Sunday, 26 June 2016

Theresa May?

Theresa Will.

Lanchester's finest. She and her husband lived here (and they really did, quite a bit) when she was her party's paper candidate for this seat in 1992. They sat behind my mother in church.

Tim Farron was the Lib Dem.

Boris Johnson, who never expected Leave to win and who never wanted it to, now says that the margin by which the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union was "not entirely overwhelming".

He has no plan. He has no clue.

Could she beat him? Of course she could.

Could Jeremy Corbyn beat her?

A General Election in which the two main players were both over 60 (she will turn 60 in October, eight days before David Cameron turns 50), were both of very definite views for very definite reasons, and were both calm and measured in their articulation of those views and reasons, would reset the tone of the political debate for several decades to come.

And yes, Jeremy Cobyn could beat her.


  1. Could Tom Watson beat Theresa May?

    1. Yes.

      I want Jeremy Corbyn to stay. But failing that, Tom Watson, with a Deputy Leader from the Left.

  2. That's not an accurate or fair representation of Mr Johnson's article. He very plainly said what his plan is.

    ""The UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal.

    This will bring not threats, but golden opportunities for this country – to pass laws and set taxes according to the needs of the UK.

    Yes, the Government will be able to take back democratic control of immigration policy, with a balanced and humane points-based system to suit the needs of business and industry.

    Yes, there will be a substantial sum of money which we will no longer send to Brussels, but which could be used on priorities such as the NHS. Yes, we will be able to do free trade deals with the growth economies of the world in a way that is currently forbidden. ""

    Why didn't you post what he actually wrote?

    1. Because it doesn't matter, now that there is going to be a grown-up in the race.

      That's not just a point about age, either. In fact, it is not necessarily a point about age at all.

      Liz Kendall, no Brexiteer, stood for the Labour Leadership last year on a fully worked out and workable policy of introducing the points-based system of immigration.

      That, in itself, has never required withdrawal from the EU, no member-state of which allows absolute freedom of movement by citizens of other member-states, and many of which have tighter controls than Britain chose to have, and could choose not to have.

      Johnson probably knows that. May certainly does. Look out for a fully worked out and workable policy from her, and for something or other from him.

      But do not hold your breath for either of them to issue an Article 50 notification upon becoming Prime Minister.

  3. That, in itself, has never required withdrawal from the EU

    Yes, it does-if you wish to restrict immigration within the EU. Maastricht replaced national citizenship with EU citizenship which means that your passport is now an EU passport (look at what's written on it) and any EU citizen is fully entitled to all the same benefits that you are, from Day One of arrival.

    Name a single EU country that does not have free movement of people for other EU citizens.

    Even Switzerland has it, as the price for Single Market access.

    1. Several other member-states looked on aghast, and still do, at Britain's decision to let in everyone from the new accession states. They would never have done that, and they still wouldn't. They are certainly under no obligation to.

      Although, from the new accession states to the founding Six, their citizens are not entitled to claim benefits in Britain from Day One here.

  4. A points-based system for EU migrants would certainly require withdrawal from the EU.

    Maastricht created EU citizenship which means anyone holding an EU passport has an automatic right to settle in any member state.

    Take a look at your passport sometime and you'll see its now an EU passport, not a British one.

    1. Maastricht created EU citizenship which means anyone holding an EU passport has an automatic right to settle in any member state.

      That simply isn't true. Britain does it like that, although still with certain restrictions. But few, if any, other member-states do. That is just a plain and simple lie.

  5. The EU has now granted free movement rights to all the new accession states. It wasn't the other member states that decided when the temporary restrictions were lifted, but the European Commission.

    The member states had no say at all (although Labour let them all in before even the European Commission required us to).

    Mastricht created completely free movement, by removing even the requirement to have a job in the country to which you were moving.

    A points-based system is completely illegal under EU law. Not one member state has it.

    1. That's up to them. There most certainly is not "completely free movement" between all EU member-states. There just isn't. And there certainly hasn't been all the way back to Maastricht, which came into force all the way back on 1st November 1993. Let me assure you.

  6. Still laughing that over half of Tory voters have defied their own party to vote Out.

    That is the lesson of the referendum.

    These parties don't even represent their own voters, never mind anyone else.

    Why do they still exist? It;s baffling.

    1. No, it isn't. There is a realignment coming, indeed happening. But it will not and does not involve new parties.