EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’... | Page 273 | Vital Football

EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’...

Downing Street has warned that a revolt by Tory Brexiteers could "seriously damage" the prime minister's attempts to get a revised Brexit deal. Does she really believe she can get the EU to accept her changes? There are many Brexiteers in her party and across the House, who have a much better plan than hers but she's gone down a route bound by her red lines and refuses to back down. The nation can't afford to let her dicker around with brinkmanship; it doesn't matter anymore how people voted but more to do with how businesses can carry on post-Brexit and preserve jobs etc.
 
'Shamina Begum wants to come back to the UK (she is just about to have a baby)'

She has no regrets about joining Isis , and wasn't fazed when she found a decapitated head in the bin !
 
valenciagill said:
It's indicative of why Britain voted to leave !
Medieval , third world barbarism is not welcome in the West , and thanks to Merkel and open-border fans like yourself !
Islam and it's evil culture isn't wanted
Click to expand...
I don't think that had anything whatsoever to do with people voting leave. Those that voted leave because of immigration did so because of vast numbers of EU citizens taking our jobs, our houses, our hospital places, our doctors' appointments and clogging up our roads. Post-Brexit, the Govt recognises that the UK will still need immigrant workers and will attempt to control numbers. In doing so, EU citizens will be treated on a par with those of [say] Commonwealth countries, which can only mean an increase in muslim workers.

Still, you support Brexit and, as a consequence, the of a broader immigration policy. Had the UK stuck to EU rules, unlike other EU states, many EU workers would have been sent home long ago but the UK chose a more laissez faire approach. The problem with you VG is that you see almost everything through far-right and racist eyes and the world is not like that.
 
nitram77 said:
We definitely need a new political party in this country.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest bearing in mind it should have broad appeal across the nation? Far-right or far-left won't work and anything based on religion [for or against] won't work either. The Communist Party has failed to gain little more than a seat on some local councils and, collectively, the BNP, NF and UKIP have not done much better.
 
nitram77 said:
It appears Labour are in turmoil, attacking their own leader as well as a British hero.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...endum-or-we-quit/ar-BBTyfzc?OCID=ansmsnnews11

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/poli...rchill-a-villain/ar-BBTyDSD?OCID=ansmsnnews11

We definitely need a new political party in this country.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile the tories tried to oust their own leader, endorsed her with an underwhelming vote and promptly humiliated her by voting down her plan conclusively. Every day a group goes to threaten her with withdrawing their support.

We live in divided and deluded times and are cursed with a very poor generation of politicians, who don't want to take responsibility for anything and are terrified of leadership. The electorate are a mirror image, waiting to damn anyone, who tries to make progress. We have what we deserve and it will continue to deteriorate until we get honest with orselves.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
What do you suggest bearing in mind it should have broad appeal across the nation? Far-right or far-left won't work and anything based on religion [for or against] won't work either. The Communist Party has failed to gain little more than a seat on some local councils and, collectively, the BNP, NF and UKIP have not done much better.
Click to expand...
We need a party that puts the UK first, I have no interest in right or left and neither should they, just do what is best for the majority.
I like the socialist ideal of education, health and welfare for all, the problem is it needs paying for and to date the most successful way of doing it is having a strong capitalist economy.
How those two opposing concepts can be brought together is the big question, with the close minded politicians we currently have it seems the impossible dream.
 
nitram77 said:
How those two opposing concepts can be brought together is the big question, with the close minded politicians we currently have it seems the impossible dream.
Click to expand...

IMO - free market capitalism managed by a left of centre government is the best way to manage this.

A free market run by a mid right hand sided party ends up with under funded public services - which we're experiencing right now with particular reference to the police.

A free market run by a mid to far left party can end up with rising national debt, inefficient/dying industries/business being subsidised by the tax payer due to union pressure etc, and a general lack of innovation.

The problem with the sensible choice above is that it's a very boring option.... and is shouted down by populists on both the right and left offering promises that they can't keep, grossly exaggerating the ills of the world, and blaming the problems on the part of society that suits their narrative.

Which leads to the shite state of affairs we're in at the moment
 
The so called free market is gone. The system is kaput and that is why the "sensible" options aren't making headway because they were tried and found wanting. That way may be fine for the settled haves but it's been decimating others for decades now and they have had enough. New solutions, and radical ones, required. No one is dying to vote for an anodyne party led by a smart suited blatherer.
 
So nobody can criticise Churchill. Suggest people learn some history and then comment maybe. Look at his career and actions pre war. Also if hed had his way there would not have been any spitfires, he wanted bombers in the build up to war. Gallipoli anyone, or maybe planning, provoking and prolonging the general strike plus his other anti working class actions. The good points we already know.

Its also freedom of speech whether we like it or not. Most great people had pros and cons, are we not allowed to comment on that. End of historical studies? Was Stalin a great man who cannot be criticised, he won the war for russia after all?
 
Last edited:
Jerryattrick said:
So nobody can criticise Churchill. Suggest people learn some history and then comment maybe. Look at his career and actions pre war. Also if hed had his way there would not have been any spitfires, he wanted bombers in the build up to war. Gallipoli anyone, or maybe planning, provoking and prolonging the general strike plus his other anti working class actions. The good points we already know.

Its also freedom of speech whether we like it or not. Most great people had pros and cons, are we not allowed to comment on that. End of historical studies? Was Stalin a great man who cannot be criticised, he won the war for russia after all?
Click to expand...
Did anybody say you can't criticise Churchill, but hearing a modern day politician trying to rubbish his memory to score cheap political points is an act of cowardice. Churchills actions have to be viewed in the context of the time they occurred, we all except now that such action is wrong but at a time when women didn't have the right to vote, human rights wasn't even a word, Britain ruled an Empire, those actions would be the normal.
 
nitram77 said:
Did anybody say you can't criticise Churchill, but hearing a modern day politician trying to rubbish his memory to score cheap political points is an act of cowardice. Churchills actions have to be viewed in the context of the time they occurred, we all except now that such action is wrong but at a time when women didn't have the right to vote, human rights wasn't even a word, Britain ruled an Empire, those actions would be the normal.
Click to expand...

There was a clip on the news and McDonnell was not making a speech. It was some sort of Q&A where for some reason he was asked his opinion of Churchill. He called him a villain in respect of one incident from back in 1910. What was he meant to say? Lie or just say "no comment"?

Gallipoli has quite rightly also been mentioned as another one of Churchill's "cons".

John McDonnell was not of voting age at the first election after World War II and yet Attlee was elected ahead of Churchill so he was hardly universally popular even then.
 
nitram77 said:
It appears Labour are in turmoil, attacking their own leader as well as a British hero.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...endum-or-we-quit/ar-BBTyfzc?OCID=ansmsnnews11

We definitely need a new political party in this country.
Click to expand...

Do you regard that as new news? The same old treacherous names that tried to oust Corbyn at the time of the coup, having quietly supported the Mr Bean lookalike stone hugger for five years before the inevitable Tory overall majority win of 2015 - Chris Leslie, Chris Bryant, Owen Smith, Chuka Umunna, etc.

At least Hilary Benn is not advocating a second referendum and neither is Stephen Kinnock .

If the rebels do set up their own party, will they have the decency to resign and run against Labour candidates in a by-elections? Would be interesting. I suspect that some dead wood would be cut out.
 
McDonnell was asked to give a one word answer to the question Churchill hero or villain. He used two words: Tonypandy - villain. I don't buy the fake rage of Labour "moderates" and Tory rent-a-quote MPs. McDonnell is shown as a fool not a treasonous monster.

The one word answer should have been "or" but if he was going to stretch to two then no comment would have been better. I can confidently state that the outrage would have been just as contrived at that comment. Churchill has beciome a tory totem , which they use to glorify their feeble impersonations, demand absolute submission from opponents to the tory hero story and to wrap themselves in the flag. It's pathetic.

Churchill was a war time hero and that should be easy for all of us to agree to. A lot of his other history is more questionable and it's perfectly legitimate to say so without detracting from his status as our war time leader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.