As Yvette Cooper said recently “You can’t believe a word she says”
Theresa May has decided that lying is better than losing votes. She is using the Trump tactic of not worrying about being caught in a lie as the people calling her out won’t vote for her anyway.
Trump has shown that believers will still believe and the others are a lost cause anyway.
This is hugely cynical and plumbing new depths even for UK politics.
She is helped by the massively supportive mass media not even mentioning the lies.
But, of course, she has not worried about lying in the past.
I have been keeping a bit of a list of the more brazen lies. Here they are:
- Argued for Remain, now argues for Leave (one of the positions is deceitful)
- Lied about UK law concerning consulting Parliament
- Them blamed Gina Miller for obstruction by making her follow the law
- Continues to lie that 17.4m of the British electorate voted to leave the Single Market and Customs Union, end Freedom of Movement and eliminate any influence by the ECJ. Some might have but there is no way they all voted for this.
- Lied that the UK economy would be strong after leaving the Single Market
- when CEBR and Government studies show that all forms of Brexit are worse than Remaining
- Lied about immigrants saying they were putting pressure on the public services
- Falsely blamed immigrants for stealing UK native jobs
- Announced the Dementia Tax then scrapped it and famously lied that “Nothing has changed”
- Said publicly, 6 times, that she would not call a snap election, then called a snap election
- and blamed the Remainers because they were suggesting they would scrutinize the Exit deal
- Accused the SNP of playing politics
- Then blamed them for dividing the UK
- Claimed in 2017 that the country was “coming together” when all studies showed it was more divided than ever before
- Promised to enfranchise long-term ex-pats
- we are still waiting….
- Continues to say that the choice is between her deal and no deal when the the courts have ruled that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally to stop Brexit
- Claims a new public vote would undermine democracy
- Claimed that Government there was “No special deal” with Nissan to secure the X-Trail and QashQai models in Sunderland
- Claimed that the £20bn NHS additional funding was coming from a “Brexit Dividend”
- Claims her deal “protect jobs” when in fact it just reduces the number of lost jobs when compared to a “No Deal”. Every form of Brexit will cost jobs when compared to Remaining in the EU.
- States, multiple times, that her deal is the only one on offer, no other deal is possible, her deal is the best possible deal – and then instructs her party to vote to change her deal
Letter to my MP Julian Smith, Chief Whip of the Conservative Parliamentary Party following confirmation, from the Advocate General of the ECJ, that the UK is able to withdraw it’s Article 50 notification of intention to withdraw from the EU. The UK is able to do this unilaterally, without agreement from anyone else:
Dear Mr. Smith,
I am a constituent of Skipton & Ripon living and vote in Kirkby Malzeard North Yorkshire.
I am well aware of your efforts, as Chief Whip for the Conservative Parliamentary Party, to encourage your fellow MPs to support the EU Withdrawal deal and it’s associated Political Declaration. I commend your perseverance although it does seem that it will be to no avail. I would like to discuss the options going forward if, as is widely expected, your efforts are unsuccessful and MPs reject the deal in Parliament on Dec 11th.
As you said in an earlier reply to me, the Referendum was a pretty clear instruction from 17.4m of the British public that they wanted to leave the EU and it is reasonable to say that the red lines imposed by our Prime Minister reflected the Brexit the people were promised by the Leave campaign when they claimed that the UK would be able to get a deal which stopped the Freedom of Movement of workers, would not require a no hard border with Northern Ireland, would leave the UK able to negotiate our own trade deals and none of this would hurt the UK economy or jobs market.
No-one can say that our Prime Minister has not done her best to negotiate a deal and in fact, given her negotiating red lines of ending freedom of movement and UK independent trade deals, this is most probably the best deal she could get. The problem is that when presented with this deal our MP’s, across parties and ideologies, do not like it and the polls suggest it is deeply unpopular in the country as well.
It is now clear that the Leave campaign promises are not deliverable and it is also clear, from the Governments recently published impact assessments, that any form of Brexit deal will hurt the UK.
So where now? If we assume that the PM’s deal will be voted down on Thursday we are left with the nightmare scenario of the UK exiting the EU on March 29th in a disorderly fashion, the so-called “No deal” option.
However, we have had confirmation today, from the Advocate General of the ECJ that the UK is able to withdraw it’s Article 50 notification of intention to withdraw from the EU. The UK is able to do this unilaterally, without agreement from anyone else.
The next step in this process must be for the Government to withdraw it’s Article 50 notification of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU. Once the exit process has been stopped the UK we will have time to pause and reflect upon what kind of EU exit, if any, it wants.
As my Member of Parliament you have a duty to represent the best interests of the Country and in particular your constituents.
From the evidence your Government has collected during the last two years it is clear the deal on offer and indeed all other possible deals will leave the UK poorer and with less jobs, hitting your constituency in the North East hardest of all.
Leaving the EU now that we have this knowledge would be foolhardy, leaving in a disorderly fashion, when we have a mechanism to stop it, would be verging on the irresponsible.
As my representative I ask that you please represent my interests in a way consistent with the facts now available to you and that you rise above party considerations. It is clear that exiting in a disorderly fashion would be disastrous and I am sure you will use your good offices to prevent that happening.
Thank you for scheduling a Feedback special on how the BBC’s coverage of Brexit is being received.
I have been a staunch supporter of the BBC and always thought of it as a safe haven among the confusing plethora of biased and sometimes fake news outlets.
However that was before the EU referendum campaign and now, 21 months after that vote, I am deeply concerned that the BBC is loosing control and is letting their interviewers push their own views or agenda.
My biggest concern is with your flagship current affairs programme, Today. This was, without question, my favourite port-of-call for comprehensive, reliable news coverage but since the referendum this is no longer the case. It now seems to be the norm for interviewers to use an interview to present their own opinion (or indeed someone else’s opinion) as fact.
An excellent example of this was on Tuesday 27th March when Mr Humphrys interviewed Lord Patten. John may well believe that it is inevitable that the UK will leave the EU but this is his opinion and not fact and his constant restatement of his opinion as fact is not what I understood his role in R4Today i.e. interviewing and testing the opinions of others.
Mr Humphrys will be well aware that Parliament voted to pass the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which gave the Prime Minister the authority to notify the EU of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU, it did not decide that we would Leave.
“The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.”
and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is still working it’s way through the system and currently has provision for a “meaningful vote” once the negotiations are complete and before it would be enacted.
So for Mr Humphrys to declare to the listeners that Parliament had already decided that we should leave the EU and that any call for further votes is futile is at best misleading.
However this is exactly what he did, he said to Lord Patten (when his Lordship was suggesting there could be a further vote) that “Parliament has voted on whether to leave the EU and there was a massive majority to do so, so Parliament has already decided on this” 27.3.18 R4Today 8.51am.
Mr H is obviously an intelligent and well read individual. When he states something as fact then a sizable number of listeners will believe what he says. This places a burden upon him to not state things as facts when he knows they are not true. My comments are not restricted to Mr Humphrys; Nick Robinson and guest items by Laura Kuensberg follow a similar pattern; however I believe his interview with Lord Patten last week illustrates my points very well.
I hope you found my observations constructive and I look forward to more interviewing rather than platforming on R4Today.