HopefullyUntil Corbyn fractures off and creates his own party, the Owen Jones resignation will change very little
HopefullyUntil Corbyn fractures off and creates his own party, the Owen Jones resignation will change very little
This was the great flaw, actually the disgruntled elements among remainers were to blame for this false extension period and all the rubbish that followed because they insulated the Brexit voters from reality of their vote by their rearguard actions, especially in the parliamentary fiasco that followed; in fact Boris would never have got anywhere near leading the Tories, but for this rearguard action.In some ways, it may have been better not to have had a gradual divorce spread over nearly ten years because that way all three political parties wouldn't now be able to say they can do it better.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Weren't England trying to find ways to, understandably, show their support for LQBTQ+ communities during the Qatari world cup? Wasn't that pretty much met with unanimous support?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He's got Joey's vote.
But it would have killed the UK economy stone dead had there been an immediate fracture of the agreements. Immigration and brainwashing were the only issues and as was told at the time brexit will make immigration considerably higher, as turned out to be the case and will continue to be so. The outcome from brexit is exactly as was forecast and the worst parts are still to come. It's going to get a lot worse.This was the great flaw, actually the disgruntled elements among remainers were to blame for this false extension period and all the rubbish that followed because they insulated the Brexit voters from reality of their vote by their rearguard actions, especially in the parliamentary fiasco that followed; in fact Boris would never have got anywhere near leading the Tories, but for this rearguard action.
It was the battles within the Tory Party over Europe, going back to Major/Portillo etc. that enabled such as Farage to get a foothold, then a strangle hold first over the referendum itself and hence over the Tory Party . Large elements of 'Tory DNA' were stolen by Farage, and repackage to attract the right leaning voters within the red wall areas as well, in particular the bits around immigration that are still now being threatened again and have led to the ludicrous Rwanda issue.
The point, my point is this, Brexit was never about trade, it was always about political supremacy, in the Tory Party and ultimately about whether the UK stayed in for the ride towards 'ever closer union', which had always been the destination for the EC's founding fathers, but never part of the UK's remit for a final destination.
It's history Paul, yes people were fooled, but not many, Starmer has to 'shake the dust' from our post Brexit Britain and push on where he can, he has no other choice.
feck me, these people see combinations of colours as covert political statements now. Not the same colours and not in the same order. May as well say Frances's flag is like that because they want to appease Russia.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He's got Joey's vote.
Joey Barton is an absolute mouth breather, I wish we as a society could just forget he ever existed.feck me, these people see combinations of colours as covert political statements now. Not the same colours and not in the same order. May as well say Frances's flag is like that because they want to appease Russia.
Liz Truss doing only marginally better than a fictional politician.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Before he realised it was potentially profitable to be a right wing nutjob, Barton actually once fronted a rainbow laces campaign.Weren't England trying to find ways to, understandably, show their support for LQBTQ+ communities during the Qatari world cup? Wasn't that pretty much met with unanimous support?
This whole thing is a joke and would almost have gone totally unnoticed had no-one kicked up a fuss.
So, in what ways would it have been better not to have divorce over a ten year period (referring to your previous post)?But it would have killed the UK economy stone dead had there been an immediate fracture of the agreements.
That may be true down the line, but right now Covid and how we dealt with it, the money wasted, etc. are of more significance. All the economic indicators, including Brexit, are not encouraging. The massive looming debt has to be addressed and Starmer and Reeves are putting themselves in the hot seat. They have already revised the 28B they had set aside to develop new green industry to restore the economy, and why, because its now dawning on them and also in some aspects of the public's notional understanding of government finance, that all most every aspect of major government provision of services is crying out for more money, from the big spenders like NHS, Education, Social Services, Defence, House Building etc.etc. right down to councils being able to fill in pot holes. Not to mention anything the government may want to devote to ensuring net zero and in responding to climate change for the future.The UK economy has been damaged for decades to come and there's no obvious solution . Where the Uk are heading now, who knows, but in five years time, a lot more people will realise what a terrible mistake they made in 2016 because ' they might get too close to Europe?" makes no sense.
Politically it would have been better. Because up till now the Brexiters say 'well the sky hasn't completely fallen in' and still have hope that it won't be as bad as was said and that Starmer, Farage and co say the Tories haven't implemented it correctly and Starmer thinks he's going to get a better deal and all the voters of the three main parties are still clinging to the hope that it will turn out all right in the end.So, in what ways would it have been better not to have divorce over a ten year period (referring to your previous post)?
Not sure therefore what you think the 'gain' would have been to shorten the period over which the deal was done, or was supposedly 'oven ready' as Boris claimed?
I agree immigration was a major issue for many, but not for all. The politics of applying the result slowly via the ludicrous Parliament voting methods that took place made things worse and were a significant aspect in encouraging people who had voted Brexit to 'dig in'. I suspect it was this issue more than others that allowed Boris to raid the 'red wall' strongholds of Labour so successfully. Of course Corbyn's abysmal leadership of Labour also contributed and again, in red wall areas, it did not help. Jeremy may be what many people on the left consider as an example of a 'conviction politician' (and a thoroughly nice man), but his brand of international socialism has never gone down well with the British public and all the RW press had to do was run a continual.. 'this is your life' type sequel over the last twenty years and the man (and anyone standing near him) got shot down in flames.
That may be true down the line, but right now Covid and how we dealt with it, the money wasted, etc. are of more significance. All the economic indicators, including Brexit, are not encouraging. The massive looming debt has to be addressed and Starmer and Reeves are putting themselves in the hot seat. They have already revised the 28B they had set aside to develop new green industry to restore the economy, and why, because its now dawning on them and also in some aspects of the public's notional understanding of government finance, that all most every aspect of major government provision of services is crying out for more money, from the big spenders like NHS, Education, Social Services, Defence, House Building etc.etc. right down to councils being able to fill in pot holes. Not to mention anything the government may want to devote to ensuring net zero and in responding to climate change for the future.
What is needed is something akin to the Marshall Plan (post WW2) but the US is not going to help this time. This time we have to find it ourselves, it's no wonder Starmer and Reeves are keeping 'stumm' on virtually everything, because what they do know.... is that they don't know the half of it ...yet!
What I suspect Starmer/Reeves are trying to do at present is convince the money-markets that they will be very grown up about whatever figure the final 'end of Tory rule' accounting takes place throws up and the action to be taken thereafter.
I liked the bit in the original post where you pointed out how they'd completely made up Jones leaving Labour multiple times. Which somehow is different to them lying.I wrote all of that because of a poster calling another poster a liar.
Feel free to attack me by spending three years telling everyone that I should be running the country and that they should vote for me to do so.He’s not saying that though is he? Why do people instantly assume any critiecim of anyone on the left is then an automatic support for Starmer? We were told Jones hasn’t attacked Starmer but then evidence was presented that he has. According to Jones which is his point of view. Yes his view is different just like some of us who think Jones is insufferable is different to them.
I think large parts of the 'financial sky' have already fallen in, especially in terms of the inflationary issues affecting the economy, much of it from what Liz Truss's mini government did. Mainly however, from the carry over from COVID, with all sorts of people/businesses trying to claw-back money lost during the pandemic. Brexit is one of these issues but as yet it's a minor one for the average person in the street. Producers and exporters and those who had businesses tied into the EU have suffered from changes in trading but there is little sign in the high street that things are in short supply and when they are its short lived and they return to availability fairly quickly, but of course with increased prices.Politically it would have been better. Because up till now the Brexiters say 'well the sky hasn't completely fallen in' and still have hope that it won't be as bad as was said and that Starmer, Farage and co say the Tories haven't implemented it correctly and Starmer thinks he's going to get a better deal and all the voters of the three main parties are still clinging to the hope that it will turn out all right in the end.
In real life a sudden break would have been catastrophic, the pain has been spread over the period of ten years which was what was wanted so that the UK could change their trading patterns. Unfortunately for the UK, there is no alternative trading pattern which has been promised by the Tories or any of the Brexiters. They've still got the voters hanging on to the CPTTP and the other rubbish deals.
Even more unfortunate, is the fact that there was one hope that the Tories would be wiped out and replaced by a politician who understands the problems but Starmer is definitely not that person.
The soft landing however, starts drawing to a close next month just in time for the next parliamentary 5 years, which is why Starmer is going to have it as a major thing to deal with as soon as he's in office and will gradually turn into full Brexit by 2028/9 . It will be his number one problem immediately.I think large parts of the 'financial sky' have already fallen in, especially in terms of the inflationary issues affecting the economy, much of it from what Liz Truss's mini government did. Mainly however, from the carry over from COVID, with all sorts of people/businesses trying to claw-back money lost during the pandemic. Brexit is one of these issues but as yet it's a minor one for the average person in the street. Producers and exporters and those who had businesses tied into the EU have suffered from changes in trading but there is little sign in the high street that things are in short supply and when they are its short lived and they return to availability fairly quickly, but of course with increased prices.
This relatively 'soft landing' from Brexit so far has been over shadowed by many things in the public's mind, inflation being the main issue, but the fact that even before Brexit, service provision in the NHS, Education and many other areas was diminishing, probably the single most standout sign of our slide as a first world country, was the arrival and establishment of food banks, this being a real and obvious sign that things were going wrong.
My argument that Brexit is history, is that whatever the extra burden and whenever it comes, if at all, then its down the road somewhere. Starmer , indeed all the would be leaders of the future in the UK (or parts thereof) cannot be harbingers of doom and nothing else... its not the way to get elected.
Starmer/Reeve are now appearing to close down many areas that a few months back seem to be high on Labour's 'wish- to-do' list. They are trying to estimate what is waiting down the road and are trying to manage expectations of what a new government can do, especially in its first term. They are gambling not so much on winning the election, but winning 'big', they need to win big to have at least a chance of moving the dial.
Comments about making progress with the EU signal only intention, not expectation, in all such statements about the future you feel Starmer is for the moment anyway making them with his fingers crossed behind his back.
I would expect no further clarity, from any leader who seriously seeks power after the GE, that is until Rishi blows the whistle for the GE to get underway. Anyone who is putting forward detailed plans at this stage is really signalling spoiler alert, and knows they have no chance.
One of many no doubt but not number one, his first is establishing a forward looking programme, that's starts from where we are, and defines where we want to be, and crucially, has full support from the majority of the public. Such a programme will need specific outcomes defined and dates for completion, only by doing this in a first term, will he be able to win a second..etc.The soft landing however, starts drawing to a close next month just in time for the next parliamentary 5 years, which is why Starmer is going to have it as a major thing to deal with as soon as he's in office and will gradually turn into full Brexit by 2028/9 . It will be his number one problem immediately.
Prior to the start of the run up to GE Starmer is not going to make noises that might lose him, some votes, he knows in certain quarters he will not win any, therefore it becomes a sort of 'zero-sum' situation. If rapprochement is part of his plan, that will emerge post the GE and only if he holds a large majority.You saw the video of Starmer a couple of days ago who categorically ruled out a return to the Customs Union, Single Market or Freedom of Movement. I know it's not happening now or any time soon but that is the only way to ease stop the situation that's coming.
If he's talking of getting better deal with the EU which will help the situation , he's either very stupid or he's lying. Neither helps the country.
Exactly its an intention; on it depends a number of things they want to do, how they achieve it has not been made clear yet and is unlikely to be until Labour is in power with a large majority..... and as we all know 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'The basis of Labour's intention is , in their own words, growth. Without growth and a functioning economy and staying within their own fiscal rules they won't be able to afford to do the things that you and many others are hoping they will do.
It's not like that at all, its about running a country, not a shop or supermarket. I know a famous Frenchman once described us a nation of shopkeepers, but running a country is affected by many things, and we are more than that. Economy is the driver and cannot be ignored, but other things matter and Starmer, or whoever will after the GE have to take cognizance of that fact, from day one.It's like trying to run a supermarket in Manchester but insisting they're only interested in selling to people in the Shetland Islands and trying to source their supplies, not from local producers but from the South Pole.
But I don't think he realises what's going to happen between 2024 and 2029. It's like someone talking to you about a subject that you know inside out and you know within a minute that the person who's talking to you has no idea what he's talking about. There is no new deal. This is it other than very minor tweaking .One of many no doubt but not number one, his first is establishing a forward looking programme, that's starts from where we are, and defines where we want to be, and crucially, has full support from the majority of the public. Such a programme will need specific outcomes defined and dates for completion, only by doing this in a first term, will he be able to win a second..etc.
I suspect somewhere in that programme will be a rapprochement towards the EU.
Prior to the start of the run up to GE Starmer is not going to make noises that might lose him, some votes, he knows in certain quarters he will not win any, therefore it becomes a sort of 'zero-sum' situation. If rapprochement is part of his plan, that will emerge post the GE and only if he holds a large majority.
Exactly its an intention; on it depends a number of things they want to do, how they achieve it has not been made clear yet and is unlikely to be until Labour is in power with a large majority..... and as we all know 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'
It's not like that at all, its about running a country, not a shop or supermarket. I know a famous Frenchman once described us a nation of shopkeepers, but running a country is affected by many things, and we are more than that. Economy is the driver and cannot be ignored, but other things matter and Starmer, or whoever will after the GE have to take cognizance of that fact, from day one.
I don't think anybody knows whats going to happen between 2024-2029. The issue of migration is now stepping up all over the northern hemisphere, even the EU is going to have major problems. Net zero targets are disappearing or being 'reviewed' all over, no more so than in the UK. People are declaring themselves unfit for work on a scale not seen since the return of armed forces/prisoners of war personnel from WW2, and of course everyone in the Western world is wondering what will happen when/if Trump becomes US President later this year.But I don't think he realises what's going to happen between 2024 and 2029.
This may well be true, but then it will be minor tweaking and Starmer will have to take it from there. By the time the very worst (as you see it) effects come on stream, I suspect other issues will be driving us and the EU, which might alter the ground rules, opt outs, special arrangements, etc. all the other issues that marked the UK's position when it was a member of the EU, could well be once again pressed into political service, with both sides having changed much of their leadership the present incumbents can all rightfully say 'it wasn't our fault' so we are looking again at what might endure.... or maybe not!There is no new deal. This is it other than very minor tweaking .
I agree the Rwanda Bill is a nonsense, nothing is going to stop the boats in a physical sense except outright military style action, which at the moment at least, is not acceptable and is a none starter. There has to be deals between countries receiving migrants which are joined up in its thinking and act as one... we are along way off that. Although the British are famous for their attitudes and abilities in 'queuing', so it needs to find a way to engage and explain to others, including those seeking admission, on the benefits to such an approach... but don't hold your breath!Although it could get much worse if the Rwanda bill goes through or the UK leave the ECHR.
The only votes Starmer is interested in are Brexiter votes. There are other voters, left, right and centre who know that his strategy is the wrong one past getting elected (which he could still at this late stage blow) and won't vote for him, certainly not in 2029.
Nobody knows what will happen in the world in the coming years.I don't think anybody knows whats going to happen between 2024-2029. The issue of migration is now stepping up all over the northern hemisphere, even the EU is going to have major problems. Net zero targets are disappearing or being 'reviewed' all over, no more so than in the UK. People are declaring themselves unfit for work on a scale not seen since the return of armed forces/prisoners of war personnel from WW2, and of course everyone in the Western world is wondering what will happen when/if Trump becomes US President later this year.
This may well be true, but then it will be minor tweaking and Starmer will have to take it from there. By the time the very worst (as you see it) effects come on stream, I suspect other issues will be driving us and the EU, which might alter the ground rules, opt outs, special arrangements, etc. all the other issues that marked the UK's position when it was a member of the EU, could well be once again pressed into political service, with both sides having changed much of their leadership the present incumbents can all rightfully say 'it wasn't our fault' so we are looking again at what might endure.... or maybe not!
I cannot envisage anyone currently in office anywhere in the western world who could be sure they are standing on firm ground by the end of this decade.
I agree the Rwanda Bill is a nonsense, nothing is going to stop the boats in a physical sense except outright military style action, which at the moment at least, is not acceptable and is a none starter. There has to be deals between countries receiving migrants which are joined up in its thinking and act as one... we are along way off that. Although the British are famous for their attitudes and abilities in 'queuing', so it needs to find a way to engage and explain to others, including those seeking admission, on the benefits to such an approach... but don't hold your breath!
I think Starmer is interested in any votes and will try to either provide outright support to his main voters and make hints to others about what might get done, once the Tory's are gone. The reality is that there is only Labour under Starmer who has any chance for removing the Tories, not just from office, but from any semblance of power within formal government circles. There are some from left and right who will continue to stand on the sidelines and shout and ball, that's accepted.
You are right though, if Starmer gets a sizeable majority in the coming GE then his first term will be crucial to the whole plan. Without a second and even a third term the 'dial will not have been moved' sufficiently and the Tories will come out of hibernation once again.
Amen to that!Nobody knows what will happen in the world in the coming years.
It wouldn't be a renegotiation, we have already left, the starting positions would be different. No doubt any discussions would have to acknowledge present conditions, but as Starmer has already made clear, he would not be seeking to go over old ground. Besides he will have his in-tray full of other things he will have to address in the first instance and once again that all depends on the size of any majority Labour has after the GE.But there are some things we do know for certain and that is that there will be no renegotiation of the trade agreement with the EU
Whilst I would agree in general, the fact is the press are not going to go away and Starmer will have to deal with that. Like all Labour leaders before him, even Blair with his contacts, he will be hunted down by sections of the press, from left and right... if he is at all worried about that situation, then perhaps he shouldn't stand! Depending on the size of his majority (again) he might get a short honeymoon period, but there is so much to attended to and none of it 'easy-peasy'.There's no need to repair relations with the EU; the only animosity is made up by the British press.
Convinced of what Paul? You have just spent great deal of time explaining to me how things cannot change, so what is there to change minds about? There is no going back on Brexit, at least that seems to be your message, therefore if that is true then the only way to go is forward, 'shake the dust 'etc. Regrets may well occur even more so if things do go as you suggest and already have in some areas, (however that is not the general impression over here) but if nothing can change, then there is no use worrying about what might have been. I don't think Starmer will... or at least I hope he doesn't, last thing we need is a PM stuck in some time-warp.The only way people will change their mind is to be convinced. Nobody's trying to convince them.
What exactly are you or Starmer expecting to be renegotiated? The withdrawal agreement is finished. The trade and co-operation agreement is a trade agreement allowing various tariffs and non-tariff barriers, these might be adjusted very very very slightly and not necessarily in the direction Starmer thinks. He doesn't want to go over old ground but wants to renegotiate - it doesn't make sense. He has no idea what he's doing. Trust me. Of all the Labour politicians he has been the one I've followed the closest because Corbyn appointed him as Shadow Brexit Secretary. Very astute move by Corbyn, appointing a novice MP who had no clue about the EU. I'd never heard of Starmer before that.Amen to that!
It wouldn't be a renegotiation, we have already left, the starting positions would be different. No doubt any discussions would have to acknowledge present conditions, but as Starmer has already made clear, he would not be seeking to go over old ground. Besides he will have his in-tray full of other things he will have to address in the first instance and once again that all depends on the size of any majority Labour has after the GE.
Whilst I would agree in general, the fact is the press are not going to go away and Starmer will have to deal with that. Like all Labour leaders before him, even Blair with his contacts, he will be hunted down by sections of the press, from left and right... if he is at all worried about that situation, then perhaps he shouldn't stand! Depending on the size of his majority (again) he might get a short honeymoon period, but there is so much to attended to and none of it 'easy-peasy'.
Convinced of what Paul? You have just spent great deal of time explaining to me how things cannot change, so what is there to change minds about? There is no going back on Brexit, at least that seems to be your message, therefore if that is true then the only way to go is forward, 'shake the dust 'etc. Regrets may well occur even more so if things do go as you suggest and already have in some areas, (however that is not the general impression over here) but if nothing can change, then there is no use worrying about what might have been. I don't think Starmer will... or at least I hope he doesn't, last thing we need is a PM stuck in some time-warp.
Are you suggesting Starmer will harm the country more than Brexit? Or that it will be worse because of him?The only way people will change their mind is to be convinced. Nobody's trying to convince them.
From my point of view 2024 was the one chance to finally do something but unfortunately Labour have the wrong leader and the opportunity is wasted and the price will be paid for a long time to come.
I'm saying that Starmer will do nothing about starting to reverse the process which is a very long term project, the start of which is being delayed because he thinks that he can renegotiate it or make it work. It doesn't help anyone except him possibly getting a short-term spell as PM.Are you suggesting Starmer will harm the country more than Brexit? Or that it will be worse because of him?
Nothing, it will be a new negotiation I imagine, starting from where we are now. If the EU is not interested then alternatives have to be found, that either compensate for losses by scaling back on other matters and/or change the relationship the UK has across the board, to give focus to new ideas. In any case a new government, any new government interested in growing the economy will need to diversify and in particular to address the over reliance on financial services in our economy, as these will be under attack, some of it from Europe. I am quite sure Starmer will not want to do anything which brings further issues to bear on the UK's relationship with the EU, so I don't see his interest stretching beyond putting out 'feelers' in his early days.What exactly are you or Starmer expecting to be renegotiated?
This is ludicrous, we are already withdrawn, the deal has been done, there is no going back, the EU have made that abundantly clear. That withdrawal deal was, in nature, made whilst we were still a member of the EU, it involved many things including paying a leaving fee/subs which stretches way beyond the leaving date, it was all very much part of that deal, something that is not too well known among the public in the UK. Starmer will not want to get into these matters and neither I suspect will the EU, therefore any approach from Starmer to start a fresh will I suspect be listened too (albeit maybe quietly) in Brussels, as it is in nobody's interest to go back to staring at each other across the table. Neither side has the time for that.I still get the impression he thinks he can renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
Sorry Paul I disagree. The size of the Westminster majority indeed does make a difference, both inside and outside the UK, any moves or promises Starmer makes internally have also to be believed by those outside who will have an interest, (money-markets in particular) in the UK's direction of travel. We only have to remember Lis Truss's experience and her short lived premiership, to convince any doubters. Starmer will need a large working majority to move the dial but also to convince others outside the country he will do as he says and has the troops in Westminster to see it through.The size of the majority whether it is one seat or 600 seats makes no difference whatsoever outside the UK only to internal policy.
I'm not getting anywhere am I?Nothing, it will be a new negotiation I imagine, starting from where we are now. If the EU is not interested then alternatives have to be found, that either compensate for losses by scaling back on other matters and/or change the relationship the UK has across the board, to give focus to new ideas. In any case a new government, any new government interested in growing the economy will need to diversify and in particular to address the over reliance on financial services in our economy, as these will be under attack, some of it from Europe. I am quite sure Starmer will not want to do anything which brings further issues to bear on the UK's relationship with the EU, so I don't see his interest stretching beyond putting out 'feelers' in his early days.
This is ludicrous, we are already withdrawn, the deal has been done, there is no going back, the EU have made that abundantly clear. That withdrawal deal was, in nature, made whilst we were still a member of the EU, it involved many things including paying a leaving fee/subs which stretches way beyond the leaving date, it was all very much part of that deal, something that is not too well known among the public in the UK. Starmer will not want to get into these matters and neither I suspect will the EU, therefore any approach from Starmer to start a fresh will I suspect be listened too (albeit maybe quietly) in Brussels, as it is in nobody's interest to go back to staring at each other across the table. Neither side has the time for that.
It is quite possible any earlier contact Starmer might wish to try out would be focused around exploring what would be the benefit for both the UK and the EU to consider any number of collaborative options, that safeguard the EU's treaties, and make clear what the political as well as trading issues are that need to be addressed. The intention being to bring the UK into a position, short of full membership, but which nevertheless allows a trade balance to return. However this is so sensitive an issue to a still large proportion of voters, in the UK (and possible in the EU too) not just Brexiteers, but many who do not want a return to shuttle diplomacy and consequential squabbling between near neighbors, that neither side will risk exposure at this stage.
That's why Starmers language is still seen as being more of the same, or as you think ,an attempt at renegotiation and this will continue to be his stance, right through to the end of the GE.
What might come afterwards, will once again, depend on how sure Starmer is in his new role, and that in turn depends on his majority. Starmer personally was always in the remain camp, despite Labour (under Corbyn) trying to sit on the fence. So i would have thought he would be a PM candidate that pleased you Paul?
Sorry Paul I disagree. The size of the Westminster majority indeed does make a difference, both inside and outside the UK, any moves or promises Starmer makes internally have also to be believed by those outside who will have an interest, (money-markets in particular) in the UK's direction of travel. We only have to remember Lis Truss's experience and her short lived premiership, to convince any doubters. Starmer will need a large working majority to move the dial but also to convince others outside the country he will do as he says and has the troops in Westminster to see it through.
'Shouting at the wind Paul' .... but no, I do understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. However, we are probably both long enough in the tooth to know what politicians say to get elected and what they say afterwards are often, somewhat different, in some cases very different.I'm not getting anywhere am I?
Let's for argument's sake say he thinks there 's going to be a change to the trade agreement and not the withdrawal agreement. I suspect he's confusing the two actually but anyway.
Six months ago he said and I quote
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rewriting-brexit-deal-if-labour-wins-election
Labour will seek major rewrite of Brexit deal, Keir Starmer pledges
Party leader says he will pursue a closer trading relationship with the EU and much better terms for the UK than Boris Johnson managed.
So if he's not going to sit around a table, smoke signals probably won't work. The TCA is 1246 pages long, could take some discussion. Unfortunately the EU are definitely not interested in rewriting it or spending any length of time discussing it- for what purpose.
It comes up for review in May 2026. Review not change. So any minor things that does not involve major work may be ironed out but these are ongoing anyway. There is a task force in permanent communication between the EU and Westminster. And some things have been adjusted along the way.
I don't, that is why I personally ('closer union' etc won't go away) believe there is no going back. However Starmer (no matter how misguided) believes there is a possibility when the dust has settled and that his original desire to have remained, might be realised with a return sometime in the future. Especially if he can promise some 'low hanging fruit' gathering from the EU to help with the economy in his first term.I don't see why you think anyone in the EU wants any change to either of the agreements
If there's any chance of rejoining it won't be under Starmer, that is guaranteed. (By the way I am allowed to vote in the UK despite not living there for 17 years except that I would have to vote in my old constituency which has a 32k+ Tory majority, I never voted there when I lived in that constituency either - but there's no-one remotely electable in the UK anyway). It's not a question of me wanting the UK to reverse Brexit. It's a study in how a country, which used to be my country, could voluntarily inflict so much damage on itself and continue to insist on doing so, it's fascinating.'Shouting at the wind Paul' .... but no, I do understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. However, we are probably both long enough in the tooth to know what politicians say to get elected and what they say afterwards are often, somewhat different, in some cases very different.
However I accept you wouldn't be voting for Starmer. (if you were still over here)
At this stage I believe Starmer is simply indicating that he wants to pursue a closer trading relationship. with the EU. Maybe he will get sent away with a flea in his ear, but the things you have mentioned;
- veterinary compliance
- UK to rejoin Horizon for the research and development as an associate member
- Rules of Origin for the cars (short term deal)
- etc
Starmer will see, or may point to such small beginnings, as perhaps the first few steps in a 1000 mile (rejoiner)journey!!
I don't, that is why I personally ('closer union' etc won't go away) believe there is no going back. However Starmer (no matter how misguided) believes there is a possibility when the dust has settled and that his original desire to have remained, might be realised with a return sometime in the future. Especially if he can promise some 'low hanging fruit' gathering from the EU to help with the economy in his first term.
This is the reality, for anyone who harbors thoughts of the UK returning to the EU fold. At the present time and as far as can be viewed going forward, Starmer is in the lead position for aiming for a return, of some kind. Despite what you say about his real understanding of how the EU works, he represents the best chance as leader of a Government (with what he hopes will be a massive majority) to seek a way back.
The Tories are in chaos and whilst they are out of power they will have to sort out the internecine warfare over the EU, still going on in the Party, that is not likely to happen anytime soon, with Reform waiting in the wings and despite the call for unity to get themselves back in power.
The Lib-Dems never wanted to leave but even they have shied away from out and out calls for a return and whilst their strength in parliament may be bolstered after the GE, its unlikely to have any effect if Starmer gains his sizeable working majority (FPTP etc). Also his support is spread across the country, not just in the southwest and in the islands in Scotland, as it is for the Lib-Dems
In Scotland the SNP itself has to decide does it want to continue pursuing independence full blast, or perhaps switching its emphasis for the time being in to trying to get the UK (as a single entity) back into the EU. Whilst this is still a long term objective, is likely to be more attainable than independence is... right now. In which case whilst there will be some losses to Labour, there is likely to be less if Nationalists can hold their noses and swap from campaigning for independence now, to putting more effort in backing a return to the EU for the whole UK.
Wales might be the 'weak spot' for Starmer after the recent issues, but with a change of leadership and new surge of enthusiasm for Labour (lead by Starmer) might emerge. They will follow tone Starmer sets.
Rep of Ireland/NI seems to be heading for some kind of re-unification, at least as likely to happen before any return of the UK to the EU, and it will remain firmly in its current support of the EU.
Want to reverse Brexit Paul....? Starmer is your man.
Then it's unlikely to happen at all in the foreseeable future.If there's any chance of rejoining it won't be under Starmer, that is guaranteed. (By the way I am allowed to vote in the UK despite not living there for 17 years except that I would have to vote in my old constituency which has a 32k+ Tory majority, I never voted there when I lived in that constituency either - but there's no-one remotely electable in the UK anyway). It's not a question of me wanting the UK to reverse Brexit. It's a study in how a country, which used to be my country, could voluntarily inflict so much damage on itself and continue to insist on doing so, it's fascinating.
A future Britain chastened by the experience of Brexit, might reconsider, but that will be sometime in the future, when, if your catastrophic predictions come true and we will all be living in a back water environment, where ideas might change. Especially as the UK may by then have a different format, with Ireland unified, (still in the EU) Scotland independent (seeking EU membership) and England and Wales going it alone. Then some new countries (or old ones) might be re-established... within what was the UK.Unfortunately in 2024, it is clear (it was to the non-gullible in 2016) that there are no opportunities and the trade deal possibilities have been exhausted, no new countries are about to be established.
I had already seen that someone from the EU has passed a message to Labour HQ and had a quiet word that contrary to Starmer's beliefs and there will no renegotiation of the trade agreement. The UK had always been a reluctant member mainly because of the nonsense spread in the British press since the 70s. Even Bojo admitted he was writing lies about the EU when he was a journalist in Brussels in the 90s.Then it's unlikely to happen at all in the foreseeable future.
This mornings political sketch reporters may cheer you up Paul as they seem to suggest even that 'closet remainer' () Starmer is rowing back on previous his statements. I have yet to read all the reports, but it seems Sir Keir may (at last) have got your message Paul and is backing off in any rapprochement with the EU, post GE. Or maybe he is unsure of the size of his majority and is exercising his 'each-way' bet.
As I have said in many earlier posts I believe there is no going back, politically the long term aims of the EU were never really either understood or fully recognised in the UK. 'Ever closer Union' is a fundamental goal and will get ever more necessary if the EU is to remain as a powerful world trading block. For the EU to give up on that now would ultimately tear the Union apart. I also believe that Britain (past and present) would never in a 'hand-on-heart' spirit, have signed up to that end and probably in the future never will. That is why in many of the more political areas of EU membership we were in fact, and perceived by many other members as such, a 'poor spirited' member. We were always insisting on 'opt outs' and special rebates, and never likely to give upon the pound sterling....although Blair nearly got us over the line, but Brown put paid to that outcome.
A future Britain chastened by the experience of Brexit, might reconsider, but that will be sometime in the future, when, if your catastrophic predictions come true and we will all be living in a back water environment, where ideas might change. Especially as the UK may by then have a different format, with Ireland unified, (still in the EU) Scotland independent (seeking EU membership) and England and Wales going it alone. Then some new countries (or old ones) might be re-established... within what was the UK.
I do believe (or perhaps fear) that the reverberations from Brexit, followed so quickly by the energy sapping COVID experience and the unrest in Eastern Europe (Ukraine in particular), that impacted on energy costs/stands of living etc. and the final blow the short lived Truss Government's actions, will subsequently be seen by historians as a catalyst for massive change, in the UK in particular, with a corner turned, a path taken from which retreat will be near impossible.
Hope I am wrong Paul, but you are right to be fascinated by these turn of events.
Britain had the name the 'sick man of Europe' when it joined and yes there was press sensationalizing about what membership would mean and how we could be expected to be treated. General DeGaulle's repeated 'Non' in the sixties did not help in this matter and it was underpinned by many left wing Labour people, notably Tony Benn who at one time had almost 'sainthood' status within certain sections of the party and a certain Jeremy Corben popped up now and then.I had already seen that someone from the EU has passed a message to Labour HQ and had a quiet word that contrary to Starmer's beliefs and there will no renegotiation of the trade agreement. The UK had always been a reluctant member mainly because of the nonsense spread in the British press since the 70s. Even Bojo admitted he was writing lies about the EU when he was a journalist in Brussels in the 90s.
The UK will have lots of adjusting to do over the next five years and beyond and trading issues are only one of many things an empowered Labour government with a sizeable majority will need to get to grips with if it's to move the dial as much as the post WW2 Labour government did via the NHS Act and the Education Act. These two Acts standout (at least so far in my lifetime,) as the two things that lifted the health and education of millions of ordinary folk to a level never previously seen for the working populace in this country... and made a difference... they certainly moved the dial!The point is that the UK has to adjust to the change of circumstances over the next 5 years as the grace periods etc end and full Brexit is implemented. Which trading will the UK do? With who? Because the EU will always be their largest suppliers and largest customers.
Indeed, there has to be on every level and in every direction.There has to be a huge shift in the mindset.
I do think it should all be in the Brexit thread. I get Starmer's involved but it's mostly about finding somewhere else to talk about Brexit, so in the Brexit thread it should be.When are you old codgers gonna box or meet for a pint?
I think we've finished.When are you old codgers gonna box or meet for a pint?
Mines a pint of mixed and a steak pie please... if your buying?When are you old codgers gonna box or meet for a pint?
I'll have a cider and a platter of seafood.Mines a pint of mixed and a steak pie please... if your buying?
Yes, Paul we've finished, or we both might get sent to the 'naughty step'.
We aim to please (don't we Paul?) @Paul the WolfI was going to ask whether this was the longest uninterrupted conversation between two people on a thread ever?
I enjoyed reading it! Even if it didn’t break the record.