What's new

Theresa May will find herself as hated as Trump if she sacrifices our ethics for trade deals

Proudpakistaniguy

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
4,890
Reaction score
5
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Perhaps we must feel sorry for Theresa May. She knows she must secure a US/UK trade deal to salvage the dignity of Brexit, even if the Brexiteers’ lust for it is confirmation of their towering stupidity
may-philadelphia.jpg

I’ll not mention his real name, but let’s call him Ian. Ian is British, born in Essex, and married to Samantha, from Cheshire. Ian and Samantha both work in New York. Ian, as chance would have it, is a top executive in a large media empire run by a very well-known octogenarian Australian.

At Christmas, both sets of parents came to stay at their Manhattan apartment. On Christmas all four were given the same present, which they opened simultaneously, Ian discreetly filming on his phone. They were Christmas cards, containing an ultrasound scan of their first grandchild. They were met with the standard reaction – eyes popped, tears were shed and there was a chaotic descent into group hugging.

But there were more tears at the weekend when, because Ian’s mum has an Iranian passport, she was banned from visiting her son – and banned from seeing their first grandchild.

The couple are British citizens, working in America – the kind of thing that, if talk is to be believed, will become ever more commonplace once a US/UK trade deal is in place – their lives suddenly dealt a hammer blow, for no other reason than the people of the United States have elected a baboon as President.

Now, our Foreign Secretary trumpets the fact that British citizens with dual nationality will not be subject to the President’s travel ban. That this great indignity heaped upon the people of seven seemingly arbitrarily selected nations is OK, because Britain has a get out of jail free card. Ian’s mum fled to Britain decades ago from persecution in her own country (she and her husband are both practitioners of the Baha’i faith, which if nothing else, further inhibits their jihadi tendencies), and now this.

It is only a few days since Theresa May addressed an audience of Republican politicians in Philadelphia and had the sheer audacity to tell them to “join hands as we pick up that mantle of leadership once more, to renew our Special Relationship and to recommit ourselves to the responsibility of leadership in the modern world”.

The world’s attention has perhaps never been more intently focused on the United States of America than it is now, and almost never more so on Britain. It is not looking for leadership. It is alternating between dread and laughter.



Perhaps we must feel sorry for May. She knows she must secure a US/UK trade deal to salvage the dignity of Brexit, even if the Brexiteers’ lust for it is confirmation of their towering stupidity. If free trade is de facto a good thing, substituting a newly protectionist United States for the world’s largest free trade zone that is right on our doorstep is de facto a bad thing.

She would also not be the first British prime minister of recent times to decide that there is no price too high for the preservation of the transatlantic relationship. It is why, in a break with usual protocol, policemen with automatic weapons still guard Tony Blair’s front door.

On the global stage, Donald Trump, like Britain, is an entity now respected and admired only by right-wing extremists. If Theresa May imagines her country’s reputation can be restored via the friendly offices of an international joke, her own personal credibility will not last much longer.

Political leadership is an elusive thing – as hard to understand as it is easy to recognise. Cosying up to tyrants while brokering personalised opt-outs from their own tyranny is certainly not it

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...theresa-may-families-torn-apart-a7553016.html
 
. .
Where was all the hue and cry when Obama banned immigration/refugees from Iraq in the same temporary fashion (for 6 months IIRC) in 2011 (when they needed time to check proper vetting/ security process was in place)?


The current list of 7 countries didn't come out of thin air this time either, it again traces back to the Obama administration if you look it up.

Trump is basically doing exactly what he promised to do, put in bans till the US can be sure a stringent enough security process to admit refugees and immigrants from countries that have the most compromised internal vetting as the US govt now sees it.

Its not a muslim ban at all. Correlation/coincidence (muslim majority demographic with lack of domestic vetting/security) is not causation (muslim majority country ...or even all muslim people banned from US). After all how many countries can be listed right now which have muslim majorities but no such temporary ban is in place for? Much more than 7. These countries have been judged to have the pre-requisiting security apparatus regarding terrorism/extremism from filtering through to the US immigration services.

Its like saying internment of Japanese in the US during WW2 (again by a democrat president) was targeted against the Shinto religion, not the country.
 
. .
Its height of stupidity to assume that everyone who live in those 7 countries will be a terrorist or threat for americans..by the way it seem kim make much more sense than this bigot TRUMP


The point is the exact same thing was done by Obama in 2011 for Iraq. Does that mean all of Iraq is made out of terrorists?

Anyways no one protested anywhere about it in 2011. So all of those doing so now, are hypocrites. Easy win.
 
.

Watch especially time stamp 2:40

========

Fake politician, celeb, MSM tears, esp from hypocrites:

 
.
The point is the exact same thing was done by Obama in 2011 for Iraq. Does that mean all of Iraq is made out of terrorists?

Anyways no one protested anywhere about it in 2011. So all of those doing so now, are hypocrites. Easy win.


Banning immigrants from Syria or Iraq for now because of ISIS is fine. Banning immigrants from the other countries is the issue.

You may not mind, but there is a difference. You are absolutely correct when you say that it's not a "Muslim ban"---most Muslims countries are not on the list, only seven are. But it's unfair to ban those from the five other countries. He also hasn't ruled out adding other Muslim countries to the list either. That's why people are protesting. Again, you may not share their opinion, and that's fine. But they have very good reasons to protest.
 
.
But it's unfair to ban those from all those other countries.

That's really up to the US authorities to decide with the information they have on the security apparatus in these 5 other countries (outside of Syria and Iraq). These 7 countries specifically trace to groundwork researched and laid under the Obama administration...Trump basically decided there was no reason to be politically correct anymore and has brought this temporary ban while they review the procedures employed by immigration embassy staff in these countries....just like Obama did for Iraq in 2011 for 6 whole months (and there was no protest about that by anyone back then).

If Trump indeed just applied these restrictions to just Syria and Iraq, are you telling me there would be 0 protestors out there and Chuck Schumer wouldn't be staging crocodile tear drama?

That's why people are protesting. Again, you may not share their opinion, and that's fine. But they have very good reasons to protest.

I'm just saying they didn't apply this rationale/hue and cry to the earlier situation. If you look at the video I posted the lady literally said "I like Obama" as the reason why she didn't decide to do anything in 2011 (she probably wouldn't have even been aware of it....because who really picks up stuff like that done under Obama? -- he's black, its impossible for him to be "racist"/"bigoted").
 
.
just like Obama did for Iraq in 2011 for 6 whole months (and there was no protest about that by anyone back then).


I already addressed this. Temporary bans for Iraq and Syria, like Obama did, are fine with me. False equivalency.

That's really up to the US authorities to decide with the information they have on the security apparatus in these 5 other countries (outside of Syria and Iraq). These 7 countries specifically trace to groundwork researched and laid under the Obama administration...Trump basically decided there was no reason to be politically correct anymore and has brought this temporary ban while they review the procedures employed by immigration embassy staff in these countries....just like Obama did for Iraq in 2011 for 6 whole months (and there was no protest about that by anyone back then).


First of all, Obama only banned immigrants from Iraq, not from any other Muslim countries. False equivalency.

"The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn't traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.

Trump's order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/


If Trump indeed just applied these restrictions to just Syria and Iraq, are you telling me there would be 0 protestors out there and Chuck Schumer wouldn't be staging crocodile tear drama?


No, there wouldn't be anything like the protests you are seeing now. There will always be people who protest any policy, but there would be nothing like this.

If you look at the video I posted the lady literally said "I like Obama" as the reason why she didn't decide to do anything in 2011


This 30 second video of this one woman does not represent every protestor on the street. To suggest so is absurd.

because who really picks up stuff like that done under Obama? -- he's black, its impossible for him to be "racist"/"bigoted").


Sigh. People don't think Trump is a bigot simply because he's White. Most people didn't think John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Kasich, Bob Dole, or George H.W. Bush were ones either.

Please see the things Trump said during his campaign and the policies he supports. You may not agree with those who find him to be bigoted, but the bottom line is that skin tone is irrelevant.

I'm just saying they didn't apply this rationale/hue and cry to the earlier situation.


And what I'm telling you is that Obama did not ban all citizens from these countries from entering the US. That is a fact.

Again, you may think that Trump's blanket ban on all people from all of these countries is a good idea and may enthusiastically support his new policy, and that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. (I don't think it solves much. But then again, most of Trump's policies don't actually accomplish much, they're mostly for show.) However, Obama did not do what Trump did, and that's why people are protesting.
 
.
UK cannot afford to ban Trump, no matter how much you protest. And at this moment UK needs a trade deal desperately, than USA.
 
.
I already addressed this. Temporary bans for Iraq and Syria, like Obama did, are fine with me. False equivalency.

Explain to me how these are not temporary bans? The E.O sets 90 days as the length of the current ban. That is temporary....as is the refugee ban of 120 days.

If you are waiting to see if they will be lifted at the end of the time periods states or extended, well we have to wait and see.

But the protestors never gave Trump a chance for that...like they did (and ignored in the first place) with Obama (which ended up being 6 months long).

First of all, Obama only banned immigrants from Iraq, not from any other Muslim countries. False equivalency.

1 country or 7 countries, the current ban does not delineate on religion. Approx 89% of the muslim population worldwide is unaffected. The non-muslims in these 7 countries are also subject to the ban.

You know full well what the difference in reaction would be if Trump did an exact verbatim copy of what Obama did....or if Obama did what Trump is doing now.

No, there wouldn't be anything like the protests you are seeing now. There will always be people who protest any policy, but there would be nothing like this.

So Syria + Iraq = OK, there would be next to no protests.

Adding Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Iran and Yemen and suddenly all precedent does not apply?

The protestors are privy to information (collected during the Obama regime) about the threats perceived by the US regarding these country's security apparatus to make any attempt at an informed decision? Or its simply another thing they can attack Trump on and feel good about virtue signalling?

Anyway, Trump knows many in the US back this measure:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416

McLaughlin and Associates posed a similar question and received 66% support for a temporary ban on middle east refugees.
 
.
Explain to me how these are not temporary bans? The E.O sets 90 days as the length of the current ban. That is temporary....as is the refugee ban of 120 days.

If you are waiting to see if they will be lifted at the end of the time periods states or extended, well we have to wait and see.

But the protestors never gave Trump a chance for that...like they did (and ignored in the first place) with Obama (which ended up being 6 months long).


Never said they weren't. Please re-read my post. However, he has hinted that he may extend them. I'm not jumping the gun though.

1 country or 7 countries, the current ban does not delineate on religion. Approx 89% of the muslim population worldwide is unaffected.


I agreed with you on this earlier. It is obviously not a ban on all Muslim immigrants:
You are absolutely correct when you say that it's not a "Muslim ban"---most Muslims countries are not on the list, only seven are.



You know full well what the reaction would be if Trump did an exact verbatim copy of what Obama did....or if Obama did what Trump is doing now.


If he banned immigrants only from ISIS-battered Iraq for a bit? Not much protest at all. You honestly think that many people in this country care about Iraqis alone? You're kidding yourself if you think people would flood the streets over that.

Adding Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Iran and Yemen and suddenly all precedent does not apply?


You do realize that tens of millions of people live in those countries, right? It is unfair that all of the people in these countries, and their friends and families here in the US, have to needlessly suffer because of this pointless policy. The vast majority of the people who will be victims of this policy are Muslims.

People are protesting because it is unlike what Obama did, and is unfair to the people of these countries (excluding Iraq and probably Syria). They also want to show their support for Muslim immigrants and visitors, as Trump has hinted that he may extend the period of the ban, or perhaps even add more countries to the list.

The protestors are privy to information (collected during the Obama regime) about the threats perceived by the US regarding these country's security apparatus to make any attempt at an informed decision? Or its simply another thing they can attack Trump on and feel good about virtue signalling?


Yes, the Obama administration decided with all of that "information" to not ban all people from these countries. It doesn't seem that some Trump supporters seem to think about this (Or maybe they just don't want to. It ruins their odd, blame-shifting narrative).

Anyway, Trump knows many in the US back this measure:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416


That's not a poll of this particular policy, it was taken before this policy was announced. This is what the question said:

"50. Do you support or oppose suspending immigration from "terror prone" regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions?"


"Terror prone regions" to most Americans probably means Syria, Iraq, and maybe Afghanistan.

In any case:

1. People only answered "Yes" to this vague question by a weak 48-42% margin---with 10% responding "Don't Know". I thought it would be significantly higher when I read the question, to be honest with you. Not even a bare majority answered "Yes".

2. Also, it does not ask about banning travel completely (no visas), just immigration.

McLaughlin and Associates posed a similar question and received 66% support for a temporary ban on middle east refugees.


McLaughlin is a poor pollster. Quinnipiac is much better.
 
.
The non-muslims in these 7 countries are also subject to the ban.


Not quite:

"President Donald Trump plans to prioritize Christian refugees for resettlement over other persecuted people whose lives are threatened in their home countries, he said on Friday."

"The order suspends all refugee resettlement for 120 days and bars Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. entirely. It has a carveout, though, that would apply to Christian Syrians: During the 120-day suspension period, the U.S. government can approve admission of refugees persecuted for being a religious minority in their home country."


"The president of Open Doors USA, which focuses specifically on persecuted Christians, released a statement on Saturday condemning the prioritizing of one group over another. David Curry said that it is appropriate to recognize the need to protect persecuted Christians.

“However,” Curry continued, “cherry-picking one religion over another only exacerbates the already severe worldwide trend of religious persecution. We encourage a need-based approach that treats all faiths equally and works toward the comprehensive strengthening of religious freedom around the world.”



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-christian-refugees-syria_us_588bb872e4b0b065cbbbf26f
 
. .
Not quite:

"President Donald Trump plans to prioritize Christian refugees for resettlement over other persecuted people whose lives are threatened in their home countries, he said on Friday."

"The order suspends all refugee resettlement for 120 days and bars Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. entirely. It has a carveout, though, that would apply to Christian Syrians: During the 120-day suspension period, the U.S. government can approve admission of refugees persecuted for being a religious minority in their home country."


"The president of Open Doors USA, which focuses specifically on persecuted Christians, released a statement on Saturday condemning the prioritizing of one group over another. David Curry said that it is appropriate to recognize the need to protect persecuted Christians.

“However,” Curry continued, “cherry-picking one religion over another only exacerbates the already severe worldwide trend of religious persecution. We encourage a need-based approach that treats all faiths equally and works toward the comprehensive strengthening of religious freedom around the world.”



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-christian-refugees-syria_us_588bb872e4b0b065cbbbf26f

Was talking more about the 90 day immigration-based ban (which affects everyone from the 7 countries no matter their religion).

But yes the 120 day ban for refugees will always have such a caveat. Obama exercised it during the 6 month policy on Iraq after all.

I do disagree with Trump on making this a religious minority policy, it should be a case by case, regardless of religion like Obama admin did (but say take on board minority status in rubric of prioritization more than before if needed)

However I have to let the 120 days elapse and then judge after that....given the negotiations Trump is making with the KSA and UAE about using tent cities etc for the muslim refugees from the region.

There are many things going on, will have to wait and see.

Your previous post is fine, I have taken on board some of your points (I always appreciate your perspective), I hope you take on board some of mine....and its that time again to agree to disagree on the others, wait and watch and then discuss again at later point.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom