Boris Johnson, the writer, the journalist and who turned politician. The now Foreign Secretary of United Kingdom in the Conservative-Democratic Unionist Party (Tories-DUP) Government. Clearly, he has his own marbles and his own vision. As it sparkles on the night sky like stars. He thinks it shines and is the reason for light hitting mother earth, not that the light is the reflection and sun-light shining on the stars and moons to reflect back on mother earth. It is the same way I feel while reading the The Daily Telegraph, the article he written in prospects of gaining support for his vision.
Boris Johnson or from now on Bojo, has his own vision, certainly not one of a kind. This article could have been written by any maverick inside the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The only thing making it difference isn’t the nationalist stance, but more on the economic foundation and self belief, that the EU negotiations will benefit the UK. He has to believe it, since his career needs it. Bojo are clearly trying to sell a story and tries to deflect. Even with lies and submission of “we will fix it in the end, please trust us”.
Bojo words speaks best for themselves, but if Europeans had any hope of a deep insights to the negotiations or understanding of the Tories policy considering Brexit. There is no insights that we didn’t know. Because the UK thinks they can walk-away without any hurt or damage. That the future will be better and without any deep consequence, therefore, another world of alternative reality. Nearly like a Tories fan-fiction. Fixated in the ideals of leaving, breathing and winning, without any actions and any consequences.
“If we had been asked to design the EU ourselves with a blank sheet of paper we would have nothing like the body that exists today. We tried so often to frustrate it. I was there at the Antibes ecofin when British officials made a gallant attempt to strangle the euro at birth with a project called the hard ecu. I was there when they ambushed Margaret Thatcher at the Rome summit with conclusions that the British thought had been explicitly rejected. I remember how we kept trying to stop this or that – we rejected the very notion of political union; we tried to stop the expansion of majority voting. And I remember the mantra of EU officials – Britain objects, Britain protests – but in the end she always signs up” (Johnson, 2017).
“We are not going to dismantle the corpus of EU law on exit. On the contrary the objective of the repeal bill is to incorporate it. Our systems of standards will remain absolutely flush with the rest of the EU. We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours. And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly 350m per week. It would be a fine thing as many of us have pointed out if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology” (Johnson, 2017).
“If we organise, if we plan, if we build the homes and the infrastructure we need, if we give our young people the skills and the confidence that they could so easily acquire – then we can also ensure that this country is not just the place where everyone wants to come and live – but the place with the highest standard of living, with the per capita GDP, the productivity and the quality of life that we deserve. That means insisting on a culture that is pro-business and pro-enterprise, but one that is so dynamic that fat cats can no longer sit unpunished in their jobs when they let everyone down” (Johnson, 2017).
It is like he expected the EU only to benefit the UK. Not like it was a genuine partnership between all Member States. Some laws and regulations are made to fit more the Netherlands, other fixed for Spain. This is how agreements are being built. Just like UK has gotten specialized grants for agriculture, roads and other projects in Wales. Not because the Polish or Germans wants to pay directly for the development of Cardiff or Swansea, but they do, as a part of the EU. It’s like the whole article tried to forget that part and forget the lost funding of Universities and Colleges by EU grants and funds. But, hey the UK don’t need that.
Than he had to reveal a lie, a fixed number to sound brash, a loud and high voiced 350 million pounds a week. Not like the sums that it cost for trading, being a member and also single market opportunity has its advantages, that is why the Tories are positive for staying it and not wanting to leave that part of the union. As part of the free-trade paradigm. Because the British knows they need to trade with the EU and their Financial Institutions are benefiting from it. That he has to use an artificial high number to say, we get wealthy if we leave and can spend it on the sick. Is just playing pitiful politics with businesses and livelihood. Not that he has a single solution or program to fix the ceasing of dozens bilateral agreements. That is something David Davis and other knuckleheads can fix.
So as the months are going, he suddenly says actually “If we plan….” like they shouldn’t have had a plan before the vote or withdrawal, before the announcement and letter delivered to the European Union. It shows the disregard of the public and the businesses. That the Tories had no plan, David Cameron, never wanted to leave and therefore fled the post as Prime Minister. So the Tories-DUP, initially has to plan, since the haven’t done that already. Their own Foreign Minister is stating that on the 16th September 2017, that if they plan… If they plan.
Just consider that for a moment and think of the time since the letter was sent to European Commission, even further back to the Brexit Election. Clearly, if they plan, they might not get to hurt or to bad of a deal with the EU. Not like it is giving the public hope of their negotiations tactics or framework. Since they still at the planning stage. Peace.
Boris Johnson – ‘How Brexit Britain will triumph’ (16.09.2017) – Facebook Article/Daily Telegraph
If you are confused about what is at stake or in consideration from the United Kingdom government or the Conservative Party and Democratic Unionist Party (Tories-DUP) government, than it is now by intent. Since, the latest revelation from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Robin Walker, have a few brilliantly to a few MPs where he described their level of transparency and accountability, which is far by none! They do not want the world to know, if anyone knows or knew what the plan was for the Tories when they left the European Union. It is amazing, that the United Kingdom are playing at this level. That they have so little touch and wish to inform own citizens of their outcome and possible plan of discontinuing their role as a Member State.
Mr. David Lammy asked on the 5th September:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what plans his Department has to publish studies into the effect of the UK leaving the EU on different sectors of the UK economy” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).
Today, Robin Walker answered it by:
“It is not standard practice to provide an ongoing commentary on internal analytical work that is being carried out within government. The Government’s plan for leaving the EU has been discussed at length, and Parliament will have a say on the final deal we achieve with the European Union by putting that deal to a vote in both Houses before it comes into force. But as Parliament has also agreed, we will not publish anything that would undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for the UK” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).
Mr. John Trickett asked on the 5th September:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, how many civil servants have been sent to Brussels at any point to engage in the detail of the Brexit negotiation talks; and how many of these have been seconded from outside the Government” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).
Today, Robin Walker answered it by:
“We have released information on the UK’s senior negotiating team on Gov.uk. As an indication of the number of civil servants in attendance at negotiations in Brussels, at the second round we had over 90 civil servants in attendance, and for the third round, over 100. The total number of staff will vary from round to round as we deploy the negotiating team best able to work on the issues under negotiation. We are drawing together expertise from a wide range of departments where there is specific relevant knowledge on the issues to be negotiated” (…) “I can confirm that of the Department for Exiting the European Union staff who attended the negotiations in July and August, none were seconded from outside of Government. We do not hold information on the contractual arrangements of individuals from other Government Departments” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).
These answers are clearly not enlightening, but are showing the contempt of the Parliament, the Representatives and the citizens as a whole, Brexit negotiators wish to work in secrecy and in peace, without interference, as the knowledge of their plans are hidden in the shadows and not in the open. It is weird, it is strange that the United Kingdom does it like this. That the Brexit team and the ones working for the government want to hold it like a corporate secret. Instead of being open and transparent. Therefore, if the British does not trust their government act in their interests. I understand, because there is nothing to trust. The Tories-DUP government are holding them in contempt and not caring for the people need to know what they are up too. This is not an easy food run, if you bring takeaway Chinese or a Pizza!
This is the ending of a long term Membership Status and all the dozens of agreements that has been made, together with law and protocol for trading and travelling, that has to be reissued and reassured to secure both Unions. Clearly, the Tories and their Secretary thinks it is okay to not publish information, since it can damage their cause. Nevertheless, their cause of action should be in public, since it is in public interest. So if Banks and Industry moves now, they are justified, they do not know their terms for staying behind. London Financial Centre could just move to Dublin or Frankfurt. There the big-multinational financial institutions could secure new benefits within the Euro-Zone. Not be dependent on random guesses of negotiations of the Tories-DUP in Brussels.
That is what can be stated today, that the Brexit department plans to keep it in secret and do not want to be transparent. They want to be secret and neglect their duty to serve the people and their interests. The businesses has all rights to move shop, since if it is all done in secrecy, who will benefit and what will be the end-game? Who knows, right?
Robin Walker, has opened the eyes of hopefully many, if not the Brexit negotiations will be rockier, since the people and corporations cannot trust their government. They have no rights to now, when they do not publish needed public information. Tories-DUP are playing hide-and-seek. We do not know if their hidden or if they are seeking. They could do both. What we do know, is that they do this for a purpose, and that they do not trust the public will to accept their craft, their framework and the possible arrangements they are creating after the Membership with the European Union. Peace
The newest report on Research Collaboration between United Kingdom and the European Union, as the withdrawal from the EU will lead to chances in science and research in the United Kingdom. The Tories Government are still within the wishful thinking. Their paradigm is clearly the softest of the soft Brexits. So soft, that butter isn’t soft enough.
Brexit appeal must really be dwindling since most of the Future Partnership Papers has been softball and easy road into withdrawal. The EU will clearly make this harder and more expensive. United Kingdom government wants clearly more of the same. It is expected to be dialogue and negotiations between the partners. Here is some parts of the Reports!
“It is the UK’s ambition to build on its uniquely close relationship with the EU, so that collaboration on science and innovation is not only maintained, but strengthened. Therefore, as part of the new, deep and special partnership, the UK will seek an ambitious science and innovation agreement with the EU that will support and promote science and innovation across Europe both now and in the future” (HM Government, P: 7, 2017).
“EU programmes have helped foster European scientific collaboration and the UK has been a key contributor to their success. The UK remains a full member of the EU and will be subject to all rights and obligations set out in the Treaties and under EU law, including the principle of sincere cooperation, until it leaves the EU. In that context, and looking ahead to a strong future relationship, both the UK and the European Commission have been clear that they expect the fair treatment of UK researchers and firms. The UK and EU should also work together to provide continuity of collaborative relationships” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).
“The Commission is planning a European Defence Research Programme in the next Multiannual Financial Framework, which is expected to invest €500 million per year in industry and academia from participating countries. To prepare for this, a three-year Action was launched in 2017 and the UK has been instrumental in defining its work programme. The UK would welcome dialogue with the EU and its Member States on the future of this programme and terms for non-EU involvement, noting that Norway will have third-party association in this preparatory phase” (HM Government, P: 13, 2017).
“The UK wants to continue playing a major role in creating a brighter future for all European citizens by strengthening collaboration with European partners in science and innovation” (…) “To this end, the UK will seek to agree a far-reaching science and innovation agreement with the EU that establishes a framework for future collaboration. There are a range of existing precedents for collaboration that the UK and the EU can build on, but our uniquely close relationship means there may be merit in designing a more ambitious agreement. The UK hopes to have a full and open discussion with the EU about all of these options as part of the negotiations on our future partnership” (HM Government, P: 16, 2017).
I am not surprised by this Future Partnership Report, it is one of many now. The ones dropped in August was similar, but different topics. United Kingdom wants all of the options on the table and still want close relationship, but the UK will be a non-Member-State. They are focusing on the special bond between the Norwegian and the EU, but that means the UK must work hard to get that relationship. Since the EU will clearly not just give way to UK. Though, the Future Papers are lots of dreams.
So another daydream is done, Brexit Minister David Davis and others in the Tories Government, surely needs help and also should know that EU will not trade-off anything easy. Brexit will not be easy and their papers prove it. As they are having extra-terrestrial and alien belief about their negotiations and their deal-making with the EU. Peace.
HM Government – ‘Collaboration on science and innovation – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (06.09.2017)
The Tories-DUP Government released today yet another report, this report was on enforcement and disputes arising between the Her Majesties Government (HM Government) and the European Union (EU). As of when the United Kingdom abandon it’s membership status to become a non-member of the EU. The Brexit Minister David Davis clearly has lack of vision or trying to take the easy way out. Since the UK government has delivered nothing else, than wishful, we want it as today. So when I went into reading this, it was as expected. It is like the Tories doesn’t care about it or wanting to define what they want as they are going out of the EU. Here some of favorite quotes from today’s report.
“As we exit the EU, the UK wants to agree an orderly withdrawal and establish a new, deep and special partnership with the EU. The UK has also made clear that in order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from an interim period, where this is necessary for the smooth and orderly implementation of new arrangements” (…) “The success of the future partnership will depend on mutual respect. We will be starting from a strong position: our shared commitment to upholding the rule of law and to meeting our international obligations, and our intention to comply with the agreements reached between us, are not in doubt” (HM Government, P: 3, 2017).
“In agreements between the EU and third countries, where cooperation is facilitated through replicating language which is identical in substance to EU law, these agreements can specify that account is to be taken of CJEU decisions when interpreting those concepts. This is relevant where both parties agree that divergence in interpretation would be undesirable, for example, for operational reasons such as continued close cooperation with EU agencies” (…) “The value of such arrangements lie where there is a shared interest in reducing or eliminating divergence in how specific aspects of an agreement with the EU are implemented in the EU and the third country respectively. The extent to which this approach may be valuable depends on the extent to which there is agreement that divergence should be avoided in specific areas” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).
“In international agreements, final remedies are principally retaliatory in nature and implemented unilaterally by the parties. This includes the ability to take safeguard measures to mitigate any negative effects from the other party’s noncompliance as well as the option to suspend all or part of the agreement (or several linked agreements), or, ultimately, withdraw from the agreement (or several linked agreements). The ability of the European Commission and the CJEU within the EU legal system to impose sanctions, such as fines for non-compliance with EU rules, is exceptional” (…) “The agreements governing the UK’s withdrawal from, and future partnership with, the EU will cover a broad range of areas of cooperation. Those agreements should set out clear means by which the terms of the agreements should be implemented and enforced within the UK and the EU. They should also establish a mechanism for the resolution of disputes concerning those agreements” (HM Government, P: 11-12, 2017).
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the United Kingdom, this relationship will get into another position after the withdrawal from the EU. Since the legal disputes will be different between UK and EU, as the membership are now ceased. The UK might have some legal framework between them and the EU.
That EU and UK wants a mutual respect, they both want that. This paper actually states: “In agreements between the EU and third countries, where cooperation is facilitated through replicating language which is identical in substance to EU law, these agreements can specify that account is to be taken of CJEU decisions when interpreting those concepts. This is relevant where both parties agree that divergence in interpretation would be undesirable, for example, for operational reasons such as continued close cooperation with EU agencies” (HM Government, 2017).
This specific passage says in essence, that the UK wants to be facilitated and replicating the legal language of the EU, so they can cooperate with EU law, even after leaving. So that it will in general stay much as the same. The concepts and the parties will agree, so they also will function directly with the EU agencies. So the UK want an agreement that fits directly to EU law. This is countering the independence and the mindset of a “hard” Brexit, more like smoothing their system to the EU. The Remains must be jolly, that yet another paper, the HM Government are working for more of the same. Not really changing the status, but wishing for a similar system of today. That means dispute and laws would work in sync with agencies and the CJEU. Which is impressive!
Clearly, the UK want a special mechanism to be sufficient between them, as their new cooperative spirit starts after the withdrawal, but the EU will have a new agreement and a new non Member State who wants to trade, follow procedure and the jurisdiction. This means the UK and the EU needs a new function to fix disputes and legal remedies between the non-members and the EU. The UK are afraid of the EU possible sanctions, as the powers of CJEU are powerful towards to third countries, which means the UK could be sanctioned in a way that haven’t in the past. That is why the UK want to consider a legal language in sync with the EU, so they will follow the EU, even when they are outside the EU. That means a pretty soft, compared to what the Brexit wanted to be. Peace.
HM Government – ‘Enforcement and dispute resolution – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (23.08.2017)
Today is a unique day, the General Election in the United Kingdom. That Theresa May herself ushered in and grinned while doing. She was confident because of the Conservative Party lead and support, that it would be walk-in-the-park to regain and strengthen her party before Brexit negotiations. Instead, she has fallen and bad. So bad she do not have majority in Parliament as she thought she was entitled to have. The public was not agreeing with her methods, neither was her campaign anything to run around the mill about and no one will say: “Well done lads”.
The winner is the opposition candidate and his party. That is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his campaign. A manifesto of progressive social welfare state ideas. That would support youth, health-care and build the state. He was moderate in tone, but progressive in stances and promises. It was something rare and neat. Corbyn deserves praise for his attitude amongst all the hatred, sceptics and pundits who expected him and his party to fall. The dominant problem was not the grass-root mobilization, but the Members of Parliament who has revolted against the man.
While Theresa May has been able to screw-up all on her own. Corbyn has built a party from scratch in some sense and used his connections in Unions to spark interest. To the amazement of the left, which May has sounded more and more alike. Part of me feels that she has more similar opinions of Nigel Farage, than of her old mate David Cameron and George Osborne. That is just me, I guess.
With this amazing defaulted campaign that has shattered the dreams of strong Conservative Party united to negotiate with European counterparts. Instead, she has belittle herself and has to ask for help. Not by just anyone, but the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). She needs help from the DUP and their support to gain majority. Before the election, the mandate of the Conservative was strong enough on their own.
Now the help come from the London friendly Northern Irish. Just think about the shit-storm it would have been, if the Labour Party went into alliance with Sinn Fein (SF) or Scottish National Party (SNP). It would have created havoc and the world would have hassled the leadership of Labour. The world clocks would have stopped and the Tube in London would have gotten massive delays. However, since it is the Conservative and their needs, we all should just be merry.
Well, the handout of loyalists to London in Northern Ireland is all fine, but at what cost is it for the May government. Since, an arrangement of these sorts has to leeway for the alliance partner and not just for the show. That she says she will deliver a government for the ‘National Interest’ is bit weird, as the whole election was about her ego and her drive for total control. Something the voters has taken away. She will not get full majority, Theresa May needs support… the Tories cannot run alone.
If the Tories and May government hadn’t run this snap and quick elections, she would still been able to have majority and also have more power in the Brexit negotiations. Now she is weak, the tea isn’t strong. Corbyn and Labour has surged, because the Tories run on weak manifesto and worse campaign. May might be good to write legislation and be a Parliamentarian, but as a campaign leader she was unstable. The public saw this and the strength she didn’t show the public, as she even abstained from open and national televised debates. That was distasteful and showed arrogance to the public.
That also Liberal-Democratic Party (Lib-Dems) gotten more seats in Parliament. That Tories and SNP lost seats, shows how their workings has gone against them. That the Tories will defend their minority government in honor of the willing party DUP. The DUP as of now will decide what they deserve for being the king-makers.
May has really lost, not only her strength, but her credibility. She has been all-out swinging, but not delivering. Shredded with her ego and therefore when Corbyn and his team been modest in their approach they have gotten more sympathy and while May created apathy. This is the reason why so many turned Labour and lost faith in her. While Corbyn have showed character. Theresa May haven’t showed this. The Tories are bleeding now, therefore they need the support of DUP to be able to create a new cabinet.
The ones who voted the Tories because they feared the ‘Coalition of Chaos’, she will now run her own if she get an agreement and gives way to DUP. That the DUP Arlene Foster will use her leverage to eat of the plate and create hardships for May. The cost will come to the forefront the coming days. Even if the Tories have the senior Cabinet Ministers and the Tories have the formal minority government alone. They will still need to kiss the ring of Foster. She is not even trusted in Northern Ireland, so it is interesting that a bleeding Prime Minister begs from someone who is not trustworthy in NI.
This here will be saga of chaos and chaotic affairs, this is not a stronger United Kingdom government before negotiations with Brussels. Because the Tories have to keep their own shop at bay and also their new partnership with the NI DUP. This will be a fragile company… and how it goes will escalate the coming days. What we do know is that the Tories lost, May lost and the Corbyn’s of the world had a massive victory. Peace.
“I’m clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe. After the London Bridge attack, I said “enough is enough”, and that things need to change to tackle the threat we face. And tonight I set out what that means: longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences; deporting foreign terror suspects back to their own countries; restricting the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough to prosecute them in court” – Theresa May (06.06.2017 – at a rally at Slough, United Kingdom).
That Prime Minister Theresa May are obliged to amend her laws and ask for provisions to change them through Parliament. She is fine to do so and follow the procedures of the state, to make the most draconian laws able. As the Tories already before the grand-elections started to unleash laws of old, that we’re in the fashion of King Henry IV. These laws was amend and gives more powers to the government over the Parliament. So the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom has already shown force and will of taking the powers in their hands.
Theresa May isn’t the first to use terrorism to control and to suspend laws to gain more power. That is usually a sign of oppressive behavior and of the Orwellian society. Clearly, a human being like May should consider her words. If not she really wants to show that she can act so much, that she wants to take away freedom and liberties from her own citizens. Instead of believing in the set freedoms and provisions done by the United Nations Charter and ratified legal framework that the United Kingdom must have.
Still, there are enough signs that she doesn’t need to do so, as the provisions that are in place has not and will not overpower a sovereign, neither will it create interference of state control in troubling time. That is if she really cares about the liberties and the just societies the United Nations legal framework put in place.
OHCHR own Fact Sheet on Human Rights and Terrorism:
“International and regional human rights law makes clear that States have both a right and a duty to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks. This stems from the general duty of States to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against interference in the enjoyment of human rights. More specifically, this duty is recognized as part of States’ obligations to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security” OHCHR, P: 8, 2008).
“These challenges are not insurmountable. States can effectively meet their obligations under international law by using the flexibilities built into the international human rights law framework. Human rights law allows for limitations on certain rights and, in a very limited set of exceptional circumstances, for derogations from certain human rights provisions. These two types of restrictions are specifically conceived to provide States with the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, while at the same time—provided a number of conditions are fulfilled—complying with their obligations under international human rights law” (OHCHR, P: 23, 2008).
Than it is the United Nation Security Council own definition:
“Security Council Resolution 1963 (2010) reiterates that effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort, and it notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively combat terrorism. Resolution 1963 (2010) “thus encourages CTED to further develop its activities in this area, to ensure that all human rights issues relevant to the implementation of resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005) are addressed consistently and even-handedly including, as appropriate, on country visits that are organized with the consent of the visited member State”.
It is really serious when the United Nations and the OHCHR are saying there no issues between respecting the Human Rights Law legal framework and countering terrorism. Even if the resolutions and legal framework are critical and makes the state more bound to respect the terrorists. This still, doesn’t stop them from having provisions and having strict security in the Member States. The Member State themselves are putting forward rule of law and also has to incriminate inside their territory. However, the security is for the reason of the liberty and freedom of all citizens and all rights to all human beings. It is strange that Prime Minister Theresa May wants to suspend it, while the UNSC and OHCHR are saying it is possible.
That she has to go this far to gain support. Seems more like she could join Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttal, than following the Conservative leadership of the past. These words would not have come from David Cameron or anyone of his kind. This shows how fragile and how hell-bent is on winning this election by any means. That she has to promise on the final leap to suspend rule of law and take away basic human rigths. As the Police Service and Security Organization in our time cannot be able fight terrorism by the means and the values, that most of Europe see as natural. That the Police and Army get stronger laws and more draconian ones to make sure the United Kingdom can oppress and silence freedoms. Instead of fighting it through the means of strengthening the Police and the Intelligence, as the UK has one of the most sophisticated Security Organization in the world. It should have the capacity and if the Conservative had been serious about it, they would have fixed the issue during the last 8 years. Peace.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism – Fact Sheet No. 32’ (July 2008)
United Nation Security Council – ‘PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM’ (10.09.2015) link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/rights.html
“If I was to really get at the burr in my saddle, it’s not politics — and this is, I think, probably a horrible analogy — but I look at politicians as, they are doing what inherently they need to do to retain power. Their job is to consolidate power. When you go to the zoo and you see a monkey throwing poop, you go, ‘That’s what monkeys do, what are you gonna do?’ But what I wish the media would do more frequently is say, ‘Bad monkey’.” – Jon Stewart
This week’s interview with the Plymouth Herald as she was campaigning in the South West of England. As the General Election of the United Kingdom runs closer. I feel it is important to show grace and tact to the local constituencies. Plymouth is a marginal seat and with the dwindling polls of the Conservative and less of a percentage between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
Therefore the coalition of chaos is getting closer, than the strengthening the Tories for the Brexit negotiations. Instead of showing class and policy as the Tories could have had a better campaign, as their manifesto was a sensation of tax-breaks for the rich and cuts on welfare. In the margin’s of error is that the Labour Party has a social-caring manifesto and where they are putting forward meaningful policies. Even if Jeremy Corbyn are seen as Marxist, but he is more consistent, than what the Prime Minister Theresa May. We can see how she lacks campaigning and being honest with the pledges. Prime Minster May are again nonsensical in her interview.
In Plymouth, Theresa May botched an interview, it is horrific how little she answered and how little she answered. As the Plymouth problems didn’t matter or if she even had been briefed about the situation. This is as if she didn’t want to mind it and thought it would be easy to answer the local press. Because with just looking into two of the four questions asked by the Plymouth Herald to Prime Minister May, she didn’t really answer with anything. It is not like the Conservative Party head honcho had any answers or thought true the implications of Brexit to the constituency of Plymouth. Take a look!
Q: “Prime Minister, welcome to Plymouth. We’re in one of the most marginal seats in the country here. Are you getting nervous, and do you see Plymouth as a ‘must win’ next week?” (…) A: “No, I’m very clear that this is a crucial election for this country” (…) “We stand at an important moment, we need to make sure we get the Brexit negotiations right, but also have a plan to take this country forward, to build a stronger, more prosperous future for Plymouth, for families here and across the whole of the United Kingdom” (…) “So I’m going out and about around the whole country, talking to people with that very clear message that they face a choice on June 8.” (Blackledge, 2017).
Q: “A lot of people in Plymouth voted for Brexit because they saw a better future ahead. How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth people better off?” (…) A: “I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK” (…) “There are opportunities when we leave the European Union. But we need to have the right government in place, the right plan to grasp those opportunities” (…) “We need to get Brexit right, just 11 days after the GE we will start those Brexit negotiations. I’m the Prime Minister, I’m the party leader with the plan for those negotiations” (…) “But it’s about more than this. it’s about building that prosperous future for families in Plymouth and around the whole of the country” (…) “I’m confident we can do that, I’ve got a plan for a stronger Britain, I’m confident we can build that stronger economy with better opportunities for young people, better opportunities for families, and I’m optimistic about that because I believe in Britain and I believe in the British people.” (Blackledge, 2017).
This here is a proof of the lacking policies and guidelines for the future with the Tories. If you believe the Brexiteers and the Tories after this one, than your blind. The blindness will be eating you and you would be walking in total uncertainty. Since PM May isn’t answer the questions. She is just bringing a word-salad instead of actually coming with wisdom of how she will deliver the promises. Like Plymouth doesn’t get any consideration or concern.
The constituency of Plymouth and the problems there are not worth her time. Instead more important to say the whole United Kingdom will be prosperous without the European Union. Even if there isn’t anything in the near future proving that the Brexit will be positive. If it will be so, it isn’t because the Tories have been prepared or had a well-figured out polices to become independent from the European Union. The Tories here is on the limb. Tories isn’t proving that they care about Plymouth and doubt that is the only constituency that May has no current plan to help. Peace.
Blackledge, Sam – ‘The four key questions put to Theresa May that Plymouth wanted answered’ (31.05.2017) link: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/here-is-what-the-prime-minister-had-to-say-to-the-herald-this-morning/story-30363776-detail/story.html#QxRrRf1Fj11MiaRm.99