Post: #1951

Watch the video here:

   

I think she'll be ok.

The job of post-Brexit prime minister is a tough one. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Post: #1952

The country needs leadership after David Cameron decided to bail. I'm more interested in who Theresa May fills her Cabinet with now.

Post: #1953

The EU is a sinking ship. The markets and Soros of the world may want it otherwise but the UK needed to bail from the EU experiment before things go critical. The government was given a mandate from someone (either royal or the people) and it will do it. I'm tempted to believe the Queen and royals are secretly for Brexit and are using their levers of power to ensure this happens. The mass resignations don't make any sense.

I expect things in mainland Europe to go from bad to worse in the coming year. The UK saved itself.

Post: #1954

Breaking news- Theresa May is set to succeed David Cameron on Wednesday.

Post: #1955

(07-11-2016 11:23 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  The EU is a sinking ship. The markets and Soros of the world may want it otherwise but the UK needed to bail from the EU experiment before things go critical. The government was given a mandate from someone (either royal or the people) and it will do it. I'm tempted to believe the Queen and royals are secretly for Brexit and are using their levers of power to ensure this happens. The mass resignations don't make any sense.

I expect things in mainland Europe to go from bad to worse in the coming year. The UK saved itself.

There is definitely merit to this line of thought.
As Roosh pointed out the day after the results of the referendum came out, the big name politicians who were leading the "remain part of the EU" campaign closed down shop almost overnight and apparently accepted the results of the referendum....which is very strange as in the past they have always done the opposite when they don't get the result they want. Perhaps they all actually wanted to exit the EU but could never say so publicly. The only politicians and influential people still fighting right now to stay part of the EU are just the crybabies.

Also suspicious is how the big name "leave" campaigners have also all quit, not waiting until the official exit is signed on paper.
It just smells of bribes and payoffs to get them to shut up and go away.
What the hell is going on here anyway ?

Particularly interesting is the fact that all the betting agencies in the UK got this one wrong. The bookies are notoriously accurate when it come to predicting odds of almost anything to ensure they don't pay out too much to people making big bets. How they managed to get this one wrong is a real mystery.


I would like to propose an alternate theory here:
Perhaps the "remain" vote actually was going to win and those in power rigged it so that "leave" came out on top.
Why would they do such a thing ?
One reason maybe the euro is about to collapse and the UK does not want to pay to help to bail Europe out....but we won't know until a real decision is made and we see how events in Europe and the world develop. We have to remember the main thing here:

As of right now the UK is still offically part of the EU.
We cannot be sure of anything, unless the UK government officially declares it wants to leave.


Theresa May has said there will not be a 2nd referendum on Brexit.
However, that does not stop her (or a future UK government) from calling a different sort of referendum, such as:


Do you approve of the UK government's exit plan agreed with the EU ?


If enough people reject that, the UK can still stay in the EU.

Post: #1956

(07-11-2016 12:00 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  As Roosh pointed out the day after the results of the referendum came out, the big name politicians who were leading the "remain part of the EU" campaign closed down shop almost overnight and apparently accepted the results of the referendum....which is very strange as in the past they have always done the opposite when they don't get the result they want. Perhaps they all actually wanted to exit the EU but could never say so publicly.

It's quite common. Politicians are loyal only to power. Switching sides for the sake of your political career is to be expected from them, not surprising. Remain was just a safer political bet, but if you can sell out your remain stock before the next guy you can still cash in on a leave win.

Post: #1957

Not a fan of May but, on the bright side, a quick replacement for Cameron and Brexit-orientated government is what we need. The longer the turmoil continues, the greater chance of betrayal. Let's all keep our fingers crossed but it's looking hopeful that Brexit will actually happen.

Post: #1958

(07-11-2016 10:10 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  Watch the video here:

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-means-brexit-conservative-leadership-no-attempt-remain-inside-eu-leave-europe-a7130596.html][/url]

I think she'll be ok.

The job of post-Brexit prime minister is a tough one. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I don't think she will.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/...haria-law/

Quote:when questioned on whether on condition of remaining in the single market Britain would have to retain freedom of movement with European Union (EU) nationals, and on her position on sharia law in the UK, Mrs. May gave vague, mealy-mouthed responses.

Post: #1959

(07-11-2016 12:00 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  Particularly interesting is the fact that all the betting agencies in the UK got this one wrong. The bookies are notoriously accurate when it come to predicting odds of almost anything to ensure they don't pay out too much to people making big bets. How they managed to get this one wrong is a real mystery.

In the months/weeks leading up to the election, some large bets were regularly placed on Remain winning. These larger bets counteracted the more numerous but smaller bets placed on Leave; sufficiently big enough to move the odds in Remain's favor.

Who placed these large Remain bets is a mystery. Big banks? George "Euro Ballin'" Soros?

Zero Hedge: Strange Betting Behind Brexit Odds

Post: #1960

Didn't one of the PM candidates just say that being a mother makes her a better choice? If I understand correctly, she now has the media and feminists going crazy. Great stuff.

Post: #1961

If any of you guys knew Theresa Mays' work as Home Secretary you wouldn't be happy about her becoming the PM.

She cut family benefits and shelters which benefited womens health, well-being and security from abusive partners. This is a woman who is now in charge of a country which wants to be free from EU political rule, who sold her own sex down the toilet for whatever reasons.

Oh yeah, the police don't like her either.

Now there could be a possibility of Hillary Clinton, Merkel and Theresa May in charge of the most influential Western countries in human history. Facing off against chess playing Russia and muscle-flexing China.

I sure hope the Americans have the silent majority voting Trump because the alternative will be disastrous.

Post: #1962

Ohh nooo...

Post: #1963

(07-11-2016 01:53 PM)C-Note Wrote:  Didn't one of the PM candidates just say that being a mother makes her a better choice? If I understand correctly, she now has the media and feminists going crazy. Great stuff.

Andrea Leadsom.

She dropped out of the contest today, gifting the position to Theresa May.

Her comments about being a mother were taken way out of context and used against her by the establishment's propaganda department/media.

Post: #1964

If I recall, May was the one who promised to drastically reduce net immigration at the last Tory conference, and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it, allowing net immigration to stay at the same massive rate it was before. She seems like a charlatan of the first rate, which is sadly representative of a party that seems more Blairite than Labour. The Tories aren't conservatives and its leadership is probably more pro-EU than any other British party save the SNP, so why is this a surprise?

Post: #1965

(07-11-2016 02:36 PM)rotekz Wrote:  Ohh nooo...

Post: #1966

(07-11-2016 02:11 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  If any of you guys knew Theresa Mays' work as Home Secretary you wouldn't be happy about her becoming the PM.

She cut family benefits and shelters which benefited womens health, well-being and security from abusive partners. This is a woman who is now in charge of a country which wants to be free from EU political rule, who sold her own sex down the toilet for whatever reasons.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you are saying she cut funding to govt programs set to "help women".

If so, GREAT! That sounds like a big net benefit to all citizens.

The state is an inefficient provider of services, and on top of that it is doing so with stolen (tax) money.

Also, the aims of such programs rarely (if ever) match the results.

A program called "The Digestive Care Aid Act For Bowel Wellness" usually consists of a rusty extra-large drill bit shoved up your ass.

As a final note, such programs -- in order to justify their existence -- will constantly move the goalposts on what "abusive partners" means, so they can continually have a new "problem" to "solve".

Not a scenario that benefits sexual relations or women, really.

Post: #1967

(07-11-2016 12:55 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(07-11-2016 10:10 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  Watch the video here:

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-means-brexit-conservative-leadership-no-attempt-remain-inside-eu-leave-europe-a7130596.html][/url]

I think she'll be ok.

The job of post-Brexit prime minister is a tough one. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I don't think she will.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/...haria-law/

Quote:when questioned on whether on condition of remaining in the single market Britain would have to retain freedom of movement with European Union (EU) nationals, and on her position on sharia law in the UK, Mrs. May gave vague, mealy-mouthed responses.

My gut tells me that her role as Prime Minister is pretty much a 'sacrificial' one - her purpose chiefly being as executor of Article 50 - which she's now publicly committed herself to. I doubt she'll last too long and will eventually step down - maybe for 'health reasons' or whatnot.

The act of invoking article 50 is monumental; the last act by a Prime Minister I can recall of similar magnitude was the decision to go to war with Iraq. It is such a big deal that will define the rest of her career in politics and beyond. In reality, whoever takes the first post-Brexit role is being handed a poisoned chalice - and they know it.

The level of scrutiny - on one side by the angry left and their media circus, and on the other - by expectant Brexiters concerned that democracy will be undermined - is going to weigh heavily upon her premiership and help keep her in check to some degree.

On top of that, she didn't 'earn' or truly fight for the leadership role but was handed it by a 'twist of fate' combined with credibility damaging smear campaigns. Hardly the strongest foundation for a Prime Minister. I don't think she'll be acting with impunity or executing many of her personal pet projects as Prime Minister. I'd go far as to say that this premiership isn't really 'hers' so to speak as she has stepped in the game with a weakened hand.

I really liked Leadsom but she's not strong enough to be PM yet, especially considering how she handled the past week. Also she seems far too nice. Maybe give Leadsom a few years to improve her political game.

I think Theresa May could do a fair job of negotiating in the face of what will be incredible EU pressures as long as she's kept an watchful eye on.

Post: #1968

If it is true May had the balls to cut women's programs, then that's a really good sign You're going to need a leader with balls to get out of the EU.

Post: #1969

(07-11-2016 04:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If it is true May had the balls to cut women's programs, then that's a really good sign You're going to need a leader with balls to get out of the EU.

Also she wanted to withdraw from EU Human Rights convention as it interfered with terror deportations.

Quote:UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May

Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government.

The shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, said he was appalled by the home secretary’s comments, which he described as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”, while the Tory MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was disappointed by the intervention.

May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.

I reckon her alleged Sharia stance was to counter the fallout from things like this. That stance no longer serves her in the current climate so she'll probably let it fade.

Post: #1970

If anyone missed this pulled Telegraph article on May it's well worth reading as it details her total failure as Home Secretary and nasty character.

Post: #1971

Surprise, surprise. Former European Commission president becomes non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs!

http://en.rfi.fr/europe/20160710-barroso...e-portugal

Post: #1972

(07-11-2016 05:17 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  Also she wanted to withdraw from EU Human Rights convention as it interfered with terror deportations.

I reckon her alleged Sharia stance was to counter the fallout from things like this. That stance no longer serves her in the current climate so she'll probably let it fade.

The anti-terrorism stuff is just being used to expand the surveillance state and punish thought crimes.

From the pulled Times article:

Quote:In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #1973

(07-12-2016 05:00 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

(07-11-2016 05:17 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  Also she wanted to withdraw from EU Human Rights convention as it interfered with terror deportations.

I reckon her alleged Sharia stance was to counter the fallout from things like this. That stance no longer serves her in the current climate so she'll probably let it fade.

The anti-terrorism stuff is just being used to expand the surveillance state and punish thought crimes.

From the pulled Times article:

Quote:In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

Reading this makes me suspicious. How much you all want to bet that parliament is a puppet show and the royals essentially cleaned house once their will got enacted?

We just got lucky that one set of elites happened to be on our side this time. I knew the Queen had more power than she let's on. Plausible deniability when the people get angry they'll hang MPs instead of the royals.

Post: #1974

(07-12-2016 05:27 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Reading this makes me suspicious. How much you all want to bet that parliament is a puppet show and the royals essentially cleaned house once their will got enacted?

We just got lucky that one set of elites happened to be on our side this time. I knew the Queen had more power than she let's on. Plausible deniability when the people get angry they'll hang MPs instead of the royals.

This is an interesting idea, but is there any real evidence for this ?

Post: #1975

(07-12-2016 05:00 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

(07-11-2016 05:17 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  Also she wanted to withdraw from EU Human Rights convention as it interfered with terror deportations.

I reckon her alleged Sharia stance was to counter the fallout from things like this. That stance no longer serves her in the current climate so she'll probably let it fade.

The anti-terrorism stuff is just being used to expand the surveillance state and punish thought crimes.

From the pulled Times article:

Quote:In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

Theresa May has a likeability factor of close to zero and I don't really want to defend her.

I would however read that article with a cautious mind (which is from the Telegraph) as there has been a strong Leadsom/Telegraph vs May/Times division.

Re the EU Human Rights convention - it appears noble at first glance but undermines the sovereignty of nations like the UK.

Excerpt from the book 'Global Governance and the Crisis of Democracy in Europe' which begins to explain the problem with it:

Quote: The EU’s approach to human rights is perhaps most emblematic in that, like the ideology of global governance, it is transformative and liberationist. The global governance movement seeks to transform the world by liberating peoples from their traditional primary allegiances to local communities and nation states with a common history, culture, language and values.

Likewise, the primary objective of the globalists’ human rights advocacy is to liberate individuals from the mediating institutions, such as family and church, that are associated with traditional, community-based, locally rooted life and that imply an objective moral code based on an essentially unchanging human nature. In the globalists’ view, human nature is malleable, and individuals should therefore be free to transform themselves, to define and redefine themselves as they wish, unfettered by community, tradition or inherited values.

The belief in the liberationist and transformative right to define oneself and to determine for oneself what it means to be human is especially apparent in the areas of LGBT rights, women’s rights and children’s rights. The EU’s approach to each of these priority areas kicks against the traces of traditional views on human nature and on the importance to the individual of deference to family and church and other time-honored institutions.– especially those institutions that imply a commitment to an authoritative moral code revealed by God or transmitted through religious tradition, an acceptance of the limits of human knowledge and capability, and skepticism toward transformative globalist ideologies.

Neither the global governance movement nor the human rights movement associated with it accepts, in principle, any limits handed down by tradition or by the human experience of reality.

Just as global governance, heralded by the EU, can bring about a 'utopia of peace and prosperity for the human collective', so can unlimited choice and absolute autonomy for individuals allow every person to remake and redefine him- or herself at will. This belief has clear implications for the classical rights, such as freedom of religion, which are based on an anthropology that is less fluid and much more compatible with the idea of objective truth.