The Great Theresa May. By FAR the Worst Prime Minister that the UK has Ever had.

I did my apprenticeship in wolverhamton in the 60s, I remember shitty little houses with the toilet ouside, freezing in winter , had a car(morris minor) shitty little car always working to keep it going, and never having enough money after rent ,food costs etc started to work away at 20 and got a few extra quid, so glad I migrated to Oz(and no not a 10 pound pom)Australia in the 70s , so much work so little time to get it all done,Australia has been good to me,have been back several times to ol blighty and its still a shitty place unless you money and lots of it, several people that I was at school with have not worked in years the last time I was there, going back in 2019 in June for the last time (4 days) and then to Ireland and France, Brexit only will be good for the pollies who have their snouts in the trough AGAIN or is that still.


Well-Known Member
Did your parents own a "car" have a refrigerator. or go shopping & then not buying things because it wasn't AFFORDABLE.
Freezing in bed at night couldn't afford the coal. That's the reality I know,
Christmas, ONE ORANGE, & that was it.
Down south my uncles were out partying, payed for by their employer. Heaps of money near London,
Up north working in the mines or steel foundries, Still not enough after TAX, for owning your own House,
Huge difference from the children's point of view.
They were pretty poor early on although before my memory. Their first houses did not have plumbing. They shared facilities with the street. Before that my father at least was extremely poor. He escaped ot by joining the royal navy. They did not own a car until they came to Aus After I was born they did move down south and then later they came to Australia where I mostly grew up. My life was much eadier then theirs and in turm my sons life more affluent than mine.

Ths is not the point though. I am just wondering how brexit will help. I have no idea I guess time will tell, either things will get better worse or stay the same


Well-Known Member
When you work alongside a college, Only to find you'r on different TAX rates, About ten quid makes you sceptical of any pollie that could use "One for Export & other Domestic" to cut a worker's wages. We all knew it was Bullsheeet as both products were destined for overseas.
Eg: RR all foundry products Domestic, All finished products Domestic, Assembled by RR for the Airbus engine, EXport, Less tax.
Except the higher priced Domestic products almost bankrupt RR.
WHAT a laugh, except it hurt a lot of workers.
I'll always remember a Co-worker committing suicide, because he couldn't see a future anywhere.
Coal miners & foundry workers were on better pay rates than most, I don't know how they managed.


Well-Known Member
When we were kids we ate "POBS" , old stale bread soaked in water with anything edible for flavour.
Richer kids had "POBS" made with Milk.
Jammy basteios.

Old Koreelah

Well-Known Member
A prime condition for poverty is when the country is a net importer of food. Don't know whether this applies to GB.
I disagree, Methusela. Plenty of advanced, rich economies import much of their food. Povery is more associated with dependence on exporting a few raw materials or agricultural products- which applies to Oz.
Merry Xmas to all and to Jerry in particular for his comprehensive and well reasoned explanation of the current dilemna facing our British friends. Also to Spacesailor for his posts.

Merry Christmas (or I hope it was a good one) and a happy new year to yourself (and everyone).. And no worries - this is one of my favourite soap-boxes

I am not English and have never been to Old Blighties' shores. I have no qualifications as an economist being self enlightened only through my reading.

I am distrustful of politicians, something that observation of their activities over my long years has strengthened. so, in justification of my views expressed in post #61, I will say;
Ol’ Blighty is a great country, stepped in history and some pretty good natural wonders (esp. up north and in Scotland), but still struggles to compete with Aus ;-) You should try and get out here.. the flying (except in the bird cage that is the south east.. is excellent. when the wx plays ball!

1. Murdoch has not acted alone in corrupting the media whose function in an informed democracy is to properly inform the people. The Western media are acting more like a crooked cartel in echoing ideas for which there is no actual proof offered,eg. the ridiculous story that Russia was able to deflect the intentions of the mass of US voters to its will. I believe that Murdoch has been perhaps the ring leader in this corruption.
Agree absolutely. The problem with any press is that commercial press will usually ultimately serve the interests (as far as the laws will allow) of their owners. Government owned press seems to have its own agenda (may not coincide with the government)... So we're stuffed getting a truly balanced view unless that institution is committed to do so.

2. You cannot effectively,"Unscramble the eggs". Once Britain had become part of the EU it is simplistic in the extreme to think that this decision can be walked back to year zero and take an alternate path. Too much has changed and re-organisation will be very painful. This is where the attraction of a simple idea became popular. The detail was not thought about by the common voters and the media, with their great resources and responsibility to inform, failed absolutely.
An astute observation! The reality is there are 40+ years of regulation, directives, decisions and a host of other regulatory instruments to untangle from the EU. The general British population (or at least a good majority of them) are looking forward to the repeal of some of these laws as they are perceived as perverse. However, the majority of the regulations pertain to the four free movements and minimum (usually safety) standards, particularly around foods, etc. Most are to the benefit of everyone, but some went a bit too far.

As an example, EASA managed to alienate almost the whole GA community because of the extremes the previous director general went to harmonise regulations applicable to commercial air traffic (CAT, which is RPT in Aus) with light GA rather than aviation regulation across all member states. The problem is, this went on for over 10 years and showed how unaccountable the EU can be. Finally, France dug its heels in (after years of the CAA making representations as to the irrationality of the laws) and EASA finally removed the director general and replaced him with someone with a little more ability to understand. Unf. this was too late and a lot of the GA community in the UK who openly stated they were voting out.. I use this as an example because aviation is a key issue across borders and there is currently still some wrangling. Supply chains, financial services, etc. are all in the same boat - there are intricate webs across the EU that, when severed, will hurt both sides.

The Withdrawal Act 2018 and the Great Repeal Bill’s (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 - Wikipedia) idea is to initially keep the yoke intact while we worry about how to assimilate all this regulation into our own laws. However, simply assimilating directly applicable laws is not that easy - for most directly applicable laws (regulations in EU parlance), there are usually volumes more of directives and decisions (the former required to be implemented in each EU nation as they see fit and the latter, refinements based on questions of law or either regulation or directives). Then one has the issue of further clarifications provided after Brexit - do they apply or not? Take MiFID II/MiFIR (Markets in Financial Directive II/Markets in Financial Regulation). The directly applicable regultion - MiFIR - is about 130 pages including 40 odd pages of recitals (principles/guides to interpretation); the directive (up to each state to implement) is about the same size - slightly bigger.. then there are regulatory technical standards, implementing technical standards, delegated regulations, opinion and Q&A, as well as each nation state's handbooks and implementing regulations.. In all, the Financial times claimed there are over 1.9m paragraphs of the above that we had to get our heads around.. That is a lot to take in and when your local enforcement agencies don't have the skill/experience to further refine and set the legislative agenda as they have all either moved to the respective EU department or retired/made redundant, how does one assimilate it into the local legal structure (the CAA here are pooping bricks and, ironically, everyone is saying it is easier to stay in EASA - there are about 4 or 5 non-EU nations in it)?

The reality is, it will be a long separation - not much change out of 10 years I would say.

3. It was my assumption that some positive sentiment towards Brittons could have been in play, to allow some rather privileged entry terms. Whether this was true or not, I still feel that they had a rather soft ride, especially being allowed to keep their currency. In re-negotiating their trading terms, the masters of the EU are determined not to repeat this post Brexit.
It is no secret that the UK has many derogation's in place; far more than any other nation state. But this is symptomatic of what is effectively a different culture to continental Europe in many ways, specifically legally and community attitudes. However, no country was guaranteed nor compelled to join the Euro. Although easily making the economic criteria to be admitted, the British people elected not to join. Greece didn't make the criteria and had to wait a few years. Denmark and Sweden I believe are still out of the Euro (they are allowed to be in it, but aren't full members of the EU). Many countries saw the benefit, but most of the UK saw it as handing over fiscal sovereignty to the European Central Bank and even I was in the camp of that could be a dangerous thing. It tuned out, so far, to be the right decision not to join - Germany are the big beneficiaries; smaller states are struggling with it as it rigs cross border pricing of what are different economic states.

I am indebted to Jerry for his detailed analysis of the situation. I still believe that the voters have "bought a pup" and that GB will suffer from this decision. They are not by any means alone in this quandary and I recommend to readers Yanis Varoufakis' treatise on Greece's troubles, " And the Weak Suffer What They Must", for a deeper understanding of what monetary union (or membership of The EU) means. Regards Don

Thanks Don, but even as I try to stay objective, I am sure what I state is somewhat tainted by my personal bias. I will take a read as it is always interesting.

I don't agree that GB was ripped off by joining - although I would have to do some analysis to justify it. I think the time from 1972 to the early 90s, Britain enjoyed not only strong economic growth (with the odd global blips) that probably would have outstripped it's non-EU parallel, but it has diversified its community and the quality of life (from available variety and quality of foodstuffs to a decrease in the real cost of living - ex. London property prices). I think, however, there are four main things working against the EU as far as the Brit is concerned:

  • Cultural differences: Brits are very anti-controlling and require certainty of the law. Europeans are more willing for governments to regulate for a better way of life and their civil law system places general principles above certainty. This has created a great degree of unsettled feeling bending to Europe's wishes. Even a head of state (I think the Austrian head of state) said something like Britain has always been the black sheep of the family.
  • There has been seemingly unfair enforcement of the laws and in some cases ECJ interpretation has gone well beyond the most liberal interpretation of the law to achieve political aims. This was reflected in two high profile events. The first was the BSE crisis in which British beef as banned from export. After c. 10 years, British beef was given a clean bill of health by both the WHO and the European food safety agency and exports could resume. Immediately, France put a ban in the importation of British beef in flagrant violation of EU Law. The EC encouraged them to lift the ban but did not enforce it for quite some time. A second event was a series of high profile deportation orders that failed at the ECJ, where it was argued its judgement was on points of law outside its jurisdiction - the European Court of Human Rights (a distinct and separate institution from the EU). In another high profile case of virtually the same facts as previous ones, although occurring during the Brexit referendum campaign, the ECJ decided there was no EU Law that could prevent the deportation and it would have to be referred to the ECHR (where the appeal by the deportee failed).
  • Locally, there has been gold-plating of the EU rules from all sorts of regulatory agencies from the CAA to the FCA and DEFRA. The EU has not been very good at communicating this (nor has the local agency – but why would they?), so a lot of negative press on the EU is actually not borne from the EU. During the referendum campaign, Gove’s father came out and said the EU was not the reason his father’s fishing business went broke and some law in Barry, Wales, requiring kids to play in the parks rather than the street emerged as being incorrectly attributed to the EU (apparently the council was trying to get kids to use new playgrounds financed by the EU). But the EU (and even the remainer campaign) didn’t really get the message across.
  • Net EU migration was always meant an ever increasing population the British have had to deal with on a small island. This was especially felt in expanding the EU rapidly across Eastern Europe from 2003… There was a large influx of mainly Polish, but may other Eastern Europeans and a disproportionately large number headed to UK shores. There was no investment into the communities where such an influx was predicted to provide the infrastructure and services to cope. There was no real investment in those countries to level the playing field a bit providing less incentive to migrate on pure economic grounds. There has no doubt been great economic and cultural benefit of the movement of people, but the cost has been considered too high.

The EU has provided many economic and lifestyle benefits for Brits, however, over the last 10 – 15 years, this has at least perceived, if not actually come at a disproportionately high cost. The Maastricht treaty was seen as initiating the move to a United States of Europe and this is where a lot of British resentment of the EU stemmed from. It is seen as a move to centralise power in the European continent, specifically that of Germany and France, at the expense of Britain. The philosophy of the EU have moved from promoting peace through tight economic integration to promoting a political ideology of sovereignty at the supranational level that at least the vast minority of Europeans (estimated 45%) is neither ready for nor want. The EU has created mechanics that neither only support the tight economic integration nor go further enough to support a federated Europe.

Britons are split – those that seem to benefit more from the EU want to stay; those that see the cost want to go.. On the day of the vote, more that saw the cost headed to the polls and, well, the rest is history (in the making).


Active Member
A small correction, if I may. It seems that my statement, that Brittons were sold a pup, may have seemed to be in relation to their joining the EU. I didn't mean that but rather the decision to "Brexit".


Well-Known Member
Why not have a genuine effort to rectify its faults rather than say ,Rule Britannia etc and "seize the moment" make Britannia Great again?. That's all Hype. and not going to happen as it was based on having colonies for the benefit of the Crown. Britain is just another small Country Potentially quite a good one, but which by itself, isn't much at all these days in the BIG scheme of things.
The BABY has gone out with the Bathwater this time, MATEY. No one really did the research to explain the Pro's and Cons. Nigel and Boris aren't helping much at the moment. are they? Cameron firmly believed the PEOPLE would NEVER vote to leave. so allowed the Vote. Making Teresa the fall guy doesn't do much to examine/ correct fault.( or fix things if that's what you want). It looks very much like opportunistic Bullying to me. and can I keep the WRECK mentality.? She's now immune from a spill action from within, for 12 months . IF you want someone OUT you must have the NUMBERS.. Politics 101.. Dills ALL...Nev
I think there was growing despair at any attempts to overhaul/reform the EU. Cameron went to the EU with twelve (as I recall; may have been a different number) areas of reform, which was met with a stern "Nein, non, no". I think the political class was of the same opinion as Cameron in that the electorate has not been listened to. If the EU had have said "we'll take a look and commit to reform based on what the people of the EU wanted", then there may not have been a referendum at all. In short, it had become a tower of the most hardened and high quality ivory, lacking any windows at all; the light being totally artificial and self-generated. The behaviour of the EU at the announcement of the referendum was deplorable and simply riled the UK public (except those who would never think of leaving). There were many pro-remainers I knew who became pro-Brexit. I would like to think Boris, an original Remainer crossed the line to Brexit for the same grounds rather than pure opportunism - we can only live in hope. Rather than the EU say, "hey, Britain, before you go off the rails, here are all the blooming good things you get out of being in the EU.. larger markets to sell to, cheap holidays (and when I say cheap, it is cheaper for a family of 4 to get onto a plane and have a week or two in the Cost del Sol with guaranteed sun than risk it for a caravan park in Cornwall), inexpensive and affordable food, better community facilities, etc etc. Yes, not a is perfect, but there has been a lot more that the UK has got out of it than you see on a daily basis... and we will try and fix things for all Europeans - Britons included and even, here's how...", they said "well, if you leave, not only will we make it difficult for you, we will punish you for years to come - you will be treated below any other 3rd country to the EU and our priority will be F! you, we want you to live in abject poverty."

Their rhetoric and initial/continual posturing has shown they are not an institution ready for questioning whether or not their current course, which was appropriate at the time, is still appropriate. The recent German elections, when you think of the post WW2 culture of that country are heading to the right/facist route as per pre-WW2 thanks to discontent. The Italian elections - electing members with an increased disdain to Europe; Poland, Hungary and a couple of other relatively recent EU countries have openly flouted EU regulations, particularly on migration (of EU citizens of non-EU descent), and are effecting laying the gauntlet down to the EU, which is a bit rich given the recent historical context. France bucked the trend, but Macron is now under a lot of pressure in removing what amounts to illegal state subsidisation under EU rules. Greece seems to be the only country to have been pilloried for their transgressions as have the UK - the former being small and dependent on the EU; the latter being one whom complies with their obligations and takes being member seriously - to being undermined..

There have been numerous attempts by Britain to get the EU to change their tune a bit - EASA being another that few on deaf ears. So, it did appear the only way to get the EU to sit up and listen was to take drastic action - and the UK did; The second largest member of the EU decided it was time to put it to the vote. That caused enough shock waves, but not seemingly enough to get the EU to rethink their strategies. Once the referendum result was known and after the initial period of shock with associated bellicose posturing, Junckers finally admitted that the EU does need to look at reform (although it seems a short-lived admission as the civil servants of the EU are on one of the better civil service gravy trains in a democratic institution - why would they want any other reform than that which solidifies the status quo and pushes more in their interests).

Having said all of the above, the UK is not blameless in this - having weak pollies that lacked any real vision and ability to articulate that vision. The Boris bus did little to convert remainers to Brexiteers and the remain camp treated the brexit electorate with contempt. British politicians rarely took the fight to the EU and only Farage seemed to have the guts to cal out the issues of the EU as he perceived as well as articulately fight for them, with BoJo effectively being his monkey. In fact, one EU MEP placed a hand written sign, "He is lying to you" above Farage's head while Farage was debating in the EU Parliament. However, there didn't seem to be an explanation from the said member as to what he was lying about or why (maybe suppressed by the media, but would a pro-remain media organisation suppress that?) No pollie here grasped the opportunity, either. I also think the vision of the UK is different to others in the EU and when you no longer share the same vision as those in the club you belong to, it is time to look for another club.

There is undeniably going to be a period of adjustment for the UK, but I wouldn't call it a little Britain mentality that has driven by the vote of it is ordinary people, the slim majority (and we have to remember that) who were fed up. I don't think anyone here looks back on imperial days gone by with a yearning to return to those days (well, except for a few eccentric aristocratic legacies. Most people want to look forward and build a trading nation that is free to make all of its own decisions - including who and on what terms it trades with. Seems to work with smaller (economically speaking) nations OK - Australia is not a member of some supranational club, has negotiated some reasonably good free trade agreements, etc.. Maybe the baby had grown up, wrinkled and now hit retirement age; time to usher in the new? The reality is, we don't yet know. what a Brexit will look like nor what the future relationship with the EU will look like.. Sitting in a comfort zone never really leads to great progress and maybe it is time to rock the boat - although under our current leadership, I fear for how we will be able to exploit new opportunities. As with any transition period, there will be pain and lessons to learn. Geeez, I am sounding like a broken record of Brexit pollies here.

Let's also not forget, May did put her hat in the ring. So she allowed herself to be a fall guy in this case. And I think the vote of no confidence was a clever trick to stabilise things - for May to remain, she undertaken to step down at the next general election - i.e. she has told the party she won't stay on. There was a lot of noise brewing from her cabinet; her ministers; her back bench and her non-parliamentary party, all destabilising things. By providing those who would have voted against her a carrot that she is only short-lived and will finish the job no-one currently wants anyway, the no confidence vote has quietened the noises of discontent to the rabble-rousing fewer and allows her greater latitude wth getting on with the job. Note, saying no to a no confidence vote does not equal active support, nor does it mean they will vote yes to her Brexit deal. It just means at this stage, there is no better or willing alternative on the table and they have given her a slither of time to sort things out.

She is also not entirely immune to a vote of no confidence - the one she survived is Conservative parliamentary party vote of no confidence and that cannot be instigated again for 12 months. However, there is nothing stopping any member of parliament initiating a vote of no confidence in the chamber, and Corbyn is looking to do that at the moment. The Conservatives, with their DUP backers have stated they will not back any vote in the chamber.. but I can see that changing is May can't bring a Brexit deal that is acceptable to many - and we should not underestimate the difficulty in doing so.


Well-Known Member
As a subject of the same queen that the british have, I expected better treatment at Heathrow than to wait in a long queue with lots of other aliens while thousands of swarthy people from greece etc walked straight in.
And I keep seeing plaintive letters from glider manufacturers based in Germany who say their fees from the bureaucracy have become so unsupportable that they just have to pass them on. They have to pay separate fees for about 5 different aspects of glider maintenance, and do this on gliders which were paid for 50 years ago.
The EU bureacracy is what needs to be culled , as it does here. The only product of bureaucracy is poverty. I applaud the Brexit lot and I hope they become a haven of lesser bureaucracy.


Well-Known Member
Britain put us in the Far queue when it first joined the "trade cartel" which was the EU. All the stuff they used to import from here just stopped dead. No thanks, no apologies. The "apple Isle" pulled out all the apple trees and our butter become unwanted as Europe had it 's own milk lake and butter mountain. New Zealand had a similar fate.
At least Britain retained it's currency. The "common" currency was a very predictable serious issue for a group as diverse as all the tribes of Europe were and still are. in terms of taxation and social welfare. A universal currency had to be an issue sooner or later.. The big banks have held too much power in the Eu. and perhaps the IMF in a word wide context, does as well .It's lost it's iron grip lately. with it's easy loans but with harsh consequences and austerity inclination. It's a predator rather than a helper in reality..
Britain pretty much invented and perfected the over intrusive ponderous bureaucracy ( India might go a little further and get the Cigar) and so probably doesn't need the extra efforts from Belgium to add to or compete with their own version. Scotland leaving the UK? That's fairly likely. It nearly did. A disintegrating EU and a disunited "United" Kingdom.. Surely the glaring anomaly to the world observer is the status of A" Kingdom" where rule/power by inheritance exists. Surely THAT is well past it's use by date as a justified concept.. Nev


Well-Known Member
You are stretching the imagination to compare Mein Kampf with the EU. structure.. I'm not sure it's any useful extent. Things have to be seen in context. A place and a time.. Yeah, I don't like JP Junker either. Nev


Well-Known Member
He always said "A unified europe".
Wanted it under his thumb (Germany), but missed by a few country's to Belgium.
He had almost got it until America joined the war in europe, If they hadn't the EU would be the same but different.
Euro would be the Mark, Headquarters, Berlin, and still NO VOTING for the hierarchy.


Well-Known Member
WHO would have succeeded the Fuhrer. Adolf Hitler, ?
I mean he would have passed by now, ( lots of tries to hurry it up).
I doubt if it would be any WORSE the the "ENGLISH REPUBLIC"
Many don't know IT was for a few years a Republic, and had to have England's only "Armed rebellion" to get out of it. (civil war).
So would a German EU be any different to the Belgium EU "we have to have".


Well-Known Member
Missing a few "notable" things, like ovens and death camps, medical experiments on captives Human rights is a significant difference...The EU has a lot of good objectives. Germany is where it is because it's efficient at producing stuff that people will pay for.. Can't see much slave labour . either. They have unions. Free universities, Hitler denied education and burned books. and rid himself of any competition by killing them. I would happily live and work in Germany. Now. Not 1939- 45. It's NOT the same by a million miles er Kilometers after factoring..
People change the government there by voting. Merkel will be replaced after a record breaking term PEACEFULLY. Have to be one of the best and most civilized places to live in the entire world. Nev
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Theresa May may be the worst British leader, but what ot the USA? Surely she is way better than Trump. Having said that I cannot remember a good PM in Britain since WW2. Anthony Eden is in my opinion well on the way to getting the vote for worst.


Well-Known Member
Only met one of them (by himself, no security or anything) so I wouldn't know really as I don't live there. Going on the Newspapers is pointless. Just Grim Fairy Tales. Nev


Well-Known Member
" Germany is where it is because it's efficient "
And the $millions that the Yanks poured in, after the war that the UK LOST, doesn't count ?.
Of course England HAD to repay every American cent, that was promptly sent to rebuild Her Hitler's ruins.
1953, England finished paying their repatriation loans & stopped having to be RATIONED,
Top Bottom