Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[Railops]

No, if you asked people for one word to describe her, it would be "who?" Although to accuse her of being anti-white is another step entirely.

You joking she's probably one of the most well known politicians ? in the country, the BBC and CH 4 have her on speed dial she's never off the tv.

 

[fowler9]

I don't particularly like Diane Abbott but I think to say she is anti white is a leap too far towards paranoia.

 

[gareth950]

Because if they didn't mean it, they shouldn't have written it. And Leave will keep hearing and hearing about it until everyone gets seen to in A+E within minutes, everyone gets to see a doctor the same day they ring up and we have our NHS operations when they are scheduled, and not cancelled due to shortages.

And if it's not there to make people's minds up pre-voting, what the adjective is it doing there in the first place, then?

Leave started it.....their lies, not ours.

The £350 million on the side of the bus wasn't the only outright lie about the NHS last June. The official Leave campain, 'Vote Leave' based their whole decietful campaign around 'saving our NHS'.

Cast your mind back to their shameful referendum broadcast: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h_MzHFiu-6Y

'We send £350 million a week to the EU, that's enough money to build one new hospital every week.............'
Then you have the split screen when the poor, coughing old lady is seen instantly in an NHS 'outside the EU' in an near empty A&E waiting room, 'cos we've sent all those foreigners that work as low paid health care assistants in the NHS back home', but in the NHS 'inside the EU' she's still sat in a crowded waiting room, by the time the 'outside the EU' NHS has diagnosed her and sent her home.

It was a shameful, deceitful referendum broadcast full of lies that never should have been allowed to air. So there is no way that anyone who voted last June on the basis of Leave campaign propaganda and what they read in the right wing newspapers could have made an 'informed decision' about the way they cast their vote.

Can any of our Leave members defend that referendum broadcast please?

 

[EM2]

If you walked the streets of this country and asked people one word to describe the despicable woman - it would be racist.

It would more likely to be 'Labour'.

 

[bramling]

The £350 million on the side of the bus wasn't the only outright lie about the NHS last June. The official Leave campain, 'Vote Leave' based their whole decietful campaign around 'saving our NHS'.

Cast your mind back to their shameful referendum broadcast: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h_MzHFiu-6Y

'We send £350 million a week to the EU, that's enough money to build one new hospital every week.............'
Then you have the split screen when the poor, coughing old lady is seen instantly in an NHS 'outside the EU' in an near empty A&E waiting room, 'cos we've sent all those foreigners that work as low paid health care assistants in the NHS back home', but in the NHS 'inside the EU' she's still sat in a crowded waiting room, by the time the 'outside the EU' NHS has diagnosed her and sent her home.

It was a shameful, deceitful referendum broadcast full of lies that never should have been allowed to air. So there is no way that anyone who voted last June on the basis of Leave campaign propaganda and what they read in the right wing newspapers could have made an 'informed decision' about the way they cast their vote.

Can any of our Leave members defend that referendum broadcast please?

It certainly isn't for leave voters to be defending any referendum broadcast. Whatever its content, it was put on public broadcast, and thus fully available to be debated, discussed and (if necessary) debunked ad infinitum at the time.

I certainly didn't make my mind up based on any promises by the leave campaigns (official or otherwise), and I don't know anyone that did.

 

[gareth950]

It certainly isn't for leave voters to be defending any referendum broadcast. Whatever its content, it was put on public broadcast, and thus fully available to be debated, discussed and (if necessary) debunked ad infinitum at the time.

I certainly didn't make my mind up based on any promises by the leave campaigns (official or otherwise), and I don't know anyone that did.

Oh come on, you might not of but you can't deny that 90% of joe public who don't take the time to do in depth research into political issues in the run up to an election or referendum and who do believe broadcasts like that and what they read in the Mail DID make their mind up based on false Leave promises.

I have family in Essex who did just that, and I distinctly remember seeing many news reports in the days after the referendum result with Leave voters claiming 'think of all the money that will now be going to our NHS', not least from the most heavily Leave area in Wales, Ebbw Vale.

 

[EM2]

I certainly didn't make my mind up based on any promises by the leave campaigns (official or otherwise), and I don't know anyone that did.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2877234&postcount=4962

Plenty of people did.

 

[Bromley boy]

Duplicated post whilst editing.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't particularly like Diane Abbott but I think to say she is anti white is a leap too far towards paranoia.

She certainly has form for going on record with comments that are close to racist, criticising the appointment of "blue-eyed Finnish" nurses to a hospital in an ethnically diverse area of London and stating that "white people like to divide and rule".

She's also claimed that "the British invented racism".

All of these are generalised, borderline racist, comments and you can only imagine the reaction if the same comments were made by a white politician about black people, or other ethnic groups.

 

[simonw]

Are you suggesting control of national borders would not be widely adopted by European countries if it was an option under full EU membership?

Many borders existed in name only before agreement was,reached on free movement and can be decomposed when circumstances require. There is no great wish to reintroduce them in most countries.

 

[Bromley boy]

Oh come on, you might not of but you can't deny that 90% of joe public who don't take the time to do in depth research into political issues in the run up to an election or referendum and who do believe broadcasts like that and what they read in the Mail DID make their mind up based on false Leave promises.

I have family in Essex who did just that, and I distinctly remember seeing many news reports in the days after the referendum result with Leave voters claiming 'think of all the money that will now be going to our NHS', not least from the most heavily Leave area in Wales, Ebbw Vale.

You're quite right, of course, but the same can be said for many who voted remain. Living in a democracy does not guarantee that everyone who votes will be educated and knowledgeable, neither is that desirable.

It's also true that educated and knowledgeable people (as I am sure all who post on this forum are ) are equally polarised and can be found at opposite sides of the debate.

Nobody, however well educated, knows what the eventual outcome of Brexit will be.

 

[simonw]

You've touched on the root of the EU problem. It acts like a parliament and legislature, but has no formal opposition. There is no debate about what the EU "is", nor what its future direction might be. Ministers are EU enthusiasts who support the idea of an expanding Europe with more power to the executive. It's effectively a one party super state.

The role and duties of the parliament are set out in the various EU treaties.
Whilst there is no formal opposition, there are party groupings and debates and there is no government. Not all parliaments look like the UK one. In fact few do.

 

[Dave1987]

So May expects to get a good trade deal for the UK by being a "bloody difficult woman" towards Junker. That sure sounds like you are building a good relationship for a prosperous relationship with good trading ties in the future there May.... NOT!! Does she not realise this is not about her looking good by giving the EU leaders a bloody nose but the future of the British economy is on the line here? Around HALF of our annual GDP relies on trade with the EU yet she is only interested in not being put in her place by people who know she is desperate for trade deals.

 

[edwin_m]

Those chips do look nice though - I don't see the reason for the face. Unless they were raw.

I don't have much inclination to defend Theresa May, but she is apparently diabetic and shouldn't really be eating chips. Possibly she had some thrust in her hand and isn't sure what to do with them.

I saw those pics on Yahoo and both my wife and I said she looked just like my aunt. But when I went back to show my son the item had gone off the site, and the diabetes issue may be why.

 

[fowler9]

She certainly has form for going on record with comments that are close to racist, criticising the appointment of "blue-eyed Finnish" nurses to a hospital in an ethnically diverse area of London and stating that "white people like to divide and rule".

She's also claimed that "the British invented racism".

All of these are generalised, borderline racist, comments and you can only imagine the reaction if the same comments were made by a white politician about black people, or other ethnic groups.

Any citations for any of that? I'll back you if you have. In context would be nice and not just random quotes.

 

[Bromley boy]

Any citations for any of that? I'll back you if you have. In context would be nice and not just random quotes.

That's a fair request, see below.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12029702.Abbott_denies_attack_on_nurses_was_racist/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hite-people-love-playing-divide-and-rule.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/dianne_abbot__britains_most_racist_politician.html

(I know the American Thinker, in particular, is conservative and of course all media sources are biased, but the quotes are accurate to my knowledge).

 

[najaB]

That's a fair request, see below.

The first comment is impossible for me to even attempt to defend, but to be fair to her there is some merit to the idea that white racists do attempt to foster disunity in non-white communities.

And the 'British invented racism' comment is being taken out of context somewhat - the point she was making was that racism wasn't a uniquely 1960's American phenomenon, that it was an export to the Colonies along with the original settlers. So I'd class that as a valid point, badly made.

 

[meridian2]

Many borders existed in name only before agreement was,reached on free movement and can be decomposed when circumstances require. There is no great wish to reintroduce them in most countries.

As a large island surrounded by a number of smaller ones, Britain cannot be border free.

 

[Bromley boy]

The first comment is impossible for me to even attempt to defend, but to be fair to her there is some merit to the idea that white racists do attempt to foster disunity in non-white communities.

And the 'British invented racism' comment is being taken out of context somewhat - the point she was making was that racism wasn't a uniquely 1960's American phenomenon, that it was an export to the Colonies along with the original settlers. So I'd class that as a valid point, badly made.

I take your point on the "British invented racism" comment.

The fact remains, taking all her previous comments in the round, a generous interpretation is that she has a serious chip on her shoulder. A less generous one is that she is a borderline racist dining out on the fact she is herself in an ethnic minority and apparently believes that, as such, nothing she thinks or says can be "racist".

Of course that's without even beginning to consider her spectacular incompetence as a politician, enormous hypocrisy, and the fact that the idea of her being Home Secretary is, frankly, terrifying!

 

[simonw]

As a large island surrounded by a number of smaller ones, Britain cannot be border free.

It could if it wished, but it doesn't wish so at present and may never do so and the EU treaties recognise that. But that wasn't the point behind my post.

 

[najaB]

The fact remains, taking all her previous comments in the round, a generous interpretation is that she has a serious chip on her shoulder. A less generous one is that she is a borderline racist dining out on the fact she is herself in an ethnic minority and apparently believes that, as such, nothing she thinks or says can be "racist".

To be honest, the first statement quoted above - and the subsequent attempts to defend/explain it - is enough to justify her entrance fee to the racism club.

 

[meridian2]

The role and duties of the parliament are set out in the various EU treaties.
Whilst there is no formal opposition, there are party groupings and debates and there is no government. Not all parliaments look like the UK one. In fact few do.

There are groupings looking after their own interests, but no continual debating chamber based on primary issues. The assumption is that Europe will include nations of widely differing histories and economies, which will be absorbed into Franco-German style centralised control overseen by a large public sector administering to highly specified rules and guidance. Not all countries function under such a system, nor is it desirable in all situations. The system is slow to deal with change and unresponsive to volatile financial and political situations, as born out by the difference between Britain's "let's get on with Brexit" approach, and Juncker's insistence on the observance of the minutiae of red tape and bureaucracy protocols.

I think the EU commission is fundamentally dishonest about its objectives, and intends to pursue them by stealth. I don't believe it's lacking a philosophical structure, I think it's not going public about what that philosophy is.

 

[Bromley boy]

To be honest, the first statement quoted above - and the subsequent attempts to defend/explain it - is enough to justify her entrance fee to the racism club.

Agreed. People of her ilk, both left and right wing, who themselves espouse racist views whilst pretending otherwise do a great disservice to the fight against racism generally, in my view, and only sow further division and disunity.

She's an absolute shower, along with the rest of the shadow cabinet who are a motley connection of extremists, nutters and irrelevant unknowns with their eyes on stalks, way out of their depth.

I almost wonder if Corbyn's Baldrick-style "cunning plan" is to surround himself with people so utterly incompetent that they (almost-but-not-quite) make him look half decent, in comparison.

We will find out, in due course, if that plan has worked.

 

[meridian2]

It could if it wished, but it doesn't wish so at present and may never do so and the EU treaties recognise that. But that wasn't the point behind my post.

Continental counties have always had a permeability that Britain lacks, for better or worse. It's one of the reasons European borders have been subject to continual change and land grabs. It's also why the EU want a political umbrella that Britain hasn't needed, and have moved from a perfectly good trading organisation of near neighbours to a federal superstate bent on total assimilation.

 

[EM2]

...will be absorbed into Franco-German style centralised control overseen by a large public sector administering to highly specified rules and guidance.

There is no evidence of this.

Juncker's insistence on the observance of the minutiae of red tape and bureaucracy protocols.

Abiding by the rules, you mean? Surprised that you didn't just call him a jobsworth.

I think the EU commission is fundamentally dishonest about its objectives, and intends to pursue them by stealth. I don't believe it's lacking a philosophical structure, I think it's not going public about what that philosophy is.

I notice that all your anti-EU rhetoric is prefaced by 'I think', not 'I know'.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think the EU commission is fundamentally dishonest about its objectives, and intends to pursue them by stealth. I don't believe it's lacking a philosophical structure, I think it's not going public about what that philosophy is.

A position amply backed up by the highly dubious passage of the Lisbon Treaty and the (notably similar to the Lib-Dem's view on Brexit) approach of the EU:

i.e.
"If we don't like the answer we get, to a question we ask, we will simply keep on asking it until we get the answer we do want."

 

[meridian2]

There is no evidence of this.

Abiding by the rules, you mean? Surprised that you didn't just call him a jobsworth.

I notice that all your anti-EU rhetoric is prefaced by 'I think', not 'I know'.

If Juncker were merely a jobsworth rather than a self-serving apparatchik who has achieved high office and displays totalitarian tendencies, we could ignore him.
I preface with I think because much of the EU's intent is written between the lines and exploits the gaps therein. Which of us is correct will be born out by Juncker's behaviour in his Brexit dealings. So far he's performing to expectations.

 

[Bromley boy]

The impression is that the Commisison reaches a policy decision in principle

What naturally follows is the passage of the Commission's proposals through the "Parliament" which can vote on amendments, or even an outright rejection, although I believe it has never, as a matter of fact, outrightly rejected any of the Commission's proposals.

It is therefore notable, although highly unusual when discussing a body that we in the UK understand to be a "Parliament", that the EU "Parliament" is, in fact, nothing more than a de facto rubber stamping exercise for the EU Commission's self originated, self serving, legislative proposals.*

It's also rather worrying that the European Parliament, as the only EU body comprised of elected representatives of the member states, cannot originate "legislation" within the EU's remit.

This absolute lack of democractic accountability was one of the core reasons underpinning my leave vote.

*I challenge anyone in the remain camp on here to refute this point, in particular. If you can I'm all ears. I've honestly yet to hear a decent argument to that effect.

 

[Bromley boy]

If Juncker were merely a jobsworth rather than a self-serving apparatchik who has achieved high office and displays totalitarian tendencies, we could ignore him.
I preface with I think because much of the EU's intent is written between the lines and exploits the gaps therein. Which of us is correct will be born out by Juncker's behaviour in his Brexit dealings. So far he's performing to expectations.

Not to mention being a functional alcoholic.

 

[Railops]

That's a fair request, see below.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12029702.Abbott_denies_attack_on_nurses_was_racist/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hite-people-love-playing-divide-and-rule.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/dianne_abbot__britains_most_racist_politician.html

(I know the American Thinker, in particular, is conservative and of course all media sources are biased, but the quotes are accurate to my knowledge).

This quote from 2010 where she is saying white males should be at the front of the queue when it comes to public sector job cuts is probably her most racist comment ever.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/199632/Diane-Abbott-Protect-women-and-black-workers-from-job-cuts

Diane Abbott: Protect women and black workers from job cuts.
LABOUR leader candidate Diane Abbott was plunged into a new race storm last night after calling for black public-sector workers to be shielded from job cuts.The Left-wing MP claimed ethnic background and gender should be considered when drawing up hit-lists for redundancy in the Government’s austerity drive.

But that sparked fury with critics warning that putting white men at the front of the queue for the sack risked inflaming racial tensions.

She's a copper bottomed full on racist.