Comedy hour
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Comedy hour
I definitely don’t think this is somehow a UK only thing. Just because (insert EU country) doesn’t want to leave the EU, it doesn’t mean that somehow their population is intellectually superior. Euro-skepticism has always been higher in the UK for many reasons, and this was played upon for years.
There’s lots of EU countries with very problematic stances and right wing governments, so critical thinking is clearly an issue all over, even though it’s not presenting itself as wanting to leave the EU in those countries.
Regarding the UK, I think a big part of re-joining the EU being such a big no-no for Labour is voters apthathy. People want instant results and not another drawn out 10 year process of re-joining the EU being the main focus. They want schools that aren’t crumbling, they want to be able to contact their doctor etc.
Simply re-joining the EU isn’t a silver bullet for the country while we have the current political system in place. On that we can agree. I’m all up for burning it to the ground.
Who the feck do these cnuts think they are?
Yes but as things worsen, and not improve, the government, whoever it is in power, with the economy weakening, the government will be able to do less and less things that people want to see happen. yes it's a very long and drawn out process but the longer it takes to change direction the longer it will be before things improve. Starmer will no doubt find this out and his supporters within a few years.
The reason conservatism can hang around is simply their staying power for stupid. 7 years later and they still say "we've never controlled our own borders". Could you imagine actually saying that for 7 years non-stop? Their sheer will brute-force alternate reality is mindblowing.
Andrew Pierce is a simpleton. He's not playing a role, he's just daft.
I completely agree, I think most people do understand that if your economy isn’t functioning then that gives you less spending power. I’m not trying to argue that point. I dread to think how bad things will have to get before big changes are made, because this Labour government don’t have the balls to do it.
It might sound simple enough from the outside to simply propose re-joining the EU, but again, it isn’t some kind of Utopia that will solve our problems. The state of the UK was sliding long before Brexit. The vast majority of the current problems would still be in place if the UK remained.
Yes but he is or was associate editor of the Mail and appears on GB News filling the heads of people with all this kind of nonsense and people believe it.
Imagine voting for Brexit and finding out that more people are leaving to the EU than coming from it since Brexit and complaining about the numbers of immigrants from non-EU countries.
You can see who will be the next on the Mail Hate Bingo Card - Indians.
No indeed you can't Paul, you are talking about apples, me about oranges we are not on the same page except in the context of talking 'fruit'.
However, I am listening to you Paul (no need to give the impressions you are stamping your feet on this
), that is, to the parts of your argument that don't expect the unattainable to be achieved.The UK is suffering (some things are self inflicted, others are world wide issues) more than others, but less than some; however under a new leader with the right majority both within parliament and with the public behind him, engaging in a 'social contract' (another mention ching! ching!!) or whatever, then it would be a mistake others have made to under estimate the UK's powers of recovery.
Nobody was conned Paul they were interpreting the referendum question differently on the Leave side (at the least I suspect most were!) they didn't want things to stay as they were which is what the Remain argument was offering, they wanted a change... so thats what they voted for. As you say many might regret that now, although plenty won't because it's now sent Labour back to the centre and hence capable of forming a real majority government at the next GE.
At my age one thing I have learned is that holding grudges only diminishes you, whether it's in the family, with neighbours, at the workplace, etc. You have to move on, one foot in front of the other and I personally believe that with the right majority in parliament and within the majority of the populous understanding what is being attempted and agreeing their support, the next Labour leader (which looks like being Starmer) can start to write the post Brexit ( drat! there I've mentioned it again) history in the UK.
No indeed you can't Paul, you are talking about apples, me about oranges we are not on the same page except in the context of talking 'fruit'.
However, I am listening to you Paul (no need to give the impressions you are stamping your feet on this
The UK is suffering (some things are self inflicted, others are world wide issues) more than others, but less than some; however under a new leader with the right majority both within parliament and with the public behind him, engaging in a 'social contract' (another mention ching! ching!!) or whatever, then it would be a mistake others have made to under estimate the UK's powers of recovery.
Nobody was conned Paul they were interpreting the referendum question differently on the Leave side (at the least I suspect most were!) they didn't want things to stay as they were which is what the Remain argument was offering, they wanted a change... so thats what they voted for. As you say many might regret that now, although plenty won't because it's now sent Labour back to the centre and hence capable of forming a real majority government at the next GE.
At my age one thing I have learned is that holding grudges only diminishes you, whether it's in the family, with neighbours, at the workplace, etc. You have to move on, one foot in front of the other and I personally believe that with the right majority in parliament and within the majority of the populous understanding what is being attempted and agreeing their support, the next Labour leader (which looks like being Starmer) can start to write the post Brexit ( drat! there I've mentioned it again) history in the UK.
But why would anyone vote for a change that is considerably worse. They may not think it could be worse but it undoubtedly will be.
I am not stamping my feet, I'm trying to warn you. In vain it seems.
I don't understand why you are happy with the UK losing a large proportion of its trade and thus severely limiting the ability of Labour to make changes.
Going back to yesterday. If the percentage of UK sales drop from 56% to the EU to 40% to the EU, the UK loses more than £100 bn per year in trade. The now 60% sold to the rest of the world doesn't increase in actual value (it's a bigger percentage but not a bigger value) because they're already buying what they want from the UK as they always could. So that figure remains the same. Overall you're down £100 bn in trade. Your balance of payments is £100bn worse off.
I also get the impression that you think Starmer can do something about the regulations the Uk has voluntarily imposed on itself. He still doesn't understand that outside the CU and SM he doesn't get the same benefits, as Barry Gardiner pointed out in the video above. There are no barriers between EU states. Likewise it can't do anything about the regulations it has to deal with when trading with countries outside the EU. Before it just had red tape to deal with countries outside the EU. Now it has to deal with red tape with every country in the world.
Haven't even mentioned imports, which will also be more difficult, like food for example. They'll blame it on the weather.
Nobody was conned! I am loving this extra 350 mil brexit dividend the NHS have!
He looks like he's doing the blowjob gesture but needs to stick his tongue in his cheek a bit more.
I suspect many people especially in places such as the 'red wall' areas, at the time of and leading up to the referendum, didn't think they could be much worse off; indeed it's an insight into how much the UK political classes understood, or if you like misunderstood such areas. The truth is in these areas around the country, not just in the North, industry, commerce etc.had been in decline for years, even entry into the 'common market' didn't bring improvement into the lives, or prospects of many in manufacturing, in mining, in parts of construction, shipbuilding, or other heavy industries, which were labour intensive. Towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century, local commerce in many towns and villages had all but disappeared, in some families, parents, sons and daughters, even in one case I know of, grandparents (still of working age) were all unemployed in terms of full time employment, they managed by getting part time jobs, but most of these were based on project funding from (as it was then) the EEC/EU, but when the grants ran out so did the work and then they were back were they started, in truth some people I worked with did get some benefit from such work experience that might have push them up the queue when applying for new jobs.
This is about the time I fell out with the Labour party because even when there was a Labour government or a Local Authority that didn't count the Labour vote at local elections, they just weighed it. These areas were not improved even when Labour was in power, the excuse always was a Labour government as soon as it was elected had to fight to survive, some marginal improvements occurred in the Blair's time but in the end it just didn't go far enough.
It's arguable that sat watching the TV news each night hearing about 'balance of payments', 'trading figures', and other economic news, just went over peoples heads, no one not even their own trades unions tried to educate their members into the ways of the EU as it had then become, except where its laws affected TU's right to strike, and/or to receive employment contracts etc. Yes, of course some smart politicians in the UK recognised the 'gravy train' moving in and out of Brussels and Strasbourg and across the EU generally and hopped on board, but it did little more than at best drum up short term projects, intended to 'fix matters' in such as the red wall areas. but very few actually went further than applying a band-aid. This wasn't the EU's fault, but with background noise from many of our failed politicians, to those on the ground, it felt like it.
If you had been in and out of work for the best part of 10-15 years, members of your family in the same position, you are getting by...just, but what aspiration you might have had, is now waning rapidly and some idiot PM who thinks he knows what you will say when after he has failed miserably to get anything out of the EU, asks "do you want more of the same or do you want change.... "what would be your likely answer?
In many ways it was too easy with the referendum to give the politicians a 'bloody nose' and say "sod what happens, we are going nowhere anyhow". I am not claiming everyone voting Leave had that point of view, the problem for Cameron was that lots of people voted Leave for lots of different reasons, where as only those who knew/understood they were benefiting from the UK being in the EU, voted remain.
So my view is that we are now heading toward a once in a lifetime, (well my lifetime anyway) opportunity where Labour might realistically get a significant majority in a GE, large enough so that their sole purpose for the next five years is not to just stay in power and keep their heads down, but they can actually start to use that power to make life-altering changes for millions of people in the UK. They have to have not only a majority in parliament but also with the majority who can see if successful how Labour can change there lives.
Starmer will have do whatever is necessary on trade as on many other matters, if that includes possibly applying to rejoin the EU, fine hopefully peoples attention will now be fixed on how important trading is to the UK, and how it can/may help them. However I still maintain he will need, not just a manifesto,, not just a plan on trade, but a... (here it comes) a social contract, with all the peoples of these islands!
Why do these dumb fecks continue to put a G in Brexit? It’s maddening. And yes. That’s my biggest issue with the world right now. If they can’t be trusted to pronounce it correctly, they won’t be able to implement it. TWATs.
Anyway, jokes aside, why does he say Huu-uuuman Rights Lawyers like he thinks they’re ghosts?
Regardless of all that, he may be the worst of the lot. Dumb enough to think he’s smart. Total gonad.
I understand all that.
But that doesn't alter the fact that that there is nothing Starmer can do on trade and therefore the economy , there are no unicorns, and he's today said:
Starmer insists there is 'no case' for rejoining EU, saying working with Brussels on small-boats policy doesn't make Labour soft on Brexit
Keir Starmer has said there is “no case” for rejoining the EU. He made the point in an interview with ITV’s Good Morning Britain in which he insisted that his call for closer cooperation with the EU on small-boat crossings of the Channel did not mean he was weakening his stance on Brexit.
He told the programme:
He's still as clueless as ever. Still following the Tory line . I'm sure he still believes the "Global Britain" nonsense discovering as yet undiscovered markets.
Last edited:
Paul you keep flashing up these headlines as if its something new!
There is no case for rejoining the EU at this time, he knows that, I know that and you know that; the UK government even if its on its knees it cannot make a viable case to its own people, or indeed to the EU, for making an application to rejoin. Lots of issue have to be sorted first, in the UK, about monetary policy, about further political integration, freedom of movement, etc. etc. these issues have not changed, they have not gone away, just moved into the background, because there is already enough to do with dealing with the Tory mess they will leave behind, high interest rates, rising inflation (it isn't going down), energy prices are going to rise again this winter, etc.etc. Starmer is going to seek a sensible approach to immigration matters, which will involve a deal of some sort with France in particular, to stop the small boats, he picks this out for publicity now because it was one of Rishi's promises that is clearly not going to be achieved before the next GE. Surely you understand the politics of this? Like me I suspect you have been around the block a few times, any dig he can get in at the Tories, especially Rishi, he will!
This has nothing to do with Brexit, whether we were in the EU or not, it would not make a blind bit of difference, as well you know. France has many problems with waves of immigrants tramping through its cities and countryside, not in order to be able to reside in France but to use its coastline with the English Channel as a jumping off point to the UK. A 'deal' has to be done and Starmer seems to be saying he will approach the issue from a different angle than the current UK government, and wants France to discuss.
Yes, to be able to trade as we did before with the EU, would be a better position to be in, but as you have repeatedly told us it cannot be done from where we are now; however we have to find what can be done, whatever that is then has to be explored, Science and Policing are areas that seem to be able to work something out post Brexit... but, if turns out that nothing at all is possible, then Starmer will have to seek alternatives, may be not as lucrative but if product/service/price and time/logistics are right, then something will get done.However as I keep trying to get over to you there will be a lot of issues on Starmers plate on his first day as the new PM.
I haven't seen any immigrants tramping through the towns and countryside. What? Where did you read this? Let me guess. Edit: it's probably the funniest thing I've read today.
Starmer really thinks he's going to get a returns policy, France, Germany, Italy , Spain etc take more far than the UK, why should any country accept a returns policy, he's off with the fairies again. He'll probably come back with a deal to take more.
He's worried about 20000+ boat people because the xenophobes don't like it. He's just the same as them. 1.2 million immigrants came to the UK last year and 560,000+ people left. But 20000+ who usually 78% of whom have legitimate claims are the immigration problem. Beyond a joke now.
It's not a question of calling people silly names, Starmer will be in really deep sh!t if he doesn't wake up.
No1. issue in his first day in office is not worrying about a few people in a boat, it's about how the economy is not going to fail.
Just cannot get through. He has no clue how he's going to get the economy working let alone being the most sustainable economy in the G7, it's ridiculous.
You keep saying alternatives, there are no alternatives. It's not a question of losing a little bit of trade, it's catastrophic.
Last edited:
I haven't seen any immigrants tramping through the towns and countryside. What? Where did you read this? Let me guess. Edit: it's probably the funniest thing I've read today.
Starmer really thinks he's going to get a returns policy, France, Germany, Italy , Spain etc take more far than the UK, why should any country accept a returns policy, he's off with the fairies again. He'll probably come back with a deal to take more.
He's worried about 20000+ boat people because the xenophobes don't like it. He's just the same as them. 1.2 million immigrants came to the UK last year and 560,000+ people left. But 20000+ who usually 78% of whom have legitimate claims are the immigration problem. Beyond a joke now.
It's not a question of calling people silly names, Starmer will be in really deep sh!t if he doesn't wake up.
No1. issue in his first day in office is not worrying about a few people in a boat, it's about how the economy is not going to fail.
Just cannot get through. He has no clue how he's going to get the economy working let alone being the most sustainable economy in the G7, it's ridiculous.
You keep saying alternatives, there are no alternatives. It's not a question of losing a little bit of trade, it's catastrophic.
I didn't read it, it was something I remembered of a documentary or TV news item, some months ago, of an interview conducted with a Mayor of a coastal town in France, not sure which one, but he implied they had hundreds of immigrants living in make-shift camps on the beaches and in the local countryside. He implied these were people who didn't want to stop in France but wanted to get across the channel. Why it stood out for me was the phrase "tramping through towns and countrysides" which for some reason I didn't expect to hear from a French Mayor, because it sounded so English like... perhaps he was just making a point for the broadcaster?
.
Starmer seems to think its possible to have some sort of returns agreement with France, because of the channel crossings, but not sure he is expecting anything from the other countries you mentioned.
Starmer is worried about people making dangerous crossings, in small boats and the money going into the pockets of criminals, he is expecting to agree a quota in return. It's the Tories who keep whipping up the image for xenophobes, Starmer wants to improve the system for asylum seekers, speed it up for a start, but he also knows politically if he can stop the boats or reduce the flow, or even present an alternative that sounds like it might work, and do this prior to the GE, then he scores points over the Tories with the non-xenophobes who are still worried about the dangers for all concerned in such crossings... and he's all for that! True he may risk alienating some dyed-in-the-wool anti - immigrant voters in the red wall areas, he will take that risk, especially in those areas where they used to just 'weigh' the Labour vote.
Yes, but surely No 1 on his list in the first day in office will be to look at the figures..... then start worrying!
If he is unable to find alternative ways to trade, then ultimately some severe problems will present themselves... however 'catastrophic' is something I would relate to the 'end of the World'.....or United being relegated to the Championship.
Problems are there to be solved Paul, its what gets you up in the mornings. There are always alternatives, not always palatable, but quite often available ...at a price! That's why Starmer needs his social contract to bind everything together, or if you prefer Tony Blair's 'big tent' model perhaps?
Of course there are people around the coastal areas around Calais; it's been like that for many years despite being cleared numerous times. The people being trafficked are arriving by car, minibus , in the back of lorries or whatever by various different routes through different countries and some may spend an hour in France at most. Then they are put on the beach and put in a boat.
The Tories and Labour are lying about their concerns for the safety of the people. You really don't believe this. Put in safe legal routes. Stick them on a ferry. Have a processing centre.
Why should France take the people back; the people want to be in the UK not France. What has France got to do with anything. It's not illegal to leave France, neither is it illegal to arrive and claim asylum in the UK despite both Tories and Labour both lying about this. Cooper even said it today. France wouldn't be the last safe country, even though that's meaningless, the UK is.
And after all that, whatever Starmer is kidding himself and everyone else, the boats will still come, the people will still come. The people traffickers must be trembling in their shoes because Keir's getting really tough even though he has no idea who or where they are.
You don't need to look at the figures. The Uk have limited how they can trade. No magic solution. No alternative. Can't get this through and I know I'm hitting my head against a brick wall , because it can't register than the Uk have completely tied themselves in knots and surely , surely, countries will buy even more British products. The Uk already trade with everyone in the world. No country is suddenly going to start buying something just because Starmer is PM. Starmer doesn't understand the CU or the SM so you're kind of hamstrung before you start. Or that other trading blocs throughout the world operate in the same way as the EU. Furthermore all the countries you sell to, have lots of paperwork to fill in and certifications and so on, much more than the EU , so unfortunately he can't remove any red tape whatsoever. It's not up to him.
The classic example of how Brexiters have been conned was the Liz Truss deal with Japan. A trade deal doesn't mean that the country will automatically buy what you've agreed tariffs about. They may buy nothing.
Truss took the EU deal with Japan and added a few bits to it. Like dairy products. Japan says - yes of course you can have tariff free access for dairy products. Truss celebrates victory. Japan won't buy the dairy products because of lactose intolerance.
Maybe Starmer can explain how who he's going to sell to and which products; I've asked this many times.
Maybe he bought one of those machines that the British invented in 2016. It shoots both your feet off, continually punches yourself in the face and with the attached loudspeaker keeps blasting out: "We hate foreigners!"
I know you don't believe me that the Uk is in real danger because of what has been done to the economy because of trade and what will happen in the future, as the worst is yet to come.
You will one day.
I think they do worry, but its about the safety in (and under) the Channel overall and incidents which require subsequent actions, in both the UK and France.
Migration is an issue that will get worse all over the world, the UK and the EU are both 'players' in the sense that they are destinations for lots of people, asylum seekers or those just seeking a better life. Hence the matter goes beyond trading cartels and will need not only 'proper routes' but also enforceable regulations and conditions. Both Tories and Labour are using the current 'small boats' issues for political purposes. It looks like Starmer is the one who is looking for a 'grown up' solution, but such is the state of play at the moment its just political 'knockabout' stuff and difficult to see what either would actually do... but it keeps the public's mind off other matters!
Yes, I do Paul, I believe there are many problems ahead for the new Labour government (if is to be Labour and with a sizeable majority) which will include trade issues, but its not just trade, if all the trade matters were settled on day one of a new Labour government, it would not solve some of the deep seated issues, thrown up via Brexit, Covid, etc. Or the national issues within the UK, the growing desolation and 'abandon all hope' type issues that arose in red wall areas (and elsewhere) prior to (and what led to)Brexit. Even if by some miracle an application to rejoin the EU were to be taken on day one, it would not just be trade that would need to be discussed with the EU. Pretending otherwise is a nonsense a totally new approach has to be envisage by the new Government that focuses on the all future issues. Its a massive ask that is why it needs a government with a sizeable majority to pushed ahead, ideas that affect the majority that promises something better, that involves everyone in at least understanding the issues properly and not just the 'fake news'/''my truth is the only truth' commentary.
In short (drum roll please) a Social Contract, not just a 'tick' list of targets. I believe Labour will have one shot at identifying and establishing this within its first term, the rest of the time in the first term it will be 'all hands to the pumps'.
So, Starmer is going to rewrite the Brexit deal. I can't believe he's that fecking stupid...but you never know.
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
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
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rewriting-brexit-deal-if-labour-wins-election
What is so wrong with that?
Bilateral contracts can't just be re-written every time England farts.
Well let's see. Having a much closer relationship can be mutually beneficial to both sides.
He is full of it. It's like stating that more can be achieved in car racing but you rule out the use of any cars.
I am old enough to understand that you can not take what is said like this too literally.
You and me and plenty of others were highly critical of the Brexit agreement Boris Johnson agreed to in that it was clear he had no idea what he had signed up to. And my understanding is that there is a review in 2025.
I for one am happy that he is looking for a better/closer working relationship with the EU.
We can not be highly critical of the current relationship and criticise Starmer for wanting to improve it.
He has never understood what Brexit means.
It's the same all the time, including in 2019 when he was going to renegotiate the deal then.
The review in 2025 is just minor adjustments.
Hopeless
He isn't looking for a better/closer anything. He is telling you what May, Johnson and Sunak said which are empty talks. The list of issues that he wants to "improve" are direct consequences of not being in the same custom and trading market. He is starting a new round of "We will find the Unicorn that no one on earth has found". Also "it" works, that's an other bs talking point, the issue isn't that it doesn't work but that being out of a trade and custom union means that you are in a worse situation.
The entire thing is getting ridiculous if people buy it just because it comes from a new mouth.
I am happy to be accused of being ridiculous then because I am open minded on this. It is all about reading between the lines.
How do we know what these minor adjustments could lead to in the longer term because as I have mentioned before, giving the right wing press any ammunition would be disastrous before the GE.
What are you open minded about and what are you reading between those lines?
He listed WTO requirements in absence of custom or trade agreements, which means in the absence of custom union or "single market". And also tells you that the solution to these questions is ruled out.
There is no difference between what he said in that article and what Johnson or May said in the past.
The review in 2025 is purely a minor review of the TCA (trade agreement) not the Withdrawal Agreement (ie Brexit itself).
You could say it was a ploy to get Remainers on his side and give them false hope but for seven years he clearly has no idea what he's doing. He still thinks, as he has said before, that the Uk can have the same benefits outside the EU as inside it. He really doesn't understand it.
There are no magic solutions.
Or he understands it and is trying to bamboozle people.
What I am open minded about is that Starmer was a remainer and so he could be starting from a much healthier stance with the EU.
What I am reading between the lines is that going forward things may not be the same as today.
Starmer being a remainer is pointless, the current issues aren't about leaving or remaining, the UK left. There is no Brexit deal to rewrite, there are trade and custom deals to create.
I shouldn't even talk about it, we have an other politician trying to fool people and I'm upsetting myself with that nonsense.
We are not a serious country. Both main parties are unserious.
I don't think he's that smart. It's been the same narrative since Corbyn gave him the Brexit job seven years ago.
If people do believe him, he's going to be crucified by the press and the voters when it doesn't happen in 2025.
Well don't talk about it then....
As I have said many times, I am no expert on Brexit or trading agreements. I leave that up to those like you who are.
All I am expressing is my hopes that at some point in the future, the UK and EU will have a better relationship than the toxic one resulting from Boris and Sunak tenures.
But maybe you are right and it will come to nothing.
Why if as you say it is just a minor review.
You realize that I acknowledge the fact that I was wrong in that statement? Or was your point to have a dig?