Westminster Politics 2024-2029

[11101]

What is the safe and legal route for those outside Ukraine and Hong Kong? I genuinely don’t know but would like to.

The main ones are the Afghan relocation schemes which have brought approximately 30,000 people here.

Outside of that there are various schemes to bring refugees in, but as you are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country you reach there is no practical way to do that in the UK. You claim asylum where you arrive and then apply for one of those schemes to come to the UK legally.

About 25,000 people arrived legally last year outside of the Hong Kong and Ukraine resettlement schemes.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The main ones are the Afghan relocation schemes which have brought approximately 30,000 people here.

Outside of that there are various schemes to bring refugees in, but as you are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country you reach there is no practical way to do that in the UK. You claim asylum where you arrive and then apply for one of those schemes to come to the UK legally.

About 25,000 people arrived legally last year outside of the Hong Kong and Ukraine resettlement schemes.

Source please. Plenty say it, it’s not true. But let’s do this anyway.

Then just stop saying it. Forever.

 

[Frosty]

The main ones are the Afghan relocation schemes which have brought approximately 30,000 people here.

Outside of that there are various schemes to bring refugees in, but as you are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country you reach there is no practical way to do that in the UK. You claim asylum where you arrive and then apply for one of those schemes to come to the UK legally.

About 25,000 people arrived legally last year outside of the Hong Kong and Ukraine resettlement schemes.

The first safe country thing is not part of the Refugee Convention:

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-ref...o obligation in,country reached by a refugees.

 

[Frosty]

In the landmark case landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31:

… I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s Executive Committee (‘ExCom’), and the writings of well-respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway, & Dr Paul Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.

 

[Frosty]

Things get confused because the Refugee Convention text is ignored in favour of the Dublin Agreement:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

But that is an agreement about which states should process an application within the EU, and as you can see from the wiki page, the UK deliberately opted out of this.

 

[Raven]

So you've nothing to share; opinions on how things might work out, no predictions, no forecast.... yes I see, stand on the sidelines and make derogatory remarks.
How about venturing one or two ideas of what would be needed to 'move the dial', whats the planning cycle/time-lag likely to be, what would likely prevent progress being made, what does Starmer have to do to get the ten years he feels are necessary.... any ideas....how might this aim might be met, or even just progressed????

What's that I hear... the sound of silence' , or is it the proverbial 'empty-vessel' being rattled

You've shared nothing bud, literally just a bunch of buzzwords thrown together. No talk of policy. No talk of social issues. No talk of economics issues. Just a load of bollocks about "inertia" and "moving the dial". I get it, Starmer offers feck all so you have nothing to turn to other than word salad but it's just hilarious that you think any of it makes sense

 

[11101]

Source please. Plenty say it, it’s not true. But let’s do this anyway.

Then just stop saying it. Forever.

What you should do and what you must do mean very different things.

The UK operates its policy this way even if its not stricty the case, and for refugees claiming asylum in the UK that's what matters. What it means in practice is you claim asylum somewhere else for obvious geographical reasons and then apply from there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

 

[Frosty]

What you should do and what you must do mean very different things.

The UK operates its policy this way even if its not stricty the case, and for refugees claiming asylum in the UK that's what matters. What it means in practice is you claim asylum somewhere else for obvious geographical reasons and then apply from there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

Not directed at you, but this just shows the UK government flouts the Refugee Convention.

They also include in their figures of offering people safe and legal routes British National (Overseas) Passport holders.

That's wild. We are including British citizens moving to the UK as successful asylum claims.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

What you should do and what you must do mean very different things.

The UK operates its policy this way even if its not stricty the case, and for refugees claiming asylum in the UK that's what matters. What it means in practice is you claim asylum somewhere else for obvious geographical reasons and then apply from there.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

One page ago you said to someone;

“Quite why you want to argue this despite clearly knowing nothing about it is bewildering”

So by all means lay out your version of those could and should examples. But you’re wrong. Not misunderstood. Just stop saying wrong things. It’s easier than blathering on about should/must nonsense.

 

[11101]

One page ago you said to someone;

“Quite why you want to argue this despite clearly knowing nothing about it is bewildering”

So by all means lay out your version of those could and should examples. But you’re wrong. Not misunderstood. Just stop saying wrong things. It’s easier than blathering on about should/must nonsense.

Fringe cases have zero bearing on what actually happens day to day with UK immigration policy.

Feel free to feel like youve scored points on a football forum though.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Fringe cases have zero bearing on what actually happens day to day with UK immigration policy.

Feel free to feel like youve scored points on a football forum though.

If you’re going to dig, dig up at least. Hanging onto ‘should’ as if it’s a legal directive is daft. It’s not directing language in that way and you know it.

It’s idiotic to even suggest it. You’d just see every war torn country flood into the next country and that one state have to deal with it.

Consequently, every single island nation would never have to take anyone in need.

It feels like you’re just backing the ugliness and illegality of the small minded Tories.

So yes, I scored points, and yes they’re meaningless. I’d rather you stopped saying dumb shite Tory press release bollocks.

 

[Maticmaker]

You've shared nothing bud, literally just a bunch of buzzwords thrown together. No talk of policy. No talk of social issues. No talk of economics issues. Just a load of bollocks about "inertia" and "moving the dial". I get it, Starmer offers feck all so you have nothing to turn to other than word salad but it's just hilarious that you think any of it makes sense

I've set out my opinion of what the process (involving inertia) for moving the dial will entail for Starmer. I am asking you to share, what you think will be the difficulties, bumps in the road etc., but it appears you don't understand the process, or you have nothing to say about the chances of success.

In all most every aspect of government the previous lot failed in terms of delivering for ordinary folk... NHS, Housing, Education, Cost of living, Stable Employment/protection, are the main issues that are needed to be improved to 'move the dial' for the majority of people. Energy, Transport, Water, etc. are also 'enablers' and need to be reviewed and adapted to underpin the major transformations required in the lives of ordinary folk.

How much detail is involved in each, only the government will know, how much it will all cost, does anybody know? What can be done in the short/medium/longer terms? Clearly it cannot be done all at once and without improvement in the economy, very little will happen. The rebuild/upgrade of the economy, call it what you like, forms part of the 'inertia' I referred to. The £400m (or is it billion) debt arising from Covid, the fallout from Brexit (according to @Paul the Wolf ) which has yet to surface. The cost/implications going forward of the settlements of major government failings, e.g. Grenfell Tower, Post Office, Blood Scandal, etc.

The best Starmer can do is to apply a 'band-aid' to the most serious elements until a full value audit can be undertaken and assessed. It is going to take at least ten years, my post to which you initially replied was simply trying to set out what I thought the timescales and process options might be. We know there are things already in the pipeline in the future which will present 'head winds'for Starmer to battle against, the continuing wars in Europe and the Middle East, and possible change of administration/new President in the US, more pandemics etc., but what other events might arise that will blow Starmer of course? Including of course the political infighting within Labour, which is already beginning to shape up over the Pension winter payments etc. since with such a large majority none of the other parties can do much but stand on the sidelines and shout and bluster. Hence its likely the main bumps in the road politically will come from within his own party, how will he deal with this?

Lots to get your teeth into there... fire away!

 

[TheGame]

Mainly because they won't lessen the restrictions on foreign student visas. Madness.

Exactly, at least they should allow
Immediate family such as a spouse or children to be allowed to come. Universities are struggling and are being held back which in turn affects domestic students.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Raven]

I've set out my opinion of what the process (involving inertia) for moving the dial will entail for Starmer. I am asking you to share, what you think will be the difficulties, bumps in the road etc., but it appears you don't understand the process, or you have nothing to say about the chances of success.

In all most every aspect of government the previous lot failed in terms of delivering for ordinary folk... NHS, Housing, Education, Cost of living, Stable Employment/protection, are the main issues that are needed to be improved to 'move the dial' for the majority of people. Energy, Transport, Water, etc. are also 'enablers' and need to be reviewed and adapted to underpin the major transformations required in the lives of ordinary folk.

How much detail is involved in each, only the government will know, how much it will all cost, does anybody know? What can be done in the short/medium/longer terms? Clearly it cannot be done all at once and without improvement in the economy, very little will happen. The rebuild/upgrade of the economy, call it what you like, forms part of the 'inertia' I referred to. The £400m (or is it billion) debt arising from Covid, the fallout from Brexit (according to @Paul the Wolf ) which has yet to surface. The cost/implications going forward of the settlements of major government failings, e.g. Grenfell Tower, Post Office, Blood Scandal, etc.

The best Starmer can do is to apply a 'band-aid' to the most serious elements until a full value audit can be undertaken and assessed. It is going to take at least ten years, my post to which you initially replied was simply trying to set out what I thought the timescales and process options might be. We know there are things already in the pipeline in the future which will present 'head winds'for Starmer to battle against, the continuing wars in Europe and the Middle East, and possible change of administration/new President in the US, more pandemics etc., but what other events might arise that will blow Starmer of course? Including of course the political infighting within Labour, which is already beginning to shape up over the Pension winter payments etc. since with such a large majority none of the other parties can do much but stand on the sidelines and shout and bluster. Hence its likely the main bumps in the road politically will come from within his own party, how will he deal with this?

Lots to get your teeth into there... fire away!

Again, you've written a lot but said nothing. What we can be absolutely 100% sure of is that austerity is not the answer. We have 14 years of evidence to that effect. Starmer and his neolib flavoured labour understand that but want to initiate another wealth transfer from poor to rich because that's what austerity does. In 10 years time when you think we will have "moved the dial", we will actually be looking at a country either under fascist control or on the brink of it. You will be one of the people who will have enabled it.

 

[Maticmaker]

Again, you've written a lot but said nothing. What we can be absolutely 100% sure of is that austerity is not the answer. We have 14 years of evidence to that effect. Starmer and his neolib flavoured labour understand that but want to initiate another wealth transfer from poor to rich because that's what austerity does. In 10 years time when you think we will have "moved the dial", we will actually be looking at a country either under fascist control or on the brink of it. You will be one of the people who will have enabled it.

So you really have no idea at all, do you except... no austerity.... fabulous, it's all OK then..... if only Jeremy were back in charge?

 

[TheGame]

 

[Steven Seagull]

So you really have no idea at all, do you except... no austerity.... fabulous, it's all OK then..... if only Jeremy were back in charge?

Not being funny but you really haven’t said anything or posted an opinion. It just reads like a blurb on the back of a politics fiction book.

Can the leader do it, or will the skeletons in his closet come back to haunt him? Let’s read on.

 

[Maticmaker]

Not being funny but you really haven’t said anything or posted an opinion. It just reads like a blurb on the back of a politics fiction book.

Can the leader do it, or will the skeletons in his closet come back to haunt him? Let’s read on.

I was hoping to prompt some replies that indicated an understanding of the reality of Starmer's position.

Essentially it's about improving the operational and availability in the NHS, Housing, Education, Employment and stabilising the cost of living, all 'big asks'.
In ten years Starmer with an initial majority of 170 seats is in a position to 'move the dial' for ordinary folk, I am posing the question what will be likely to stop him, or blow him off course?

 

[Buster15]

You don't expect the Daily Mail, a staunch Tory rag to print the truth do you. It is just a typical bullshit headline.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I've set out my opinion of what the process (involving inertia) for moving the dial will entail for Starmer. I am asking you to share, what you think will be the difficulties, bumps in the road etc., but it appears you don't understand the process, or you have nothing to say about the chances of success.

In all most every aspect of government the previous lot failed in terms of delivering for ordinary folk... NHS, Housing, Education, Cost of living, Stable Employment/protection, are the main issues that are needed to be improved to 'move the dial' for the majority of people. Energy, Transport, Water, etc. are also 'enablers' and need to be reviewed and adapted to underpin the major transformations required in the lives of ordinary folk.

How much detail is involved in each, only the government will know, how much it will all cost, does anybody know? What can be done in the short/medium/longer terms? Clearly it cannot be done all at once and without improvement in the economy, very little will happen. The rebuild/upgrade of the economy, call it what you like, forms part of the 'inertia' I referred to. The £400m (or is it billion) debt arising from Covid, the fallout from Brexit (according to @Paul the Wolf ) which has yet to surface. The cost/implications going forward of the settlements of major government failings, e.g. Grenfell Tower, Post Office, Blood Scandal, etc.

The best Starmer can do is to apply a 'band-aid' to the most serious elements until a full value audit can be undertaken and assessed. It is going to take at least ten years, my post to which you initially replied was simply trying to set out what I thought the timescales and process options might be. We know there are things already in the pipeline in the future which will present 'head winds'for Starmer to battle against, the continuing wars in Europe and the Middle East, and possible change of administration/new President in the US, more pandemics etc., but what other events might arise that will blow Starmer of course? Including of course the political infighting within Labour, which is already beginning to shape up over the Pension winter payments etc. since with such a large majority none of the other parties can do much but stand on the sidelines and shout and bluster. Hence its likely the main bumps in the road politically will come from within his own party, how will he deal with this?

Lots to get your teeth into there... fire away!

I see no plan for growth and according to Starmer he can't do anything until there is growth because he has to make things worse first. So when things are worse is that the time to start making things better? Furthermore stop with this nonsense about renegotiating Brexit and softening borders.

As I said, send him on a course about Customs Unions, International trade and so on so that he will stop the incessant nonsense that he's been spouting for the last 8 years. This is only talking about the trade part, nevermind all the rest of the fantasy stuff he comes out with.

The crowd are shouting at the referee: "You don't know what you're doing!"

 

[The Boy]

I was hoping to prompt some replies that indicated an understanding of the reality of Starmer's position.

Essentially it's about improving the operational and availability in the NHS, Housing, Education, Employment and stabilising the cost of living, all 'big asks'.
In ten years Starmer with an initial majority of 170 seats is in a position to 'move the dial' for ordinary folk, I am posing the question what will be likely to stop him, or blow him off course?

I challenge you to post in this thread without using the phrase "move the dial" it is in every post, sometimes twice!

On a more serious note, every government has to improve NHS, Housing, Education, Employment and cost of living, this is no great insight. Any government that could do all of those would never be voted out of power.

 

[Red in STL]

Exactly, at least they should allow
Immediate family such as a spouse or children to be allowed to come. Universities are struggling and are being held back which in turn affects domestic students.

And that is in part due to the huge salaries they pay some of their administrators

 

[TheGame]

And that is in part due to the huge salaries they pay some of their administrators

Yes that is an aspect but the ones who were reliant on overseas students are struggling the most. My wife works for one of the Universities. There is wastage in areas like any organisation but no doubt the overseas student impact has hit some of them.

 

[11101]

If you’re going to dig, dig up at least. Hanging onto ‘should’ as if it’s a legal directive is daft. It’s not directing language in that way and you know it.

It’s idiotic to even suggest it. You’d just see every war torn country flood into the next country and that one state have to deal with it.

Consequently, every single island nation would never have to take anyone in need.

It feels like you’re just backing the ugliness and illegality of the small minded Tories.

So yes, I scored points, and yes they’re meaningless. I’d rather you stopped saying dumb shite Tory press release bollocks.

It's really quite irrelevant what the legal position is when it's there in black and white that the UK government follows a different guideline. It's not uncommon for a policy to run contrary to the legal position on the understanding that challenges will be few and far between.

This is all way beyond the original question anyway that was why do people cross the channel on small boats when they're already safely within Europe. There are a few reasons and perception of the UK's asylum policy is one of them. That's factual and nothing to do with anybody's political viewpoints.

 

[decorativeed]

Not being funny but you really haven’t said anything or posted an opinion. It just reads like a blurb on the back of a politics fiction book.

Can the leader do it, or will the skeletons in his closet come back to haunt him? Let’s read on.

Not quite. It's always "should the leader do this and that over the course of the next 10 years (forgetting completely the possibility he may last 5 tops)..."

And always in spite of a complete lack of evidence the leader even wants to do any of those things, and in the face of mounds of evidence he's going to make things worse.

 

[decorativeed]

I was hoping to prompt some replies that indicated an understanding of the reality of Starmer's position.

Essentially it's about improving the operational and availability in the NHS, Housing, Education, Employment and stabilising the cost of living, all 'big asks'.
In ten years Starmer with an initial majority of 170 seats is in a position to 'move the dial' for ordinary folk, I am posing the question what will be likely to stop him, or blow him off course ?

He's never been on that course to begin with!

The entirety of the promises he made in his leadership election manifesto had been abandoned before he was even in number 10 and all the promising talk of green investment made in the run-up to ithe GE were u-turned as well.

I think you've confused him for someone else, but i can't think who.

 

[Maticmaker]

The crowd are shouting at the referee: "You don't know what you're doing!"

Thanks Paul, I can always rely on you.

Indeed it is the standard response when things are not going your way

I challenge you to post in this thread without using the phrase "move the dial" it is in every post, sometimes twice!

On a more serious note, every government has to improve NHS, Housing, Education, Employment and cost of living, this is no great insight. Any government that could do all of those would never be voted out of power.

I believe its called 'click-bait', never fails. However, on a positive note it shows you read everything... well done

That's the idea isn't it? To make Labour in future... the 'natural party of power', to send the Tories into permanent opposition mode

The entirety of the promises he made in his leadership election manifesto had been abandoned before he was even in number 10

Well, isn't that being honest?
He made these changes before the general election, therefore he should get some marks for that surely?

Perhaps you didn't notice but even after Starmer renounced some elements in his manifesto he still got elected with 170 majority. I think given a fair wind and a ruthless approach to managing the party he could 'move.... no, no... I wont finish that it seem it upsets some people.

Will simply say he could get a third term .....then see the difference.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Thanks Paul, I can always rely on you.

Indeed it is the standard response when things are not going your way

I believe its called 'click-bait', never fails. However, on a positive note it shows you read everything... well done

That's the idea isn't it? To make Labour in future... the 'natural party of power', to send the Tories into permanent opposition mode


Well, isn't that being honest?
He made these changes before the general election, therefore he should get some marks for that surely?

Perhaps you didn't notice but even after Starmer renounced some elements in his manifesto he still got elected with 170 majority. I think given a fair wind and a ruthless approach to managing the party he could 'move.... no, no... I wont finish that it seem it upsets some people.

Will simply say he could get a third term .....then see the difference.

What's not going my way? I probably hope that what you're hoping for will happen but it is definitely not happening with Starmer.

 

[Red in STL]

What's not going my way? I probably hope that what you're hoping for will happen but it is definitely not happening with Starmer.

It isn't happening with any politican

 

[decorativeed]

Thanks Paul, I can always rely on you.

Indeed it is the standard response when things are not going your way

I believe its called 'click-bait', never fails. However, on a positive note it shows you read everything... well done

That's the idea isn't it? To make Labour in future... the 'natural party of power', to send the Tories into permanent opposition mode


Well, isn't that being honest?
He made these changes before the general election, therefore he should get some marks for that surely?

Perhaps you didn't notice but even after Starmer renounced some elements in his manifesto he still got elected with 170 majority. I think given a fair wind and a ruthless approach to managing the party he could 'move.... no, no... I wont finish that it seem it upsets some people.

Will simply say he could get a third term .....then see the difference.

He made promises to Labour members to secure their vote. Then he abandoned all of those pledges.

That's some novel form of honesty.

 

[Maticmaker]

What's not going my way? I probably hope that what you're hoping for will happen but it is definitely not happening with Starmer.

Always thought (for you) leaving via Brexit was the original sin, from which there was no coming back from... ever.

Yes, I believe Starmer will make noises about approaching the EU, but suspect this is for public consumption right now, how deeply he truly believes this rapprochement might bear fruit will be revealed much further down the track.
It's 'in play' now that's all I suspect he expects... or even wants... just now!

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Always thought (for you) leaving Brexit was the original sin, from which there was no coming back from... ever.

Yes, I believe Starmer will make noises about approaching the EU, but suspect this is for public consumption right now, how deeply he truly believes this rapprochement might bear fruit will be revealed much further down the track.
It's 'in play' now that's all I suspect he expects... or even wants... just now!

Brexit was a monumental mistake which will take a very long time to come back from.

He's indicated to EU countries that he's not going to be as spiky with relations towards them as the Tories were. But.... a sort of innocuous diplomatic "treaty" with Germany and saying a few nice words is not going to change how business works.

The biggest problem I see with Starmer and all the fools in the Tory Party which they don't understand is "Time" - Time is of the essence when you're dealing with your main trading partners just a short distance away.

The Uk will still have the bureaucracy with countries farther away like Australia (actually a lot more) but as the time for goods to reach them takes much much longer there is time for all the bureaucracy to be dealt with. There isn't that time when dealing with EU countries. Nobody in the Tory Government, the Labour Government or the Civil Service seems to understand this. Because before Brexit it all used to be so simple and easy. Not now - and nothing Starmer will do will change that.

 

[Maticmaker]

He made promises to Labour members to secure their vote. Then he abandoned all of those pledges.

That's some novel form of honesty.

Starmer is not the first Labour leader to make promises they were unable to keep. Admittedly he jettisoned these with a certain degree of alacrity, but the 'prize' he gained justified his means.

After the last 14 years and three, or is it four elections, Labour is (truly) in power with a massive majority and Starmers in poll position (at least for now).

In the mid to late 1960's, as the youngest AEW shop steward in my area and a new member of the Labour party I could never have dreamed of such a Labour majority in Parliament. I could never have envisaged such a position.

 

[TwoSheds]

Starmer is not the first Labour leader to make promises they were unable to keep. Admittedly he jettisoned these with a certain degree of alacrity, but the 'prize' he gained justified his means.

After the last 14 years and three, or is it four elections, Labour is (truly) in power with a massive majority and Starmers in poll position (at least for now).

In the mid to late 1960's, as the youngest AEW shop steward in my area and a new member of the Labour party I could never have dreamed of such a Labour majority in Parliament. I could never have envisaged such a position.

Could you have seen a Tory government of the day behave so maliciously incompetently and corruptly for 14 years straight?

 

[Maticmaker]

Brexit was a monumental mistake which will take a very long time to come back from.

He's indicated to EU countries that he's not going to be as spiky with relations towards them as the Tories were. But.... a sort of innocuous diplomatic "treaty" with Germany and saying a few nice words is not going to change how business works.

The biggest problem I see with Starmer and all the fools in the Tory Party which they don't understand is "Time" - Time is of the essence when you're dealing with your main trading partners just a short distance away.

The Uk will still have the bureaucracy with countries farther away like Australia (actually a lot more) but as the time for goods to reach them takes much much longer there is time for all the bureaucracy to be dealt with. There isn't that time when dealing with EU countries. Nobody in the Tory Government, the Labour Government or the Civil Service seems to understand this. Because before Brexit it all used to be so simple and easy. Not now - and nothing Starmer will do will change that.

So, Brexit no longer the original sin, with no coming back from.... now are you saying it will take a long time, but you seem to suggest, it's 'do able'?

Have to wait to see how innocuous and/or diplomatic only this treaty is? Governments have the power to change how they do business and it starts with diplomacy.

Time.... if only we had it!!!

Before Brexit ... all was 'simple and easy'.... but that's not strictly true, trade rules aside, the long term aim of'ever closer integration'was never accepted in the UK. Also Britain had all sorts of opt outs and refunds etc.that would not have stood the test of time and we were, in truth' a 'poor European'

Starmer is not kidding himself, but he knows there is no use in both sides getting back on the same horses, so alternative beast are needed.... maybe those illusive... 'Unicorns'

 

[Paul the Wolf]

So, Brexit no longer the original sin, with no coming back from.... now are you saying it will take a long time, but you seem to suggest, it's 'do able'?

Have to wait to see how innocuous and/or diplomatic only this treaty is? Governments have the power to change how they do business and it starts with diplomacy.

Time.... if only we had it!!!

Before Brexit ... all was 'simple and easy'.... but that's not strictly true, trade rules aside, the long term aim of'ever closer integration'was never accepted in the UK. Also Britain had all sorts of opt outs and refunds etc.that would not have stood the test of time and we were, in truth' a 'poor European'

Starmer is not kidding himself, but he knows there is no use in both sides getting back on the same horses, so alternative beast are needed.... maybe those illusive... 'Unicorns'

If people wanted to do extreme damage to their own country they would have voted for Brexit but obviously most of them had no idea what they voted for.

The Uk was always a poor European but the objectives of the EU/EEC/EC or whatever people wanted to call it have not really changed since its inception in the 50s despite the misleading British media.
And Starmer has always thought he could have the same benefits inside and outside. No amount of diplomacy is going to change how the EU operates.

Furthermore any hint at him or any UK government trying to cherrypick again will cause more friction with the EU.

The question is what happens as the inevitable happens over the next few years and thereafter. Unicorns excluded.

 

[TheGame]

The media scrutiny around this aside from one or two articles here and there is deafening.

 

[Maticmaker]

Could you have seen a Tory government of the day behave so maliciously incompetently and corruptly for 14 years straight?

Oh, yes in those days it was staple diet on which we were fed on. Your average conservative was as "twisted as cork-screw," "only in it for themselves" "keep the working man down"... etc. according to Labour 'grass roots leaders' anyway.

The problem was Labour it's self, for years it couldn't, as an organisation/political party, find its way out of a paper bag. Too much in fighting ... parties within a party, all struggling to work together and basically when it came to the punch...failing.

The Tories continually brought destruction upon themselves, even after Maggie Thatcher who opened up a new Tory vision. creating a massive increase in house ownership (mostly selling off Council houses) and shareholder society selling off national assets, even the boost she gave to 'working man conservatism' got sabotage.... by guess who, yes, those 'ba****d Euro-skeptics, ( as referred to by John Major) of which Maggie in the end seem to become one herself.

I would personally like to think this moment has been coming all my life, when at last a Labour Party arrives that are not just 'in government', they are 'in power'. This opportunity all though arriving on the back of 14 ruinous Tory years, where everything needs 'seeing to', it must not be wasted... "the dial....... you know the rest!

 

[Frosty]

And that is in part due to the huge salaries they pay some of their administrators

It is one part of a whole. Cutting the salaries of executive groups would be great, but does not cover the loss of funding in fees since the 9k tariff was introduced. Successive government's blame poor management, which is true in cases, but even if institutions were well managed they would still be up a creek.