goldsmith.With the win win,from her and the remainers point of view,that the Cons will probably even end up as a minority government.With the resulting remain majority in parliament then quashing Brexit regardless.In which case I’d guess that this issue can’t/won’t be settled democratically as so often has historically been the case in the argument between Federalism and Nationalism.With it being no surprise that Federalists aren’t willing to recognise any democratic Nationalist majority vote. :imp:

74

Zac Goldsmith selected to fight the ultra safe Conservative seat of Richmond Park to see if he can win it back for the Conservatives.

The Tories are in the mire with their own local Parliamentary Party’s after insisting that Central Office has the right to impose a candidate. Not gone down well and some have refused to co-operate.

Labour are busy selecting candidates from the public sector, the unions, and their own siblings. No change there then.

David Milliband has been phoning elderly MP’s in safe seats to see if he can smooth the path to his own selection. Probably not until 2022.

Paul Nuttall is to stand in Boston and Skegness, home to the town with the highest Brexit vote in Britain. He will be up against the incumbent Tory MP, Matt Warman, who campaigned to remain. If he doesn’t win that one both he and UKIP are toast!

75

Theresa May joined the other 27 leaders in a special summit meeting in Brussels to discuss the negotiating position of the EU in Brexit talks. In fact, what they presented was not so much a negotiating position as an ultimatum to Britain – pay a £50billion divorce settlement, guarantee the rights of all EU citizens living in the UK, give Spain a veto on the future of Gibraltar and promise not to enforce border controls between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Britain would have to pay a huge price for leaving and Theresa May was ‘delusional’ if she thought the EU would enter trade talks before the money was paid.

The EU high command wants to punish Britain for leaving as a warning to other member states not to follow suit but it seems to be in a state of denial about future financial realities. Where the EU is weak is that the money collected from the UK represented 31% of the total subsides paid out by Brussels, yet there seems to be zero planning by the EU on how it can cover the loss of 31% of their funding in two years time. The EU appears to have decided to try and blackmail and bully the UK into paying £50b, plus continued payments for access. What is beyond dispute is that the EU can only continue as it is if they still have access to UK money. To get an exit agreement, either the UK will have to surrender to blackmail, or the EU will be forced to change its plans.

The interesting part is that the EU needs huge payments from the UK which May cannot justify. The EU will not accept restrictions on Free Movement of people while May cannot accept continued un-restricted movement. The EU has said the UK cannot be seen to benefit by leaving and the UK cannot just roll over and agree to terms that are purely intended as punishment.

There will be no agreements, just increasing hostility from the EU.

76

Stanley Knife:
Theresa May joined the other 27 leaders in a special summit meeting in Brussels to discuss the negotiating position of the EU in Brexit talks. In fact, what they presented was not so much a negotiating position as an ultimatum to Britain – pay a £50billion divorce settlement, guarantee the rights of all EU citizens living in the UK, give Spain a veto on the future of Gibraltar and promise not to enforce border controls between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Britain would have to pay a huge price for leaving and Theresa May was ‘delusional’ if she thought the EU would enter trade talks before the money was paid.

The EU high command wants to punish Britain for leaving as a warning to other member states not to follow suit but it seems to be in a state of denial about future financial realities. Where the EU is weak is that the money collected from the UK represented 31% of the total subsides paid out by Brussels, yet there seems to be zero planning by the EU on how it can cover the loss of 31% of their funding in two years time. The EU appears to have decided to try and blackmail and bully the UK into paying £50b, plus continued payments for access. What is beyond dispute is that the EU can only continue as it is if they still have access to UK money. To get an exit agreement, either the UK will have to surrender to blackmail, or the EU will be forced to change its plans.

The interesting part is that the EU needs huge payments from the UK which May cannot justify. The EU will not accept restrictions on Free Movement of people while May cannot accept continued un-restricted movement. The EU has said the UK cannot be seen to benefit by leaving and the UK cannot just roll over and agree to terms that are purely intended as punishment.

There will be no agreements, just increasing hostility from the EU.

The real question is why didn’t May just tell them that the single market is just a trade liability to us anyway and as such why would we be stupid enough to go on paying them loads of money for the privilege of being a net importer of EU products.As it stands the EU is playing off the remain vote here which is the real elephant in the room.May having dissolved her government actually having predictably weakened the Leave position in that regard.Whereas any decent leader would have said we now view the EU’s actions and demands as a threat to not just our sovereignty but also our national security and national interest.Including the fact that if this is the way the zb’s deal with the peaceful democratic secession of a member state now what will it be like or future generations getting into an argument with them in decades to come.The national security angle also ‘should’ then make it a criminal offence for anyone to then go on supporting the remain cause.In addition to them not accepting the referendum decision being an insult to the democratic process.

On that note it’s really now time for the Leave side to stand up be and counted by at least burning a few EU flags to let both Merkel and May know that we want out of the EU and out now on the hard Brexit manifesto we voted for and if it has to be on acrimonious terms then so be it.Probably even all the better anyway in paying the thieving gits nothing for the privilege with the win win of providing more jobs in our own economy for our own workers while also cutting the EU import bill.As for Gibraltar it’s ironic as to why May thinks anyone could care less about the place having made their decision to vote for remain in which case let Spain have the place back.

youtube.com/watch?v=DnKuwg9RzRY

77

Stanley Knife:
Zac Goldsmith selected to fight the ultra safe Conservative seat of Richmond Park to see if he can win it back for the Conservatives.

The Tories are in the mire with their own local Parliamentary Party’s after insisting that Central Office has the right to impose a candidate. Not gone down well and some have refused to co-operate.

Labour are busy selecting candidates from the public sector, the unions, and their own siblings. No change there then.

David Milliband has been phoning elderly MP’s in safe seats to see if he can smooth the path to his own selection. Probably not until 2022.

Paul Nuttall is to stand in Boston and Skegness, home to the town with the highest Brexit vote in Britain. He will be up against the incumbent Tory MP, Matt Warman, who campaigned to remain. If he doesn’t win that one both he and UKIP are toast!

Firstly the idea of not selecting Goldsmith in favour of his remainer rival would blow May’s plan wide open.In which case it’s better for her to re select Goldsmith and then let the LibDems take the seat again.Rather than face the obvious inconvenient question as to how nuking her government supposedly helps Brexit if she’s going after the remain vote in Richmond Park with a remain Con MP.While selecting Goldsmith allows her to divert attention in that regard,from her own real agenda,onto the LibDems.While paradoxically if the Richmond Park vote does now suddenly all decide to vote for supposed Brexiteer Goldsmith then the obvious question would be why and what do they know now that they didn’t before and what’s changed in that regard ?.IE do they now regard May as being on their side and obviously not that of Brexit and a vote for Goldsmith just helping with that.

As for UKIP why no questions from Farage along the lines of if the Cons are really all about strengthening their hand regards Brexit.Why wouldn’t they want to co operate with UKIP by helping UKIP to gain seats in strong Brexit constituencies like Boston,by withdrawing the Con candidate.In addition to the fact why would they see a UKIP presence in parliament as a threat and not an ally. :bulb:

As for Labour the big news is that Blair is trying to get back into a position of power on the grounds that Corbyn is supposedly too Eurosceptic.

As it stands everything points to May having dissolved her government and called a needless election with the aim of defeating the referendum decision by way of a resulting parliamentary remain alliance.Nothing else makes sense.

With the obvious only result that would strengthen Brexit being a Con minority government with UKIP holding the balance of power in a co alition with the Cons similar to that of the previous LibDemCon coalition.However for ‘some’ reason the Cons seem to see that idea as a threat not an asset.No prizes for guessing why that might be.While unbelievably UKIP just seem to have lost interest regardless,choosing instead to trust May.

78

Germany sees scope for sensible agreement on Gibraltar

The German Government believes Brexit offers “a possibly historic opportunity” for the UK and Spain to reach “a friendly and sensible” political agreement over Gibraltar’s legal status, according to Spanish press reports.
Martin Schäfer, spokesman at the Foreign Ministry, was asked about Gibraltar during a press conference and made clear that the German Government would not get involved in a “dispute” going back centuries.
But he was quoted by Spanish news agency Efe as saying that “one side or the other, probably the British side, will want to put Gibraltar on the agenda” for Brexit negotiations.
“The position of the German Government could not be clearer: we want a sensible and friendly political agreement between the states that are faced off politically and legally on this issue, in this case Spain and the United Kingdom,” he was quoted as saying.
“Perhaps the process for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU that is starting now is a historic opportunity to tackle and clarify this issue once and for all.”
According to the Spanish report, Mr Schäfer acknowledged that both the UK and Spain were adamant in their respective positions, with each government insisting there is nothing to discuss.

The problem is that Gibraltar has just insisted it will stand squarely with the rest of the United Kingdom over Brexit and told Brussels it no longer expects a special deal over single market access.

Previously ministers had said they would seek a special arrangement with Brussels which would allow the Rock’s booming services sector, and especially its finance companies, to retain passporting rights to the single market. However, it appears their minds have been changed by the EU’s decision to allow Spain to include a veto over future relations with the territory in the negotiating guidelines.

With Gibraltar having voted 95% remain the EU, and especially Spain, never expected Gibraltar to side with the UK, but blood is thicker than water it seems. Spain is not going to take this lying down, and if this is played calmly by the UK, Spain could veto any deal put forward which, to a hard-nosed Leaver like me, is exactly what we want.

79

Stanley Knife:
Spain is not going to take this lying down, and if this is played calmly by the UK, Spain could veto any deal put forward which, to a hard-nosed Leaver like me, is exactly what we want.

The only way we’ll get hard Brexit is with a government which can do protectionist tarrif barriers better than those which the EU is threatening.Which unfortunately goes against everything Con free markets ideology stands for.Which is why May’s obvious end game is an Isle of Man type EU/EEA stitch up in all but name because the Cons aren’t up for what it will take in the form of a trade war or at least the very real threat of a trade war.With lying fear mongering rhetoric in the article,like supposed ‘loss of access’ to EU markets, being part of that posturing.When the reality is full access as usual but subject to the threat of tarrif barriers against UK trade which the Cons have no intention of facing down with quotas against EU imports here in reprisal.Bearing in mind that we actually need to come out of this with a deal which allows ‘us’ to put barriers up against things like the EU single labour market and transport markets anyway with the threat of further trade barriers if the EU wants to retaliate.

Make no mistake that isn’t what the Cons are in it for.That being to get out of the referendum vote with as little,if any,real change as possible.

No surprise in that case that May would want to take advantage of the obviously remain Gibraltarians to now put on an act as suddenly turning hard Brexit leavers.So as to play the fear card,to add to and help her predictable the calls for ‘compromise’,in the form of an EEA type deal,for the consumption of the leave vote at home.As for Spain that’s obviously all part of he same act bearing in mind we had no serious issues with Spain over the place before we joined the scam so why suddenly now.

80

After reading the manifesto’s of the four leading parties (yes I am that sad) I can only come to the conclusion that the choice is between a commie, terrorist-loving tramp, a traitorous, anti-democratic liberal ■■■■■■, a clueless kipper and a big-state, Blairite Tory.

What a zbing choice! :unamused: