You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
this is the reality of Starmers hard brexit position. How anyone still believes his gaslighting is incredible to me
The EU has said it will only move ahead with new agreements once the UK has shown “full and faithful implementation” of existing ones.
Which we still have not done
Despite warm words on both sides, the EU has not moved beyond the red lines intended to protect the single market that were conceived at the start of the Brexit negotiations. A “significant further reduction of trade frictions” would be in the EU’s interest, but would require the UK to join the single market and/or customs union, according to an internal EU document seen by the Guardian.
So no rapprochement while Starmer persists in his hard brexit stance
The two sides are also on a collision course over a youth mobility scheme, which the EU sees as essential to any successful rapprochement. The EU would like to create “a youth experience scheme” that allows young people aged 18 to 30 to work, travel and study anywhere in the UK and 27 member states for a few years.
The British government is opposed to any scheme that may increase inward migration without being targeted at specialist skills.
Another hard brexit block put in place by Starmer to any rapprochement. This one is not inherited - its his policy
Another hard brexit block put in place by Starmer to any rapprochement. This one is not inherited – its his policy
Again, you're not thinking strategically, you need to realise that the EU and the UK are now trade competitors - niceties don't come into it.
We're not getting back in for at least a generation, and possibly not in our (you're only a few years older than me) lifetimes.
I don't say this with any joy, but it's a reality we need to get use to - we really do need the adults in charge to steer the UK thru the next few decades (at least).
we really do need the adults in charge to steer the UK thru the next few decades
Around 1 in 6 of those who voted in the 2024 GE voted for Reform. Think about that when you next see a crowd of, say, 20 people.
Or he could stop gaslighting and lying about the EU, make the case for rentry to the CU and SM and apply.
Until we rejoin the economics of the UK will remain disastrous
The vast majority of the population want rejoin, even a majority of those who voted for brexit would accept CU and SM membership. What does Starmer do? Attempts to gaslight the country in his utterly reprehensible hard brexit stance
Too many folk on here have bought the gaslighting
Or he could stop gaslighting and lying about the EU, make the case for rentry to the CU and SM and apply.
Sorry TJ, but you really don't seem understand, or want to understand that this isn't a simple 'fix', think of it more like playing 3D chess with multiple players.
As I said, we're out - they won, we all lost.
Too many folk on here have bought the gaslighting
Aren't you attempting to gaslight us by claiming the answer is simple and Starmer is a Brexiteer?
I do understand. Folk on here keep on saying Starmer is improving relations with the EU and is doing his best. He is not. You are being gaslit.
Where did I say the answer was simple? Its not - the whole situation is highly complex and not totally in our hands but the simple fact is that for all the warm words Starmer has refused everything that would actually improve the position.
Refusing the young peoples visa scheme was a real insult and slap in the face to the EU. Thats not the act of a europhile
Starmer could immediately improve thi9ngs by actually taking the multiple olive branches he has been offered - but he has refused every single one
And he could also fully implement the withdrawal agreement which the EU insist on and also stop the shoddy treatment of EU nationals in the UK
He has really annoyed many folk in the EU.
Refusing the young peoples visa scheme was a real insult and slap in the face to the EU. Thats not the act of a europhile
Ok but why did he do that? Just because he doesn't like the EU, or because there is some other factor you haven't thought of? What make you think you have access to the same information that the Prime Minister does?
Ok but why did he do that?
Because he has sold his entire europe policy to those few racists in a few northern seats and the right wing press.
Its the dishonesty of his position. He tells us that he is doing everything he can to improve relations with europe but his actions are to slap away every olive branch offered. Believe his actions not his words. Refusing the youth scheme was a real insult.
What makes you think that Starmer and von der Leyen haven't been talking in private?
Why give up something that you can use to negotiate with before negotiations have started?
Its not a zero sum game. He would not be giving up anything as the youth mobility scheme would he hugely advantageous for the UK - he would only be gaining. All he has done is show the EU leaders he is not interested in actually improving relations.
What makes you think that Starmer and von der Leyen haven’t been talking in private?
They have of course in all sorts of ways talked - and others ( and its all reported buty given no attention here). warm words yes - but no actions. He knows what he needs to do - he has been told. He has refused everything offered
All he has done is show the EU leaders he is not interested in actually improving relations.
Are you so naïve as to think that statements made by politicians in public about any negotiation (and mostly with the absolute understanding of each party) have anything to do with the things they say in private to those same people?
To be fair, TJ you're not the audience that Starmer has in mind when he makes statements about the EU, his comments are to mostly aimed the folks in the 'red wall' who are clearly all to eager to lend their votes to UKIP or Reform or the Tories. There may well be a poll that shows people want to re-join but equally, right up until the actual vote, most polling suggested the Brexit would be rejected, I don't think anybody would be surprised that if asked; most Labour politicians would privately say they want to be back in. In public; I think many would hedge their language still.
I'd bet money a Labour govt will lead us back into a more fruitful relationship with the EU, I'd also bet money that it won't be anytime soon.
Refusing the youth scheme was a real insult.
Offering it to the UK just before a general election was a really ****ing stupid idea that anyone with half a brain in the EU would've realised that it wasn't something that any politician at the time could've accepted.
I do understand.
With respect Jezza, I don't think you do (and I don't think you understand what gaslighting means either).
The bottom half of the Internet is awash with vitriol, "what do you expect from a labour government" and variations thereof, neatly ignoring that they're expecting Labour to unpick 14 years worth of inherited Tory damage in as many weeks (and arguably Blair/Brown before them and Thatcher/Major before that).
I appreciate where you're coming from and I agree to an extent, but you don't change the course of an adrift aircraft carrier by spinning the wheel and throwing a boat anchor out the back. Softly softly catchee monkey. Regardless of what perceived or actual public opinion may be, going "I'm taking us back into the EU" at this point in time would be political suicide. The far right would think Christmas has come early, there would be riots.
Simple questions have complicated answers. Who knew.
If I were Starmer, I'd be on the phone to vdL and whoever else I trusted working out a plan to get us back in in say 15-20 years' time. We'd discuss what gets offered when, we'd set up straw men to knock down whilst the real work goes on in the background. The EU know full well that nearly everyone in charge on both sides wants us back, but they equally know there's a political game to play and we're all playing it.
Refusing the youth scheme was a real insult.
Offering it to the UK just before a general election was a really **** stupid idea that anyone with half a brain in the EU would’ve realised that it wasn’t something that any politician at the time could’ve accepted.
Now think about the effed-up 'logic' behind those (true) statements.
How on Earth did we end up in this farce?
The Tories bet the house on trying to resolve an internal ideological fight
He could make it so we could go to Europe for 180 days and they to us rather than 90.
This way our pensioners can enjoy the sun for winter and ease the burden on our hospitals.
Edited - stw random cross post from another thread ??
Why do people still insist in the face of all the evidence that Starmer is some genius 4D chess-player rather than just a cowardly appeaser of the far-right who's fully bought into the brexit bullshit?
I'm guessing a lot of the same people thought Musk was some genius messiah too, though finally most of the fanboys seem to have worked him out by now.
He could make it so we could go to Europe for 180 days and they to us rather than 90.
Ahh but that 90 out of 180 days isn’t applicable to eu visitors to the uk
EU citizens can stay in the UK as a visitor for up to six months.
They can leave and return as well no restriction other than you may get grief from immigration,
Offering it to the UK just before a general election
It's been on the table basically forever, it's not like some EU bureaucrat dreamt it up just in time to wind up the racists.
Why do people still insist in the face of all the evidence that Starmer is some genius 4D chess-player rather than just a cowardly appeaser of the far-right who’s fully bought into the brexit bullshit?
Starmer is no genius - certainly not politically. He's merely better than what came before. He's making some of the right moves, but he's pissing in the wind compared to the big advantages he could gain by showing some balls with regards to the EU. Someone in Labour's strategy team is still telling him he has to pander to bigotry or else. He's only bought into the bullshit that Brexit is some sacred cow that cannot be talked about. He's a former QC and DPP - it is not possible for someone of the intellect required of those positions to be a true Brexit believer.
I’m guessing a lot of the same people thought Musk was some genius messiah too, though finally most of the fanboys seem to have worked him out by now.
For me Musk was a vague sort of notion as a bloke who flogged expensive electric cars. The first time I paid enough attention to listen to him I had him down for what he is. A **** who got enough money together so he could inflict his midlife crisis on the rest of us rather than quietly buy himself a leather jacket, learn the guitar and make a tit of himself chasing women in their 20s. Since I paid enough attention, I've never thought of him as anything but a bellend.
Why do people still insist in the face of all the evidence that Starmer is some genius 4D chess-player rather than just a cowardly appeaser of the far-right who’s fully bought into the brexit bullshit?
No one is saying he's a genius, we're saying what we hope he might be. The harsh fact is that if you don't want to take a long term gamble on him (and I'm really, really wishing there was a better choice) we'd now have a Tory/Reform government dancing to Musk and Putins tune and ****ed doesn't even begin to describe the situation that would result in.
It's a sad fact that the right wing media sets the political agenda in this country and I hoped Starmer could rise above that and call out the racists and idiots for what they are. Until there is a viable alternative to him and his position, I can't see another way forward that doesn't move us to the disastrous hard right.
I’ve never thought of him as anything but a bellend.
I saw someone on twitter refer to him as a Temu Tony Stark.
They've probably had their account deleted by now.
I saw someone on twitter refer to him as a Temu Tony Stark.
They’ve probably had their account deleted by now.
Amazing how thin-skinned some of these (apparently) alpha males are. Makes you think...
No one is saying he’s a genius,
We don't *need* a genius, just someone to start unwinding all the lunacy that the last 14 years of tory rule has led to.
Just have to look at who we've had in the key roles over the last 6-8 years to see how much damage there is likely to be. Both visible and hidden away. It's either been grifters, in it for themselves and/or their own ego, or those who are woefully ill equipped to even run a bath, let alone any part of a country. Truss, Johnson, Kwarteng, Zahawi, Osborne, Hunt, Sunak, Javid and so on.
A solid, smart, methodical bloke who can read the *whole* room.
Unfortunately, the media has persuaded too much of the population that the problem is mainly immigrants and Europe. The rich and their jolly chums are completely blameless. Completely. So that means the whole room includes pressing on with brexity type stuff.
We don’t *need* a genius, just someone to start unwinding all the lunacy that the last 14 years of tory rule has led to.
We need someone with the balls to tell the UK electorate what our place in the world truly is.
Why do people still insist in the face of all the evidence that Starmer is some genius 4D chess-player rather than just a cowardly appeaser of the far-right who’s fully bought into the brexit bullshit?
I can't see where anyone said he was a "genius", but I can see where you said he's a "cowardly appeaser of the far-right".
Bet it's not the only time you've spouted guff.
How on Earth did we end up in this farce?
"I could never vote for Labour because of the Iraq War" + "I could never vote for LibDem because of tuition fees" = 14 years of Tory rule.
HTH.
Someone in Labour’s strategy team is still telling him he has to pander to bigotry or else
Why is all the fault/responsibility of some shady unnamed figure in the background? Do you actually believe that party leaders are all just mouthpieces for the real hidden power-brokers, with no independent views and vision and ... leadership! ... of their own? In that case, why do his policy positions vary from Corbyn? Why do people even change a leader, there could just be an actor reading the script.
Anything to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion that Starmer actually believes in what he has been saying, repeatedly and emphatically. Why is this such anathema to so many? Why do people want to believe that he's a coward who won't stand up for what he believes in? Isn't this a far more damning criticism than anything I've said about him?
Yeah, and that’ll go well won’t it…
Can someone link in the cartoon of the people queuing to see the film "A Reassuring Lie" versus no one queuing for the other screen - "An Uncomfortable Truth"?
It'll save time.
I agree wholeheartedly that it would be a terrible political move for whoever did it. But if your entire political system is based on maintaining fantasy, then you're ****ed either way.
Do you actually believe that party leaders are all just mouthpieces for the real hidden power-brokers, with no independent views and vision and … leadership!
Not hidden power-brokers so much as supposed electoral wunderkinds who turn slam dunk, right place, right time coincidences into products of their individual genius. Dominic Cummings was one example - supposed mastermind of Johnson's 80 seat majority when Corbyn handed it to him on a plate. I see a lot of old Cumstains in McSweeney too - a Jack Russell with a red rosette would have won the UK 2024 GE, but apparently McSweeney is a genius. And, I believe, a big proponent of the argument that Labour has to do bigotry-lite to stay in power.
To sort of bring this back on topic - all of the above is a direct result of the 52/48 Leave victory. It still sends established politicians into a fit of the vapours when they are forced to confront a tendency towards bigotry of various kinds that the referendum result showed. It will poison UK politics for another decade minimum - unless something worse happens when a properly powerful nation 'miscalculates'.
And to bring it back to topic entirely - can anyone provide a summarised list of Brexit benefits, please? If we've found any on this thread, I can't see them.
My in-laws have agreed sending Christmas presents by post will stop becuase of the expense and hassle. 🙂 And Christmas presnts will stop! 🙂
neatly ignoring that they’re expecting Labour to unpick 14 years worth of inherited Tory damage in as many weeks
Nope. This is often trotted about by the starmerites which neatly ignores no one is truly expecting them to do that.
What people are expecting is that they make a ****ing start on it since anyone with the faintest clue knows its the first 1-2 years which set the tone and its that time that you get the policies started.
If you sit around being tory lite for those years then even if you start fixing stuff in years 3-5 it will be to late. The benefits wont become apparent and you will lose the election. It will also be easier for the tories to either claim credit for the changes or to throw them away.
At some point either he has to challenge the right wing rags or accept they run the country. The time to challenge is as early as possible so that the benefits are seen before the election. See the minimum wage where it was introduced early on and so all the doommongering was quietly hidden away by the 2001 election.
Simple questions have complicated answers. Who knew.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sweeping statements are sweeping.
Starmer is about to "surrender our hard fought for Brexit freedoms"... according the Leader of the Opposition at PMQs. No ideas which freedoms she means.
We need someone with the balls to tell the UK electorate what our place in the world truly is.
or just let the voters die off and go for a bit of EU love, 🙂
The current issue is sleep walking into a Farage led government.
@Cougar has it - you saw a lot of it around here. Life long labour supporters who would rather have a Tory government than put up with a Labour offering that was anything less than their own idea of the perfect.
But no in answer to @fenderextender's question, no. None. Nothing. Nada. Niet.
“surrender our hard fought for Brexit freedoms“
it’s all about the sound bite, I can’t remember a much fighting happening more worrying about using a pencil.
TBH anyway to get back on track we’re on our 30th page and I’m pretty sure that the previous 29 weren’t full of Brexit Benefits 🙂
Nope. This is often trotted about by the starmerites which neatly ignores no one is truly expecting them to do that.
I'm no Starmerite. Absolutely the best thing I can say about him is he's not wearing a blue rosette, he makes John Major look exciting. That is the single solitary reason I voted Labour in the GE and I highly doubt that I'm far from alone in this.
And there are plenty of people who are absolutely expecting him to do that. All the gammons have had their ball taken away and they really don't like it. Despite Starmer's (perceived or actual) inaction, they're running scared.
At some point either he has to challenge the right wing rags or accept they run the country. The time to challenge is as early as possible so that the benefits are seen before the election.
On this we agree.
There's a perverse irony that most everyone can see that we need reform, but the only party literally with Reform in their name is promising the same only a lot more of it. Which of course is their game plan, plenty of useful idiots in this country. Where the Right obliterates the Left time after time after time and we never learn from it is, they know how to appeal to their audience.
Starmer is about to “surrender our hard fought for Brexit freedoms“… according the Leader of the Opposition at PMQs. No ideas which freedoms she means.
Who cares what Badenoch thinks? Her party is either going to wither away to nothing or (most likely) merge with Reform. Either way she is never going to be PM.
She 'won' the leadership when the pool of contenders (six) represented 5% of all the Tory MPs in parliament. She's a laughing stock.
And, in any case, she couldn't name a Brexit benefit or freedom because there aren't any.
So, basically, she can STFU.
Incidentally, talking of Musk Rat - he just started following me on ****ter.
Does this mean I'm in line for being cancelled?
The big snowflake.
^ Fair enough #brexit
I sometimes wonder how anybody could think Farage will ever become PM. Then I remember about the UK.
Around 1 in every 6 voters who voted back in July voted for Reform.
I still don't think enough people get this. Walk down any high street, or attend any event with more than 100 people - you'll be passing/with double figures of people who voted or would vote for Reform, Farage and all they bring with them.
It's horrendous, perplexing, hilarious and terrifying all at the same time.
Around 1 in every 6 voters who voted back in July voted for Reform.
Thank **** for first past the post, eh?
Theres also this... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-elon-musk-trump-reform-b2665769.html
The future is grim.
Thank **** for first past the post, eh?
PR has long been a way-in for extremists.
PR has long been a way-in for extremists.
No its not and FPTP has given us numerous hard right tory governments on a minority of the vote
Around 1 in every 6 voters who voted back in July voted for Reform.
That's probably conservative (small 'c') numbers for the amount of people who voted for reform (small 'r') back in 2016.
People are, and rightly so, mostly pissed off. But pointing at a dinghy and screaming "it's all their fault!!" does no-one any favours, it's just misdirection.
We have just lost an extremist government, one that damaged the country and killed thousands.
They were only there thanks to FPtP
So folk on here who favour PR would be OK to currently have 90-odd Reform MPs in parliament?
You're off your ****ing rockers.
Without PR the next Conform government will be in power for another 20 stretch.
We need to be able to vote FOR not AGAINST.
So folk on here who favour PR would be OK to currently have 90-odd Reform MPs in parliament?
You’re off your **** rockers.
And this right here is the problem. Because as unpalatable as it may be the correct answer is yes. Country > people > individual. Valuing what I want over what the people want is the domain of the Far Right.
Here's a question I genuinely don't know the answer to, but in terms of enacting policy, is a single party government better in the sense that in theory, they should be able to guide in the country in their direction and not fracture their goals to accommodate the other parties in a coalition, and end up with a big lump of nothingness?
I completely see the arguments for PR, and I also known there's been successful coalitions, but then also see coalitions made of 4+ parties having to play favours and promises to get anything passed?
And this right here is the problem. Because as unpalatable as it may be the correct answer is yes. Country > people > individual. Valuing what I want over what the people want is the domain of the Far Right.
I'm sure there were lots of folks saying that in early 1930s Germany too. I'm not sure the UK in the 2020s has a trustworthy enough electorate, I'm afraid.
I’m sure there were lots of folks saying that in early 1930s Germany too. I’m not sure the UK in the 2020s has a trustworthy enough electorate, I’m afraid.
I don't doubt any of that. But espousing a form of politics which is little more than "getting what I want" is an equally dangerous route.
but then also see coalitions made of 4+ parties having to play favours and promises to get anything passed?
Which can, of course, also be true of the FPTP system when you have several parties combined into one. A good example would be the Biden years where a couple of more right wing democrats were effectively able to block most useful legislation.
Or closer to home we have the recent tory years.
I’m sure there were lots of folks saying that in early 1930s Germany too.
Not the best example, I am afraid, given chances are even with FPTP it would have ended up being a coalition and then ending up with the same result. Probably a better lesson to learn is why it is a bad idea to pander to the hard right. The DVP are a good lesson for the tories.
So folk on here who favour PR would be OK to currently have 90-odd Reform MPs in parliament?
Absolutely, and why would any one who supports democracy not.
Still a minority, and stops folk commenting the usual bollox about "no one represents MY views".
So folk on here who favour PR would be OK to currently have 90-odd Reform MPs in parliament?
Yes - but actually it would not happen. People vote differently under PR when every vote counts
Under PR we would not have had that succession of hard right damaging tory governments - social democracy has a huge inbuilt majority. Its FPTP that has allowed those extreme right wing giovernments
The damage from Brexit to trade links with the EU cost the UK £27bn in the first two years, but the overall impact was more limited than forecasters first estimated, according to the most comprehensive review of the issue since Britain fully left the bloc at the start of 2021.
Researchers based at the London School of Economics found that trade barriers had been a “disaster” for small businesses and had forced thousands to stop trading with EU nations.
And this is before we enact the most damaging barrier raising piece of legislation - which we have delayed for years and are now being sued by the EU for not doing
So folk on here who favour PR would be OK to currently have 90-odd Reform MPs in parliament?
Absolutely. And Labour made to work with other parties to deliver for all voters. Having a big majority based on 1/3 of the vote isn't democratic.
Researchers based at the London School of Economics found that trade barriers had been a “disaster” for small businesses and had forced thousands to stop trading with EU nations.
As was always going to be the case. Large multinational companies can cope, and will take market share from UK SMEs.
Large multinational companies as the name implies are geared up for the various regulations and rules for operating in various markets 🙂
Prior to Brexit any U.K. company could pretty much load stuff onto a lorry or van and send it anywhere in the E.U as simple as if it was a place in the U.K. and the opposite,everything was reciprocal, small companies could just post it out as if it was a U.K. address as it made no difference, they didn’t need an import/export department to handle the different documention/regulations and employee people to do this task.
It’s not a real surprise that having to handle the regulations for each EU country is challenging/uneconomical for companies used to just writing out the postal label.
also see coalitions made of 4+ parties having to play favours and promises to get anything passed?
The current Labour and Tory parties are already coalitions. That's why there are so many factions in each, and also why both parties and their supporters were split by Brexit. A lot of Labour voters are progressives, because social equality, but a lot of them are also socially conservative working class voters who want to be stood up for. In reality they are completely different political alignments but they can't split the party because they will never win, because of FPTP. The arguing still happens, it just happens within the party.
Big test for Starmer hare and I have a nasty feeling its "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
Unionists in NI are objecting to a new EU labelling requirement and calling for the "brake" clause from the Windsor agreement.
Interesting to see once again if his pro EU rhetoric is as previously just empty words and he pisses off the EU further by supporting the unionists of whether he has the strength to tell them to eff off
Of course there is a simple solution - accept the EU labelling across the UK! Not a chance he will do that
The current Labour and Tory parties are already coalitions
Refrom are basically a splinter group from the tories and look how it devastated their vote having the right wing vote split. Look what happened with the SPD - split the labourr vote and gave us tory governments
To all the cheerleaders for PR, I should point out that here in Spain at least it certainly has led to the more extremist parties getting significant political power: the central government has the hard* left in coalition with the centre* left Socialist party, and the hard* right are running a number of the Autonomous Communities (similar to states in the US) in coalition with the centre* right PP.
* your definitions of "hard" and "centre" should be applied here.
There's a lot of political history to unpick in Spain before you can decide whether PR has given more power to, or held back extremist parties in recent times.
Yeah, clearly a completely different country. But blithely stating that no extremist party will ever acheive power under PR is, quite frankly, stupid. PR has a lot going for it, but it's no panacea.
But blithely stating that no extremist party will ever acheive power under PR is, quite frankly, stupid.
Of course it is. Did someone say that? I missed it, sorry.