Joey Barton is an absolute mouth breather, I wish we as a society could just forget he ever existed.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Before he realised it was potentially profitable to be a right wing nutjob, Barton actually once fronted a rainbow laces campaign.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That possibility was extinguished by Keir Starmer’s calculated and essentially untruthful contribution into the debate. Starmer, it can be 100% guaranteed, does not actually care about this issue. His decision to call for the shirt to be scrapped, thereby amplifying people’s unhappiness over it for political gain, comes at the traditional point in an election year when Labour’s campaigning is geared towards not looking like Labour, which is, it seems, the best way to be elected as Labour. Way to go, UK party politics.
Good piece from Barney Ronay.
Good piece from Barney Ronay.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. Furthermore the people in the Shetland Islands aren't interested in buying from a supermarket in Manchester and the South Pole can't supply what the supermarket needs. Madness.
Last edited:
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.
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 .
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.
He's the Tories' useful idiot who will be in power when the sh!t hits the fan. They know it.
Of course running the country is not the same as a supermarket, it was just an analogy, trying to get the point across that Brexit will seriously damage the economy before the end of the next parliamentary term which will finish any hope of what people are hoping for.
But the faithful will believe until they can't deny it anymore.
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.
Nobody knows what will happen in the world in the coming years.
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. That the only way to have a chance of stopping the boats is for the UK to open up safe legal routes.
There's no need to repair relations with the EU; the only animosity is made up by the British press. The Uk just have to accept what they voted for and deal with the consequences, there's no punishment. There's no menu that Starmer can pick which bits he wants. The options were out of the Customs Union and the Single Market. That's what the UK got, that's what Starmer wants. But he does not understand what that means, even after nearly eight years. And a lot of the British public don't either because they've been fed a continuous stream of nonsense by the British press. That's why you and others and Starmer still think that the Uk will be made a special case, yet again. They already are, they have by far the best trading agreement than any other nation.
Unless Starmer stops reading and believing the Sun, the Mail and the Express the UK are in serious trouble. The next five years will finally bring this nonsense to the end, whatever else happens in the world. When these five years are over, thirteen years would have passed and been a complete waste of time, no understanding of the problems no attempt at opposing the ridiculous decision of 2016 because he's too scared he might not be elected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still get the impression he thinks he can renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. He wants to be outside the Custom's Union and the Single Market - fine - but he doesn't seem to like or understand what that means , loads of paperwork, loads of restrictions, loads of expenses, loads of problems - there's no way around that. Not having the same benefits inside and out.
The size of the majority whether it is one seat or 600 seats makes no difference whatsoever outside the UK only to internal policy. But as his internal policy depends on growth and fiscal rules, he's sort of up the creek without a paddle. He's not getting a different deal, the UK's got the best one possible.
The press will slaughter him from day one, it doesn't matter how he tries to cuddle up to them.
Of course the regrets haven't happened, everything else is blamed , like Covid, Ukraine or the weather or immigrants. Really very unlucky that they affected the UK much worse than every other country. But in five years time it will be a little more difficult to explain.
The question is how to get out of the problems - there' will only be one way - but that time just gets further and further away before even any attempt to rethink.
I know I can say it a thousand times and you won't believe me.
Edit: I've found it in his mission statements:
The Tories have failed.
All economies have faced the shocks of the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the truth is our economy has fared worse than our competitors. Inflation is higher, growth has been slower, our foundations are less secure.
For 14 years, growth has averaged 1.5%, when it was over 2% under the last Labour government. If we had continued to grow at a similar rate, we would have had tens of billions extra to put into our hospitals and schools.
The Tories have made mistakes, serious mistakes.
First, austerity cut to the bone the vital investment needed for growth.
Second, the Tories negotiated a Brexit deal that has caused serious damage to our economy.
Third, when Rishi Sunak was Chancellor, he failed to grow the economy and instead raised taxes to their highest level.
Fourth, the wild Liz Truss experiment crashed the economy.
Fifth, the Sunak-Hunt high tax, low growth economy we are seeing today
The result is the highest taxes for 70 years, soaring mortgage and rent payments and flatlining growth.
He really does actually think he's going to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement. It's not the agreement - it's Brexit - or in other words - not being in the Custom's Union and the Single Market.
It's a re-run of the insanity of 2019. One of the most ridiculous episodes of the whole saga when they were going to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement within three months.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting Starmer will harm the country more than Brexit? Or that it will be worse because of him?
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.
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.
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.
He says:
The Labour leader said there is “more that can be achieved across the board” between the UK and EU in a revised deal – on business, veterinary compliance, professional services, security, innovation, research and other areas. He ruled out rejoining the EU, the customs union and the single market.
No revised deal - still obsessed with veterinary compliance - this stemmed from the NI protocol issue which has been sort of resolved by the Windsor Framework where the products for NI are marked "Not for EU" to avoid the inspections etc for produce going between NI and GB. But I think Starmer thinks it's for everywhere. It's not - such products will still have to be certified and the paperwork and so on. Not because of any agreement but because the UK is not in the Custom's Union nor the Single Market - at one point surely Starmer will understand this. This also applies to all products not just food products, there has to be a chain of certification and origins for everything. Not necessarily inspections because there will be an element of trust; Of course the DUP will keep moaning forever more which is something he'll have to deal with.
Also since the agreement the EU later allowed the UK to rejoin Horizon for the research and development as an associate member for a fee but not a full member because they left the EU. There is certain security information shared but as the UK are not members of the EU nor of Schengen then this restricts it. Of course if Starmer wants to rejoin the Custom's Union, Schengen , the Single Market etc then after many years of discussion who knows what will happen in the future.
The Rules of Origin for the cars was also changed because of electric vehicle batteries and a one-off extension of 3 years was agreed last year which suited both the EU and the UK at the time.
Don't expect a great deal more to change. I don't see why you think anyone in the EU wants any change to either of the agreements. (Apart from because of the UK press)
Starmer does not understand what being in a Custom's Union means nor the Single Market nor the EU so no, he would never get have gotten my vote, nevermind his other views. He may say he was a remainer but he has no clue what that means. Over seven years listening to what he's said because of Brexit - I can't believe how he can be so misinformed.
Last edited:
'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.
'Shouting at the wind Paul'
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.
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.
I'm still not getting it across. Starmer thinks he can have the same benefits inside and outside of the EU. He's said it from day one, seven and a half years ago when he started, and at the 2019 election and ever since. He desperately needs to go on a course about the Custom's Union, international trading and see if he can understand how the Single Market works.
Liz Truss was really dim and there are many Tory MP's who have tried emulate her. There's Farage and Tice who are not the brightest but all of these have one thing in common - they realise that the UK have negotiated a deal to leave the EU. The UK have negotiated a Trade Agreement. It's been agreed and accepted by everyone. Only 5 MEP's in the whole of the EU voted against the trade deal in 2020, not before the UK left, after the UK left. 2020 was the transition year when the Uk were going to finalise all these trade dealswith the rest of the world. What they are saying is that the imaginary opportunities are not being taken or that Brexit has not been implemented properly.
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.
Even Starmer voted for the EU trade agreement. Whether he read or understood it is very debatable.
There are no low hanging fruit. There is zero desire or need for the EU to renegotiate anything that is significant. And when Starmer has been on his course, even just about the Custom's Union to start with, this really is vitally important, then perhaps he can stop talking nonsense and stop wasting time. Liz Truss's title is in serious danger of being taken.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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' (
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.
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 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.
The electorate were told that when the UK leaves the EU they could now trade with the rest of the world, which strangely enough was the profession I was in from 1985 onwards but apparently I imagined most of my working life according to the Brexiters and that never happened.
What is important now is how the economy of the UK functions in the future and that whoever becomes PM stops the nonsense. How, I have no idea. There has to be a huge shift in the mindset. The manifestos aren't going to advance matters because the belief of the lies is still there. But in five years reality should have started to hit home.
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 remember at a party meeting in Manchester in the early 70's where the speakers from the platform were talking about " capitalist running dogs'"being behind the common market idea, (not sure if Jeremy was there) but the phrase had been well used in the 60's in Vietnam and had found its way into the far left vocabulary.
It wasn't just the press that took aim at the EC, whilst ordinary folk wanted to join what they believed was purely a trading arrangement and as the first referendum showed, with a significant majority, because they could see we could not continue as we were... but for many it was a deal that was akin to 'shaking hands with the devil', there was little trust there, just anticipation.
The press then took every opportunity to exploit this lack of trust, both left and right wing elements of the press became EC 'knockers' and when Jacques Delor came on the scene identifying the longer term aims of a United States of Europe, he was a 'Godsend' to the British press, although he was only saying what everyone else in Europe was thinking had to be the final outcome.
By the time Boris came on the scene as a journalist, taking 'pot shots' at the EEC had become a national pastime and he knew which side his bread was buttered on.
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!
Starmer, if he gets his sizeable majority, has to go full tilt, at whatever it takes to make a difference. I think he and Reeves can achieve some movement on the dial for ordinary folk, but they have to stand firm and brook no nonsense, from anywhere.
Indeed, there has to be on every level and in every direction.
When are you old codgers gonna box or meet for a pint?
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.
I think we've finished.
But it's not just about Brexit - broken the golden rule and mentioned it - shhh.
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'.
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'.
I'll have a cider and a platter of seafood.
Bit like Fawlty Towers - whatever you do, don't mention the
I 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.
I enjoyed reading it! Even if it didn’t break the record.
My money is on the lettuce winning this one.
Four in five Labour members back Keir Starmer, polling shows
Leader’s ejection of far-left members has changed composition of party since 2020, as belief in general election win grows
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-keir-starmer-showing-rout-of-the-corbynites
Four in five Labour members back Keir Starmer and believe he will win a majority at the next election, according to private polling that shows the transformation of the party’s grassroots.
Two polls shared with the Guardian demonstrate how the composition of Labour’s membership has changed since Starmer was elected leader in April 2020.
Since then his advisers have embarked on a mission to change the party, starting with the proscription of several far-left groups that had been supportive of Jeremy Corbyn.
“There has absolutely been a deliberate strategy to change the membership,” one Labour official said. “The proscription of those groups was absolutely key because it sent a message that if you’re in any way affiliated with them, this is not the party for you.”
Within the past four years, the grassroots has shrunk by about 150,000 and undergone considerable churn.
Leader’s ejection of far-left members has changed composition of party since 2020, as belief in general election win grows
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-keir-starmer-showing-rout-of-the-corbynites
Four in five Labour members back Keir Starmer and believe he will win a majority at the next election, according to private polling that shows the transformation of the party’s grassroots.
Two polls shared with the Guardian demonstrate how the composition of Labour’s membership has changed since Starmer was elected leader in April 2020.
Since then his advisers have embarked on a mission to change the party, starting with the proscription of several far-left groups that had been supportive of Jeremy Corbyn.
“There has absolutely been a deliberate strategy to change the membership,” one Labour official said. “The proscription of those groups was absolutely key because it sent a message that if you’re in any way affiliated with them, this is not the party for you.”
Within the past four years, the grassroots has shrunk by about 150,000 and undergone considerable churn.
Just another establishment tool now.
He was head of the CPS before all of this. I'd say he's been establishment for a long time.
The anti-"left" agenda was more for Tory voters than Labour voters. Alienate X number of Lab to win Y number of Tory and know that X numb. of Lab will not vote Tory anyway. Maybe they'll go Green or Lib Dem. Meanwhile, the Tory newspapers cannot claim he's soft or weak and it's not possible to be anti-Israel when the whole world is condemning it for genocide right now. He'll walk to an overwhelming election landslide imo.
Yaaaas.
Withers proudly trumpeting the party line. Sir Keir’ll be thrilled.
Has Starmer's patriotism, that lead to him plastering the flag all over everything, lead to him commenting on Israel murdering three British citizens yet? Or do Nike have to design a commemorative shirt for them before he'll get riled up enough to comment?
He'll insist that any condemnation of murdering British aid workers is first caveated with insistence on Hamas releasing the hostages.