Statham has also criticised Starmer’s economic caution
I loved The Transporter but all the same I trust Starmer on the economy more
I remain hopeful that Starmer wants to scrap the cap (hey a natty three word slogan) but it clearly isn't something that is so important to him above all else.
We knew what we were getting so no real surprises.
Talking of struggling with larger families... good to see free breakfasts for primary school kids in the King's Speech. It's what they said they'd do... and of course the pressure will be on to do more in future (Hello Sadiq Khan!).... but the "Children's Wellbeing Bill" looks like a good start.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/kings-speech-2024-whats-in-it-for-schools/
Priorities, dear boy, priorities.
Obviously we'd all like the two child limit to have been announced. Apart from the benefit to those affected, it's a quick and popular easy win for a couple of days good headlines.
But, to use jonv's example, if the immediate choice is starting to lift 1.5 million kids out of poverty, or making sure the power grid stays operational, failure of which moves the entire population of 65 million back about 150 years, then those are the tough and unpopular calls I'd expect a competent government to make.
if the immediate choice is starting to lift 1.5 million kids out of poverty, or making sure the power grid stays operational, failure of which moves the entire population of 65 million back about 150 years, then those are the tough and unpopular calls I’d expect a competent government to make.
You realise you can do both of those things at the same time don't you?
I think some people view the UK as some poor third world country, not one of the richest nations on earth and a G7 member
Jonv - to be clear I didn't ask about process at all as its clearly irrelevant.
some policies are in the kings speech and fully funded. Ending the two child cap is not. Thats a political decision not a process based one.
I asked those who refuse to criticise labour to justify this. thats all. You seem to agree it cannot be justified
The taskforce is clearly an exercise in can kicking IMO
I asked those who refuse to criticise labour to justify this.
And the potential justification has been provided several times, they are new in government, they are potentially reviewing this with the actual departments involved, the taskforce will be assisting in this as well, so in a few weeks/months if there's still no movement, then there will criticism.
You realise you can do both of those things at the same time don’t you?
Yes. You do realise that was just an example? And that there's hundreds, thousands of other items that also need prioritising and which the experts are all saying are essential?
Even the no brainers are actually 'brainers'. Is it essential this is done all at once or can we phase it in? What risk are we at if we stage the development, do we need a multi-year commitment or could we agree to a year and review? It's not catalogue shopping, that's the huge amount of work ongoing now developing outline business cases and refining options, etc. And negotiating and convincing and refining again.
Take the 2CBC - 'everyone's' convinced that it needs lifting. But to what? No cap at all? What about a 3CBC, does that resolve most of the issues for less money? What about no cap but each child >2 gets a benefit but at a lower level for each increase in N? What would each option cost and what problem would it solve?
If only there was some sort of systematic approach to gathering the information and reviewing them all together and making sensible choices about what to fund and to what level.
Jonv – to be clear I didn’t ask about process at all as its clearly irrelevant.
It's not. You were saying that because it's not in the KS then it isn't going to be funded. I'm pointing out the process to justify calling that as false - because it's not in the KS all you can read is that no decision has been made yet.
You seem to agree it cannot be justified
No, I'm saying I'm surprised it wasn't and IMHO it is a mistake. But i don't know the minds of SKS and RR and what they would argue is the justification, so i can't say whether it is justified or not beyond the hundreds of words i already wrote.
Aregee - thats not a justification. some policies are going ahead fully funded and costed. this one is not. why?
To say it might be done later is not a justification for not doing it now.
And the potential justification has been provided several times, they are new in government
LOL how the hell is that a "justification"...... we've just be elected to government so we can't do stuff!
The only "justification" that has been provided is that it is not a very high priority issue. TJ doesn't appear to be accepting that, I don't know why. Perhaps he has a misplaced belief that Starmer's Labour Party has higher moral standards than the Tories?
I think Starmer wants to present Labour as more competent than the Tories but still fundamentally conservative. Which is why when in opposition he tried to present himself as the real true conservative and claimed that the Tories could no longer claim to be conservatives.
Personally I am convinced that Labour will scrap the cap no later than the next budget. Basically for two reasons, firstly opposition is too great and Labour now have to look over their shoulders at the threat from the LibDems, Greens, independents, etc.
And secondly because the ploy of blaming the Tories for retaining the cap as the result of the state of the economy, as Cameron and Clegg successfully blamed the previous Labour government for austerity, doesn't seem to be working.
You were saying that because it’s not in the KS then it isn’t going to be funded.
Errmmm - I did not. The decision not to lift the two child cap immediately has been made. Thats a statement of fact. I do not believe it will be lifted within a year if at all. Multiple statements from Starmer and the rest have said - its not included in the kings speech because its not been funded
Anyway we are only fractionally apart on this in reality. 🙂 You accept its a mistake.
You can't say there is no justification. You can only say you disagree with it.
They could say they aren't funding anything that has 'Two' in the title....and therefore the 2CBC is excluded. It's a shit justification that you can argue against but it's still 'justified.'
(OK, to be pedantic you can say that isn't a justification, it's a reason - their justification will have some 'reasonable' basis even if IDK what it is and on the face of it disagree)
this one is not. why?
Reeves and Starmer have said that they'd rather have a situation where folks can earn sufficient money in wages so that they're not so reliant on benefits to top them up, and that would be their plan, so that the number of children on the benefit becomes less of an issue As a plan it has its flaws, but you can see the thinking at least. That it may not withstand pressure to reverse the decision is probably what they're looking at now. As I've said, I don't think you'd be able to find any Labour MP (Reeves and Starmer included) who think that the 2 child cap is 'a good thing'
Personally I am convinced that Labour will scrap the cap no later than the next budget. Basically for two reasons,
And thirdly, that they all want to do it.
But i don’t know the minds of SKS and RR and what they would argue is the justification
Why not, don't you follow the news/current affairs?
Starmer and Reeves have made it crystal clear what their justification for retaining the cap is. They have said scrapping it is unaffordable due to the state of the economy that the Tories have left them.
Even though the economy has often been in a worse place than it is now and a cap on child benefit did not exist.
Priorities dear boy, priorities.
And thirdly, that they all want to do it.
No they don't "all want to do it". As TJ has already pointed out if they did it would have been in the King's speech.
They are keeping the cap because they want to keep it, no one is holding a gun to Starmer's head.
They will scrap it just as soon as they want to. How long it will take before they want to will probably depend on how much pressure they are under
they’d rather have a situation where folks can earn sufficient money in wages so that they’re not so reliant on benefits to top them up
Also, child focused services are currently a ######## wreck. A LOT of money needs to go into schools and child health (outside the NHS) and other services ASAP. The poor quality of these services affect those families struggling financially (and also children without families supporting them at all) far more than everyone else. Any extra money going to these services, and the state directly helping the children who need help most, is seen by many who deal day to day with child welfare as a priority even above the level of benefits that larger families receive.
seen by many who deal day to day with child welfare as a priority even above the level of benefits that larger families receive.
And yet organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group and Action for Children are very strongly calling for the cap to be scrapped immediately.
Apparently nothing would have a more dramatic impact on reducing child poverty than scrapping the cap.
“The PM came to office pledging a bold, ambitious child poverty-reduction plan and there’s no way to deliver on that promise without scrapping the two-child limit, and fast."
“Child poverty puts enormous pressure on public services and makes it much more difficult for those children to fulfil their potential. Ultimately, the cost of the two-child limit is far greater than the money it saves".
I think some people view the UK as some poor third world country, not one of the richest nations on earth and a G7 member
Yet it’s been governed in the manner of the former, not the latter for the last 14 years, particularly the last 8, hence the level of the problems that now need urgently addressing.
If you look at how post-Brexit Britain is viewed by the rest of the world, the phrase Banana Republic comes up a lot
Speaking of which, today the huge mission starts to try and undo some of the Brexit damage and rebuild the shattered relationships with our nearest neighbours and largest trading partners after 8 years of flag-shagging, foot-shooting insanity.
It’ll be very much just a change of mood music at this point, but it’s a start
https://Twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1813816676762493434?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
I think some people view the UK as some poor third world country, not one of the richest nations on earth and a G7 member
Yet it’s been governed in the manner of the former,
Absolutely! That is EXACTLY my point!
Yet you’re prioritising a relatively minor issue,which effects a relatively small amount of people (345,000 families) over preventing some pretty critical parts of this countries infrastructure from collapsing completely.
And if you look at something like the prison service, the court system, the care sector, or children's mental health services then it’s not hyperbole to use phrases like ‘complete collapse’. We’re already there.
Which do you think should take priority? Well… you and the usual suspects have already answered that
We all knew that reality would dictate some brutal choices and that there simply isn’t the time or bandwidth to fix it all immediately, no matter what your intentions.
A bit more patience is required that we’re not living in a utopia within 2 weeks. They’re dealing with the aftermath of 14 years of state-sponsored vandalism to the very heart of our public services and welfare system. Not to mention the near destruction of this countries international reputation (with subsequent investment decisions), which the work on repairing start today
Seems pretty obvious to me that the two child benefit cap will not be abolished until it's politically advantageous for Starmer and Reeves to get rid of it. It's a simple political choice, and obviously there's no reason they can't get rid of it tomorrow if they wanted. As far as Starmer and Reeves are concerned, child poverty is a price worth paying to stop right wing critics from claiming that Labour are the party of benefits scroungers and layabouts.
Which do you think should take priority? Well… you and the usual suspects have already answered that
Well you and the usual centrist suspects don't think that child poverty should be very high on the list of priorities... what a surprise!
And I agree......I don't think anyone needed to ask the question
Take the 2CBC – ‘everyone’s’ convinced that it needs lifting. But to what? No cap at all? What about a 3CBC, does that resolve most of the issues for less money? What about no cap but each child >2 gets a benefit but at a lower level for each increase in N? What would each option cost and what problem would it solve?
You know what it was like before it existed, that. Done, next item please.
Ok chaps - this has now been done totally to death. I made my point
How about this? I tried yesterday - I find this really interesting
Keir Starmer has drafted into government two leftwing critics of his stance on benefits and green investment, as the prime minister faces pressure to drop Labour’s cautious approach to reviving the economy.
Statham has also criticised Starmer’s economic caution, and argued as recently as last month that his failure to prioritise scrapping the two-child limit on benefits would ensure Labour was making a “plan for substantial increases in child poverty” over the next five years.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/17/keir-starmer-appoints-two-influential-leftwing-critics-to-government
He might actually be quite good at this technocratic stuff – and not surrounding himself with folk who only say yes
Just needs to ditch Streeting and Cooper now. 🙂
This almost feels to me like Starmer is pushing leftish against the right wingers in his cabinet - there have been a few appointments like this
So, to summarise:
Everyone who doesn’t agree with my particular set of priorities and my own personal solutions to those issues is a heartless Tory bastard who positively revels in seeing kids starve!
Does that pretty much cover it?
Pretty much.
We all knew that reality would dictate some brutal choices and that there simply isn’t the time or bandwidth to fix it all immediately, no matter what your intentions.
Sorry binners but that's total bollocks. They could get rid of it tomorrow. It doesn't require any real effort or legislation, it just needs a decision and some civil servants in the treasury to reinstate the payment mechanisms which were in place before it was abolished. At the very least they could announce their intention to get rid of it in the next budget. It's got nothing to do with practicalities of implementation or other priorities, and everything to do with political expediency. And that's the generous interpretation, the less generous one is that they don't believe it's necessary and it's not their job to protect children from poverty.
Does that pretty much cover it?
Nailed it, also noting that they continually state how Starmer got less votes than Corbyn, so by virtue it means more of the UK population are not to the left and of that thinking ?
Aren't we all Tories now, for voting Labour (or LibDem)... or something?
So many welcome bills announced yesterday, with so much in them... all of them according to "the plan" that the actual Tories said didn't exist (despite being published and announced for all to read or listen to before we got to cast our votes).
Does that pretty much cover it?
Don't be daft. The two-child cap was a major issue before the election, and along with prisons and the NHS it's top of the list of priorities now given the hardship and misery it causes. I don't see any 'lefties' demanding anything else, in fact I think the left has been remarkably restrained. As usual though you're not happy unless you're having a go at lefties and sixth formers for no other reason than gloating tribalism.
also noting that they continually state how Starmer got less votes than Corbyn
Thanks for reminding me of that, I had forgotten.
In fact since the 2001 general election with the highest amounts of votes for Labour, over 10 million, both occurred when Corbyn was leader.
Hurrah! That was 5 7 years of shit Conservative rule avoided then. Praise be!
No one else interested inthese appointments?
Keir Starmer has drafted into government two leftwing critics of his stance on benefits and green investment, as the prime minister faces pressure to drop Labour’s cautious approach to reviving the economy.
Statham has also criticised Starmer’s economic caution, and argued as recently as last month that his failure to prioritise scrapping the two-child limit on benefits would ensure Labour was making a “plan for substantial increases in child poverty” over the next five years.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/17/keir-starmer-appoints-two-influential-leftwing-critics-to-government
He might actually be quite good at this technocratic stuff – and not surrounding himself with folk who only say yes
As I said - is this Starmer moving leftish? seems to have been a few of these. Is he pushing back against the rightwingers on the front bench? Will he ditch Cooper and Streeting?
No one else interested inthese appointments?
I replied when you posted it first time. Lost among all the circular repetition that no one is reading.
He might actually be quite good at this technocratic stuff – and not surrounding himself with folk who only say yes
Just needs to ditch Streeting and Cooper now. 🙂
This almost feels to me like Starmer is pushing leftish against the right wingers in his cabinet – there have been a few appointments like this
TBH I suspect that the hand of Morgan McSweeney is behind all this. McSweeney is undoubtedly a highly pragmatic operator. I don't doubt at all that he was the author of Starmer's "10 socialist pledges" during the leadership contest.
It was McSweeney who cajoled a somewhat reluctant Starmer to enter the leadership contest, and it is no doubt McSweeney who is guiding Starmer's premiership now.
All this actually makes me reasonably optimistic as it undoubtedly makes Starmer/McSweeney far more susceptible to pressure than if they were ideologically driven, such as the Lady who wasn't for turning.
The important thing is to maintain the pressure on Labour and again I am fairly optimistic that the LibDems, Nationalists, Greens, Independents, and Labour rebels, will hopefully do this.
The last thing we need is treat the defeat of the Tories as job done. It's only the beginning.
In fact since the 2001 general election with the highest amounts of votes for Labour, over 10 million, both occurred when Corbyn was leader.
Fantastic! You know when England lost to Spain in the Euro’s final? Well they actually completed more passes than the Spanish in their own half so.. you know… technically that’s a win!
Anyway…, You are aware where the attention of the grown-ups is today while the common room is going all misty-eyed for the glory days of idealogical purity and permanent opposition under St Jeremy?
https://Twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1813884618967593101?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
And then there’s the small matter of the first covid report being published, which might have one or two implications for government
I'm interested in how we work with the EU and the surrounding area, i think the way things are going, the UK are in a good position to strengthen and be more joined up with the EU, even Trump coming in will help us, as the more the EU fear the US backing off, the UK will become more beneficial to supporting Ukraine, wider issues of the move to the right and so on, that's one thing i'm really hoping for from this government over their 5 years!
It’s got... everything to do with political expediency.
Labour got elected with a massive majority 2 weeks ago. They could nationalise King Charles's left nut and there would be no electoral blowback in 5 years time. They don't need to be politically expedient or worry about a few negative headlines - which abolishing the 2CBC wouldn't create anyway. You lot are living in the 1990s.
On the EU - expect fine words and no action. The withdrawal agreement is not up for any renegotiation and Starmers red lines of no to the 4 freedoms means no significant rapprochement. The EU has moved on and we are now just one of the countries outside the EU with nothing to offer them of any significance
the EU has much more important stuff to do than to pander to the UK. The UK is just a non issue to them
the EU has much more important stuff to do than to pander to the UK. The UK is just a non issue to them
Ah, so that’s why all the European leaders are at Blenheim Palace today. Due to us being an irrelevance. None of them, particularly Zolensky, had much on today, so they thought they’d have a nice day out. I hope they all remembered their National Trust membership cards so they didn’t have to pay for parking.
Or maybe they’re here to listen to what a new and very different UK government has to say about a number of issues, regional security being at the forefront of that, with a view to closer cooperation?
Rachel Reeves is a total menace.
With our new fiscal lock, never again can a government play fast and loose with the public finances.
Basically because of all the ill-informed Centrists repeating the nonsense of the Truss implosion (without truly understanding a thing about it) - Reeves has seen it fit to create yet another mythical layer and rule giving more power to the wonky OBR just because ... Lizz Truss made some wonky markets exhibit wonky behaviour for a short while - for tax cuts, not investment.
'Fiscal lock' I give you.
But none of this matters because Ian Dunt has seen Starmer stood with some high-fliers in his commitment to Ukraine spending.
I was joking when I thought Labour might be worse economically than the Tories but it's very much going down that route.
They need something other than waiting for growth - without hesitation.
The UK is just a non issue to them
I'd be very sceptical that having the 6th largest economy, a European country, and outside your trading block is a non-issue, given that on gong wealth of all the other nations that want to trade with depends on having more sensible and grown up trade decisions. And that's nothing to say about secuirty, Ukraine, terrorism, intelligence, climate change, etc etc etc.
You lot are living in the 1990s.
I’d actually pinpointed it to 1976 😀
Its just a talking shop. Some fine words and that is it. We are no longer of any relevance to the EU
Anyway…, You are aware where the attention of the grown-ups is today while the common room is going all misty-eyed for the glory days of idealogical purity and permanent opposition under St Jeremy?
This 'grown-ups' things has become a well worn vacuous trope of empty headed politics.
Give us something real - something that improves material conditions .
Political will over bullshit.
All of Labour's current fiscal moves (or lack of) are currently counter productive.
They will not hit the spot for their growth.
Then we can pile on the pressure.
Imagine following a Tory paradigm of economics. Moronic.
Fantastic! You know when England lost to Spain in the Euro’s final?
I know that you treat politics as if it is some sort of game, I do know that.
I believe you pick a side and stick with that, right or wrong doesn't come into it, apparently. You never criticise your side. It's worked well with Stalinist parties throughout history.
I am grateful to argee for reminding everyone that even Corbyn worse general election result delivered half a million more votes for Labour than Starmer, and to you for reminding everyone that Labour's landslide was just down to the weird rules behind first-past-the-post.
Hooray for first-past-the-post!
When it conveniently works in your favour. Boo when it doesn't.
It's more than just a game, it's a ****ing pantomime!
Give us something real – something that improves material conditions .
Political will over bullshit.
You mean, like this? Surely even our resident bunch of bitter, joyless, grandad-worshipping, utterly humourless, sanctimonious, perma-whining placard-wavers can’t be annoyed about this, can they?
Can they?
Avanti, CrossCountry, TransPennine: Which rail operator will you cheer to the grave?
It’s worked well with Stalinist parties throughout history.
Yeah, you never treat political discussion like a game, do you. Never a hint of hyperbole.
grown-ups’ things has become a well worn vacuous trope of empty headed politics
Quite! Still, posting cartoons and shouting everyone down whilst not actually offering anything of substance, is what the forums self appointed 'thread policeman' seems to think counts as 'grown up'. It's actually embarrassing.
Never a hint of hyperbole.
Hyperbole? Are you seriously accusing me of "a hint" of hyperbole when I am responding to binners? LOL!
Have a look at the endless rantings in the various political threads for more than just a hint of hyperbole
I’d be very sceptical that having the 6th largest economy, a European country, and outside your trading block is a non-issue, given that on gong wealth of all the other nations that want to trade with depends on having more sensible and grown up trade decisions. And that’s nothing to say about secuirty, Ukraine, terrorism, intelligence, climate change, etc etc etc.
Yeah, why in the current climate would the EU want to have some kind of agreement with the 6th largest economy, one of the 5 nuclear powers and so on, when TJ keeps going on about Scottish Independence and how the EU would welcome a nation of 5 million in without any of that with open arms ?
On the EU – expect fine words and no action. The withdrawal agreement is not up for any renegotiation
It is actually. There's a formal review in 2026 which could see both parties agree amendments. The conversations around that will start well before any formal date.
It is actually. There’s a formal review in 2026 which could see both parties agree amendments. The conversations around that will start well before any formal date.
Read up on it and what has been said. there is going to be no renegotiation. I put the quote up pages back. Its over and done. It is not going to be renegotiated in any way. This is where Starmer and co have been attempting to gaslight the UK. The EU side have made this 100% clear.
There is no need for the EU to renegotiate, they have made it clear they will not, we are an irrelevance to them and they have moved on without us and have much more pressing issues to deal with
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-deal-cant-be-re-negotiated-uks-next-pm-eu-2405593
This is the official position and has been held consistently . No renegotiation.
You don’t need to renegotiate the whole agreement in order to have a different implementation.
TJ - As a food exporter I've had more painful familiarity with the TCA than I might wish.
The TCA provides for formal review in a window opening May 2026 (and every 5 years thereafter). There are several provisions of it which expire that year and need to be renegotiated for anything to continue - energy cooperation, fishing access etc. Whether the TCA is operating as intended or not so that procedures may be revised if necessary is the main part of the review. It isn't a wholesale renegotiation, but there's plenty that can be adjusted within the framework provided if both parties are willing.
Yes - so NO renegotiation. Some minor tinkering around the edges if everyone agrees. Not what you said.
The EU have made it clear they have no interest in revisiting this in any way.
European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic said the EU wanted the review to take place a year later than previously thought, in 2026, and warned that it would only cover the “implementation” of the deal rather than wholesale changes.
Mr Sefcovic said customs checks at the border would likely remain but stressed the TCA had not been used to its “full potential”.
But he told the EU-UK forum: “This article doesn’t constitute a commitment to reopen the TCA or to negotiate supplementary agreements.
“The TCA will simply not be able to recreate any kind of notion of the single market.”
His comments were echoed by Stefan Fuehring, head of the Commission’s unit on the TCA, who said changes to the deal would be a “very long shot”.
“It’s a review, not a revision, not a renewal or even amendment of any sort,” he told the event
Reeves and Starmer have said that they’d rather have a situation where folks can earn sufficient money in wages so that they’re not so reliant on benefits to top them up,
Thats long needed, a minimum £15/hour wage.
Well done labour
TJ - try the commons library rather than press reporting. It lists what's to be renegotiated vs what's to be reviewed. You're making a big deal over the word "renegotiation" as if that's all-encompassing. Some parts are to be renegotiated. The workings overall are to be reviewed. Plenty of wriggle room there for willing parties to make it a bit better than it is.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10040/
so NO renegotiation.
The EU have made it clear they have no interest in revisiting this in any way.
Your words, no one elses.... well maybe Farage and Corbyn agree with you.
Some Quotes from today:
The prime minister says Britain will be ‘a friend and a partner’ - and will never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights
Keir Starmer scores first EU success as Irish PM describes reset between the two countries as ‘real and meaningfull
Taoiseach said: "I am really pleased to confirm that the reset I have been speaking about in terms of Anglo-Irish relations is real".
"It is under way and it is meaningful."
The UK and Irish governments have also pledged to meet annually to "deepen and re-invigorate co-operation"
"About having early engagement with European colleagues and counterparts.
"Ireland is very keen to see a closer relationship between the UK and Europe, we believe it is in our interests, we also believe it is in the interests of the European Union to have its closest neighbour with a closer relationship.
"I think time will tell what that looks like.
"In the first instance it is entirely appropriate that a Prime Minister who is only in office 13 days has the opportunity to tease through with his own team what that looks like".
"But when we reach moments of engagement Ireland of course will be willing to discuss issues with our European colleagues in terms of what a closer relationship could look like.
"What I have definitely left Chequers knowing is that you have a British Prime Minister who wants to see a closer relationship with the European Union."
French president Macron also said “this is a great opportunity for a reset” as the prime minister fired the starting gun on what he hope will be Britain’s new relationship with the EU as he hosted fellow European leaders at a summit in Oxfordshire.
Ahead of the European Political Community (EPC) conference at Blenheim Palace, Sir Keir promised to fix Britain’s damaged relations with the bloc to benefit “generations to come” as he warned “we cannot let the challenges of the recent past define our relationships of the future.”
I have literally put the quotes from the EU folk who are responsible for this.
It’s a review, not a revision, not a renewal or even amendment of any sort,
But he told the EU-UK forum: “This article doesn’t constitute a commitment to reopen the TCA or to negotiate supplementary agreements.
From your link:
Although some commentaries have presented the 2026 review as an opportunity for the UK and EU to renegotiate the TCA, EU officials have stressed that this does not mean a revision of the treaty, rather a review of how it is being implemented.
Or from https://www.cer.eu/insights/what-approach-should-labour-take-2026-tca-review
The risk lies in overstating the significance of the review process. Article 776 of the TCA, which contains the review clause, merely states that the parties “shall jointly review the implementation of this Agreement and supplementing agreements and any matters related thereto five years after the entry into force of this Agreement and every five years thereafter.” It would be a mistake to read too much into the language here. Similar review clauses are included in many comparable treaties: at least 27 EU agreements with other third countries contain some form of review and monitoring clause.
In practice, most reviews amount to little more than a meeting of a joint committee – or, in the case of the TCA, the ‘Partnership Council’ – and result in officials writing up a report with trade statistics and occasional suggestions for improvements. At best, reviews serve as a guide to establishing a shared agenda for the years ahead and, at worst, they are an exercise in futility.
EU officials have made it clear that the review process will be about a review of the implementation of the agreement rather than a review of the treaty itself, in line with what the treaty text says. Maroš Šefčovič, the vice-president of the European Commission who oversees UK relations, has said that the TCA had not been used to its “full potential” but warned that the review “does not constitute a commitment to reopen the TCA or to renegotiate the supplementary agreements”. Another EU official was adamant that the process is “a review, not a revision, not a renewal or even amendment of any sort”. The EU has a clear position on what to expect from the review: not very much.
To agree on a veterinary agreement that removes most friction in trading agrifood products, either a separate ‘side agreement’ would need to be struck, or an entire chapter of the TCA dedicated to sanitary and phytosanitary issues would need to be rewritten.
And the EU have said categorically no side agreements, no revision of the agreement
the review “does not constitute a commitment to reopen the TCA or to renegotiate the supplementary agreements”.
the review “does not constitute a commitment to reopen the TCA or to renegotiate the supplementary agreements”.
Of course it doesn't, but read the language... "does not constitute a commitment " does not mean 'it's not up for discussion or negociation'.
Any contract or treaty can be renegociated or annulled if all parties are in full agreement, it's just a paper/admin exercise.
It's almost as if some people just want to wallow in misery.
TJ - the commons library says what is renegotiation vs review. Actually says some parts need to be renegotiated. I think most will understand that it will be limited rather than wholesale but the ability to improve its operation is there. Lots of what is problematic is less about the TCA and more about is implementation. Plenty could be improved about cross-border food inspection and documentation processes without necessarily changing the TCA.
Yawn....
This
is
like
watching
bald
men
fighting
over
who
gets
to
use
the
comb.
Again.........................
Oldbloke - yes there could be tinkering around the edges around implementation. That is it.
the EU side have made it 100% clear that there will be no substantive renegotiation. The chapter is closed, they have moved on, they have more important things to deal with.
Yawn….
This
is
like
watching
bald
men
fighting
over
who
gets
to
use
the
comb.
Again…………………….
Jeezus, try to contribute more to a thread than just snidey comments.
When was the last time that you posted something on this thread vaguely connected to the topic?
It is beginning to feel a lot like the old Starmer thread in here, isn't it?
Labour divided over calls to scrap first past the post after landslide win
"It would only take Reform and the Conservatives to unite and they might have a majority on the same scale we had this year,” he said. “But under PR, Labour would most likely be able to form a government quite comfortably with the Liberal Democrats or the Greens, and this would be preferable to a Conservative-Reform government.”
Komoron
Not much to disagree there. Some tinkering around the edges, a willingness from Starmer and lammy and co to be co operative will go a long way.
However wholeseale renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement ie the new veterinary agreement Starmer say he wants - just not going to happen. they will probably give him enough he can sell to the UK as a success but as your link says - "not economically significant". simply put without the 4 freedoms trade will be o0n a third country basis with all the barriers that brings. Thats EU law
It is beginning to feel a lot like the old Starmer thread in here, isn’t it
For about 2 weeks now. They’re never going to forgive him for actually winning the election.
That’s not what’s meant to happen in their incarnation of the Labour Party.
Idealogical purity must trump all!
Pointless, impotent placard-waving from the sidelines, online petitions and telling everyone repeatedly that they really, really won the ‘popular vote’ (whatever that is) is how this is meant to play out.
Did Starmer not read the script?
They’ve not been this miserable and upset since Blair in 97! And that bastard only went and did it to them another 2 times, compounding their misery 😉
I will just point out that I have praised Starmer as well as criticized him on this thread.
Any improvement in relationship between UK and EU will be much welcomed by me.
The bigger and more wide-ranging the improvement, the better it will be.
