Why isn't every NHS worker that's interviewed on telly saying they were promised £350 million a week?
We need to get the message across that the money is there waiting to be spent or we were lied to.
Starmer should be shouting it from the ****ing rooftops.
The government would just argue that extra money is being spent on the NHS… 6 years of inflation (higher for medical equipment etc) probably means that in cash terms it is… but that’s not enough… not even an increase taking into inflation is enough… it needs extra money (and staff) to cope with our ageing population and additional needs (Covid). See above.
yeh but then covid, and Ukraine, and...... of course it was a lie all along but it's too easily deflected now.
Focus has to remain on the actual current incompetence and sleaze of the existing administration, not the discredited past.
Given that politicians putting party before country is a large part of the reason the UK is where it is now I’d be happy to see less party first politics.
But... Getting Tories out, and by extension Labour in, IS in the county's best interests at this point. I don't see how you can blame Labour for saying whatever it takes to get elected. That's just how democracy works in the system we have. There is no point creating the perfect plan to fix things if people won't a xept it and vote for it.
It's no good saying 'oh but they will vote for it, because it's the best idea'. That's just dreaming. Voters aren't rational.
But… Getting Tories out, and by extension Labour in, IS in the county’s best interests at this point.
I don't think Labour's lead is so precarious that they have to handicap themselves by either:
a) Lying to the electorate which is not good for the country given the main driver of the state the UK is the 'they're all the same' and 'they all lie' attitude of the Great British public.
or
b) Hamstringing themselves as to how much they can actually do by ruling out aligning with the SM/CU (not to mention all the household budget analogies) which is also not good for the country
With a 20 point lead they could at least try to be honest.
And if that didn't work they could just turn around and flat out lie about everything again. We could safely assume the electorate were so stupid they wouldn't notice.
With a 20 point lead they could at least try to be honest.
We are not joining the SM or CU in the next parliamentary term, of ever, if Labour win. Nor would we be if they didn’t make that clear before the next election. That is honest. Dangling the hope that we might be in one, or both, in the near future would not be honest. It would take a decade or more of negotiations, confidence and trust building, and realignment. Moving closer to Europe is a series of small steps, it is not the one big jump that Brexit was (yes, four years is a fast pace change for something with so much scope, in both international and domestic turns that is a big jump in very short order).
We are not joining the SM or CU in the next parliamentary term, if ever, if Labour win. Nor would be if they didn’t make that clear before the next election. That is honest.
Yeah, I'm struggling to see what the barrier is.
What's being made clear to me is that Scotland is going to be independent within the next 5 years. This thread shows that Scotland and England have diverged far too much to continue as a United Kingdom.
The SNP (and Greens) are pushing for independence and a closer relationship with Europe… both possible… but not within five years. Even if a vote to support it happens within that time frame, it can’t/won’t be enacted over night. It would/will also take a least a decade from now to get to the point Scotland is in the SM&CU (whether that means membership or something looser, at least at first).
To be clear… I would love the whole of the UK to be in the EU, or as cooperative with it as possible to achieve something that puts us in the SM in CU if not full members, but there is no point fighting the next general election in England on that issue… it isn’t deliverable. To promise it would be a lie. We need to stop divergence, stabilise what’s happening in NI, and show to be a willing partner with the others countries first, and this will take time. The relative speed of Brexit has mislead people about how slow the EU operates, and how long the journey ahead is for a UK changing its mind about Europe (again).
It would/will also take a least a decade from now to get to the point Scotland is in the SM&CU (whether that means membership or something looser, at least at first).
Where are you getting your time frames from?
How long do you think it takes for a new country to join the EU, or agree deals that let it operate as if inside the CU or SM? How do you unwind/update the trade deals we have made in order to share an external trade border with other EU/EEA states? I think my guesses about timescales are best possible outcomes, not pessimistic ones. The journey ahead is slow and long. Adding in Scottish independence (which I agree is likely to happen) doesn’t present much of a short cut… dividing up the UK won’t be quick either.
Why is indyref 2 any more likely in the next few years than it has been before?
How long do you think it takes for a new country to join the EU, or agree deals that let it operate as if inside the CU or SM?
Not long to join the EFTA, I would assume. Two years after independence seems like a reasonable time frame, if it even takes that long.
What do you see as being the major stumbling blocks to joining the EFTA?
Why is indyref 2 any more likely in the next few years than it has been before?
The next election is going to be a de facto referendum.
Two years? No chance. Took Finland, what, three decades? Five years seems possible for Scotland if there is an unusual amount of support and agreement between all countries (and there could well be). You going to need at least two years to implement an agreement to facilitate joining, and several to get the agreement before you even start. For whole UK…? Lots to do before we even contemplate asking all the countries to consider us. 10 years seems an optimistic guess to me. You wouldn’t get unilateral agreement to even start talks right now… would you?
True, but I suspect people don’t move around that often.
Oh, I gave the chewkw the benefit of the doubt, silly me. I didn’t think anyone would propose that the solution to the ageing population of a county was to just shuffle people around the regions within it.
(was out for a while just now)
I was referring to those need care.
Moving the people who need care around the country, to where these missing extra care workers are hiding? Rightio…
Two years? No chance. Took Finland, what, three decades? Five years seems possible for Scotland if there is an unusual amount of support and agreement between all countries (and there could well be).
Finland joined the EFTA in 1986 so assuming they started banging on the door as soon as it came about then 25 years. I don't think they spent 25 years trying to join the EFTA. I don't actually know when they first tried to join the EFTA.
And of course, they hadn't spent the previous 6 decades being members of the EFTA and EU.
The next election is going to be a de facto referendum.
Edit,
I’m with some other posters on this from other threads, that carrots stick isn’t getting shorter
So, what year do you think an Indy Scotland could be operating in the SM & CU? Wind in sales guess…?
So, what year do you think an Indy Scotland could be operating in the SM & CU? Wind in sales guess…?
I think it would be in Norway's interests to have Scotland as a member of the EFTA and I can't see any other country in the EFTA that would have an objection.
Take the tipex that Westminster used to cross out 'EU Rules' and replaced with 'The Big Book of Great British Rules' and write 'EU Rules' again.
So saying all that, two years after independence at the most.
If you've got anything specific you think would be a blocker I could have look at it.
So what year?
So what year?
Dunno, depends on how many years of civil disobedience and non-lethal terrorism are required to allow Scotland to be independent, given the somewhat unofficial nature of a de facto referendum.
Should give SKS a good enemy to unite the English against so at least he won't have to worry about the Tories at the following election.
Dunno, depends
So, my guess of a decade that you took issue with… takes us to 2033… do really think either Scotland or the UK can be in the SM/CU sooner than that? Only NI has a route back in that could take less than a decade from now, that I can see (via unification with an EU state). Hope isn’t enough.
That question needs still answering. It isn’t going away.
The brexiteers did answer this question. From outside Europe.
Or at least that was one of the subcampaigns (the key advantage of brexiteers was the offering mutually exclusive things to different groups) with the "save our curry house" campaign amongst others.
Dunno, depends on how many years of civil disobedience and non-lethal terrorism are required to allow Scotland to be independent, given the somewhat unofficial nature of a de facto referendum.
Unless the people are the "citizen" of Scotland it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone in other part of UK. Nil.
Or at least that was one of the subcampaigns (the key advantage of brexiteers was the offering mutually exclusive things to different groups) with the “save our curry house” campaign amongst others.
Yeah, and I remember that one of multiple contradictory Brexit campaigns… I thought that was what he was going with… but no… shipping people with care needs around the country chasing not enough workers. Personally, I’m not keen on that when it’s prisoners, never mind friends and family with care needs.
Appears Sturgeon is back pedalling on the 2024 GE being a de facto infyref.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-bottled-it-snp-28952655
So, my guess of a decade that you took issue with… takes us to 2033… do really think either Scotland or the UK can be in the SM/CU sooner than that? Only NI has a route back in that could take less than a decade from now.
Well, you said a decade of trying to get in (or at least you never specified that you meant how long to get out of the UK and into the EFTA).
Scotland getting into the EFTA should be relatively simple unless I'm missing something obvious. The UK getting into the EFTA is more complicated. For the UK a Swiss style bilateral deal would make more sense, imo. It would mean getting the tipex out again though.
Anyway, the unknown is Westminster. That's where the time frame uncertainty comes in.
I can't answer how long independence will take because I don't know just how committed to obstructing democracy Westminster is.
Appears Sturgeon is back pedalling on the 2024 GE being a de facto infyref.
Yep, beginning of the end for her, I reckon.
I just don't think the appetite to allow the SNP another decade with the snouts at the trough is there. And I don't think disillusionment with the SNP is going to translate to a bump in support for Unionist parties.
I think a more radical leadership is going to take over the SNP or their support is going to flood to parties who are in favour of a de facto referendum.
But… Getting Tories out,
Military coup then?
I hope you think thats clearly a batshit idea and I am going full out on the slippery slope fallacy.
The point though is where do we draw the line in the objective of getting the tories out?
I can blame Labour for promising everything to get in since that is how the idea they all lie and you cant trust any of them gets normalised. At that point you might as well roll a dice as to who to vote for.
Again when you look at why people voted for brexit in many cases, the subset of racists aside, it was because they had voted for a labour government and seen bugger all difference.
At which point they become vulnerable to those groups offering a change. When you have sod all and will keep getting sod all you might as well bet on the one in a million chance and not just because you are a Pratchett fan.
Well, you said a decade of trying to get in
For Scotland? I guessed five years to “get in”… that’s not “trying”, that’s assuming all countries agree from the outset and is just the time needed to sort treaties, change laws, harmonise, and transition. Doing not trying. On top of five years to become independent. Both minimums. A decade at least from now to get to the point an Indy Scot is in the SM&CU. Probably still quicker than the whole UK though, as we’ve got a lot to do to prove our intent, good faith, and commitment before we even start.
For the UK a Swiss style bilateral deal would make more sense, imo. It would mean getting the tipex out again though.
There is no such thing as a "Swiss bilateral deal"...Switzerland's relationship with the EU is governed by dozens if not hundreds of individual agreements....the EU are v clear that they don't want to replicate it not least because it is incredibly labour intensive
sort treaties, change laws, harmonise, and transition. Doing not trying.
Which particular issues do you think will be the stumbling blocks?
As I said, up until two years ago Scotland had been aligned with the EFTA and the EU for six decades. Which particular laws or treaties do you see as being the log jam?
I’m not expecting a log jam, or any particular sticking points… that time period is assuming it’ll all be plane sailing.
There is no such thing as a “Swiss bilateral deal”…Switzerland’s relationship with the EU is governed by dozens if not hundreds of individual agreements….
Doesn't bilateral just mean there are two parties, ie, the EU and Switzerland?
Do their deals involve other countries (well, I guess they involve the non-EU EEA countries but given that they are rule-takers I don't see them being an issue).
Who are the other parties involved?
Appears Sturgeon is back pedalling on the 2024 GE being a de facto infyref.
Read some of the public comments LOL!
It looks same turds different region where not many people like politicians tbh.
If those are the Scottish SNP voters comments and reflect the majority thinkingin Scotland. Sturgeon is a laughing stock amongst the Scots. You can forget independence if that's the case.
I’m not expecting a log jam, or any particular sticking points… that time period is assuming it’ll all be plane sailing.
I don't think so but I can't prove it and I don't think you can either.
Only NI has a route back in that could take less than a decade from now, that I can see (via unification with an EU state).
Slightly tired of Irish reunification just lobbed out there in these threads in a “well, just bloody get on with it you crazy paddies…” manner. A couple of weeks ago, The Irish Times published the results of some serious (ie not ringing a few hundred people or getting them to click buttons à la YouGov) polling of (mainly) the NI population. What it showed is that Irish reunification is years off, and that the inexorably shifting demographics in the short term will take many years to affect the kind of majority that would be needed. After all, the idea of Irish reunification resulting from a fifty-something:forty-something vote would be sheer lunacy…wouldn’t it? You guys should look it up - I think some of it might surprise you, if you could just look outside the Brit-sphere for a few minutes. 😀
For me, I’ve always thought the U.K. will be back in the SM/CU long before reunification in Ireland. A bolder prediction would be that the U.K. will also be back in the EU before too - but I think that’s the case.
that’s assuming all countries agree from the outset and is just the time needed to sort treaties
Spain will have something to say about that. They desperately don’t want Scotland to join the EU as an independent country for obvious reasons.
Slightly tired of Irish reunification just lobbed out there in these threads in a “well, just bloody get on with it you crazy paddies…” manner.
Won’t get that from me. I don’t think people will choose that route, just that it is there if they wish to use it.
Read some of the public comments LOL!
you do know its a Tory rag/mouth piece of a paper
Slightly tired of Irish reunification just lobbed out there in these threads in a “well, just bloody get on with it you crazy paddies…” manner.
Whilst I havent said anything along those lines I will admit to a hope of it happening. Just to annoy the DUP who a)propped up the brexiteers and b)also funnelled some dubious cash into the brexit campaign whilst hiding behind the laws protecting donors from terrorists.
Petty admittedly but I happily admit to being no saint.
Whilst I havent said anything along those lines I will admit to a hope of it happening. Just to annoy the DUP who a)propped up the brexiteers and b)also funnelled some dubious cash into the brexit campaign whilst hiding behind the laws protecting donors from terrorists.
Petty admittedly but I happily admit to being no saint.
For sure…I agree with you. And it’s an inevitability - but over time. I’d once thought, “not in my lifetime” and maybe now I think “towards the later years of my lifetime.”But it’s worth knowing that polling suggests that a large majority still wouldn’t vote for it - so that includes a fair chunk of the “nationalist” population*.It seems that Brexit isn’t pushing the issue quite as much as we may have thought. Mind you, the Brexit that the DUP wanted might have pushed it a bit more.
EDIT: Present company excepted, but I’m not sure mainlanders (😀) realise…there’s a large chunk of the electorate that are moderate “nationalists” or “unionists” in that they tend to hold their noses and vote Sinn Féin or DUP but would still consider themselves pragmatic when it came to the question of reunification. It’s the bloody NHS again. 😀 They don’t quite realise that health and (especially in old age) social care outcomes are better in the RoI despite their being being able, in N.I., to join a queue F.O.C.
Spain will have something to say about that. They desperately don’t want Scotland to join the EU as an independent country for obvious reasons.
Do try to read the thread before commenting, Douglas.
Mind you, the Brexit that the DUP wanted might have pushed it a bit more.
The most convincing argument I have seen is it was a gamble on their part. Ultimately, as you say long term, the demographics are against them and inside the EU the lines were getting more and more blurred so they saw their best option as a hard exit which would then make reunification look costly and difficult and hence remain separate longer.
Which goes back to me wanting them slapped round the face with a wet fish/reunification.
They don’t quite realise that health and (especially in old age) social care outcomes are better in the RoI
But what about water charges (I remember some of my Irish relatives ranting about starting to be charged. They didnt get quite the reception they hoped for from me I think. Mostly bemusement).
they saw their best option as a hard exit which would then make reunification look costly and difficult and hence remain separate longer.
Yup. I’ve always thought that the DUP would be happiest with a hard border. I don’t think their politics work with everybody getting along ok.
On the water charges thing, that rings a bell, but I’d have to go back and remind myself. Something to do with Uisce Éireann charging for excess usage and it being “free” otherwise? I just can’t remember. 😐
Jeepers guys. If you are gong to make pronouncements about Scotland at least try to have some understanding
Its actually really offensive and patronising
Spain has no interst in a veto post brexit
There is no queue to rejoin the eu nor any minimum time frame
Etc
Something to do with Uisce Éireann charging for excess usage and it being “free” otherwise?
I think so. Not sure about excess usage but just the idea of paying specifically for water had been proposed and they were, to borrow a dup catchphrase, definitely NO.
It goes to show what you get used to when the conversation got stuck at the "you dont pay for water?" stage between us.
They will be suckers for the attack lines that @binners sets out above, so Labour’s position has to be one that doesn’t give the Tories the opportunity to deploy those lines.
So pandering to a few racists in a few seats
There is a total logical fallacy in your position
Public sentiment is moving to rejoin with a large majority now in favour
According to you lot labour have no influence and cannot lead public sentiment. So labour party backing rejoin loses them votes even tho public sentiment even in those redwall seats is moving strongly that way as that poll tells us.
But somehow the tories can lead public sentiment to brexit even tho this means reversing the direction public sentiment is moving in
This is an absurd defeatist pistion that has no basis in reality or logic
The logical distortions you maje to back a brexiteer labour party are breathtaking
I said I wasn't bashing my head on this wall any more but one last time.
In a poll of the constituencies that labour lost to Tories in 2019, those where the battle will be lost and won in a GE, when asked if they would be more or less likely to vote labour if labour changed to a rejoin policy
48% said less likely
16% said more likely
It is a potential vote loser in the areas that matter.
You keep saying sentiment is moving towards rejoin and you may be right. Maybe that poll would previously have been 55:10 or 65:0, IDK. But right now it is still 3:1 skewed to reduce support in the constituencies which matter most.
Maybe given time it could move further. I'd love that to be the case. Call me defeatist if you want. Say it's pandering to a few racists. I don't think it would move enough particularly if Tories can then mobilise against that policy. They can't at the moment, and it would be a very emotive topic in the areas that count. Taking your Brexit away, etc. Labour being anti-democratic. Not a risk I think we can take. The Tories have to lose the next election.
So pandering to a few racists in a few seats
Exactly. That is what FPTP forces you too do.
You are now just repeating the same things in every post. You believe that despite FPTP Labour can rely on a majority who think Brexit should be reversed. Most other posters think that that is an unrealistic belief. Your aren't going to change your mind and neither are we. Just stop.
So are you all repeating the same stuff missing a basic point
That poll was just of tory voters.
If it was all voters you would be right that its 3 to 1 a vote loser but it was not. Of the tory voters in thise seats 15% would change to labour on a rejoin policy. 48% would not.
So a rejoin policy is a vote winner not loser among tory voters in marginal seats
Nor can you explain why tories can according to you not only lead but reverse public opinion. But labour cannot push it further in the direction public opinion is moving.
Your position is in the face of strong evidence and has nothing to support it.
Labours brexit policy is a vote loser even in those marginals. Thats what thst poll shows
You are so determined to prove me wrong that you will neither listen to my arguement or look at the data
Also if the poll had said more tory voters would switch with a labour brexit policy you would have a point but that question was neither asked or answer
If labour adopted a rejoin policy 15% of TORY voters would be more likely to vote labour
Before you come at me with the kneejerk condemnation just have a think please.
That’s now, not after 18 months of propaganda and scaremongering from the right wing press. That’s the risk.
So the tories can reverse the direction of public opinion but labour cannot move it in the direction its already going?
I see your point - but that assumes they remain as tory voters now.
I want to correct a mistake in my previous point, but in doing so also address yours.
I said this was a poll of tory voters in marginals, that isn't right. It was a poll of tory voters in 2019 across constituencies, but this is not necessarily their voting intention now.
I (maybe mistakenly) hypothesize that given the massive swing in general to Labour in the last year or so, that many of these are not now intending to vote tory, particularly relevant in the swing constituencies that will decide the point. Have they all switched to labour, probably not - if it's a poll of all tory voters it will include the dyed in the wool ones as well.
So yes, in that poll there will be some 'never going to vote labour but if they had a rejoin policy it might make me 1/2% more likely, from not in a million years to not until hell freezes over' just as there may be others that are driven even further from a 'never' likelihood. And myriad other combinations. Maybe there are some lifelong tory voters that strongly back remain and would switch on that.
The slice and dice we'd need would be on current voting intention, prior vote and in the event of a labour rejoin policy what would you then vote?
TL;DR, we're both right 'in our own way'
Thank you
You are so determined to prove me wrong that you will neither listen to my arguement or look at the data
Ok, I'll go back and look at the sources. But please, wanting to prove you wrong has nothing to do with it. Wanting to avoid another 5 years of Tory rule is the motivation. It's terrifying that a huge proportion of the population still intend to vote Tory. That in itself should tell you that, when it comes to the voters, this game is not about logic or rational decisions.
Re So the tories can reverse the direction of public opinion but labour cannot move it in the direction its already going?
It's not public opinion that counts, sadly. It's the opinion of the swing voters in marginals. The ones that must be appeased / mustn't be alienated. The ones that can be more easily swayed by the 'taking away your brexit' campaigning. So totally wrong, but that's the game.
As the article says, and I have to listen to the opinions of the experts
Prof Paula Surridge, of Bristol University, said Labour would be very keen not to alienate the very voters they hoped to win over – but where public opinion leads, politicians may eventually follow.
“The main thing for Labour is that there is no need to shout about it at the moment,” she said. “There’s a a sense of, well, the voters will come to their own conclusions on this, and then there might be some space later."
and because you posted this after mine, so may have missed
If labour adopted a rejoin policy 15% of TORY voters would be more likely to vote labour
is actually "If labour adopted a rejoin policy 15% of PEOPLE WHO VOTED TORY IN 2019 would be more likely to vote labour
In fact - what does more or less likely mean anyway. Covers everything from 'very slightly but not so you'd notice' to '100% would flip my vote'
Almost as if these polls are written in a way that we then need experts to interpret them for us, rather than asking a simple question.....
Did you vote tory last time
Who do you plan to vote for this time
If Labour pledged to rejoin would you vote for them
Ta for the sensible debate
They desperately don’t want Scotland to join the EU as an independent country for obvious reasons.
Incorrect, Dazh:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland-idUKKCN1NP25P
All Spain wants is a legally binding separation as a condition of Scotland joining, that means that any Spanish region declaring an idependance that wasn't legally binding (which it wouldn't be without Madrid signing) wouldn't be illegible to join. I think anything that pisses London off is fine with Spain. 🙂 And Gibralta, now if they declared independance that would be amusing, a stutus like Andora would probably suit both rather well.
Agree jonv
We dont get enough data from that poll to be certain.
It can be interpreted either way. It strongly suggests to me that a pro rejoin stance would overall be a vote and seat winner with less gains in the red wall being more than balanced in greater gains elsewhere
Also as i said earlier its too late fot Starmer to radically change now. Im just disgusted by the position he has taken and believe it to counter productive both electorally and for the future of the uk economically and politically
It can be interpreted either way. It strongly suggests to me that a pro rejoin stance would overall be a vote and seat winner with less gains in the red wall being more than balanced in greater gains elsewhere
Also as i said earlier its too late fot Starmer to radically change now. Im just disgusted by the position he has taken and believe it to counter productive both electorally and for the future of the uk economically and politically
That sums up how I've interpreted all the polling, analysis and breakdown of results from the referendum itself and subsequent elections, TJ. I think Labour would score better with a Brexit policy divergent from Tory policy and openly oposing it.
There has to be some way of using these graphs to persuade the red wall racists they've ****ed up without offending the woke amongst us:
Immigration and abuse of images is what led us to Brexit, use of facts a way back in.
Then there's the Brexit people wanted. Tell them that a Swiss-style deal is what they originally voted for because they did. Remind Farage and the Brexiteers of their 2015 promises of how far Brexit would go, Brexit is far harder and more damaging than even Farage dreamed of. persuade people that that needs redressing.
The problem is Starmer, he'd have trouble persuading me that the earth isn't flat nad probably convince himself that it is whilst trying.
It strongly suggests to me that a pro rejoin stance would overall be a vote and seat winner with less gains in the red wall being more than balanced in greater gains elsewhere
It's a valid interpretation - my alternative is that elsewhere, away from the 'red wall' type seats that were lost last time, the absolute shower of shite that has characterised the last government(s) has already driven voters to labour, in sufficient numbers to be running 200+ seat majority predictions. And they're ALSO coming to their own conclusions on Brexit without prompting. Not a cause to be complacent about but I'm not sure they can chase many more of these, some blue seats will never switch.
But the red wall is still up for grabs, and could easily be spooked.
So are you all repeating the same stuff missing a basic point
That poll was just of tory voters.
I think you are also missing a point: which constituencies are those voters in?
Molgrips. Read the intervening posts. We've discussed at some length, the honest answer is we don't know, it just says Tory voters. Does not distinguish between the first time ever red wall switcher or the dyed in the wool. Just says tory voters.
What it does show is that a rejoin stance would attract some tory voters to labour. Quite clearly so. Those self same tory voters labour need for a majority.
Now if the movement is clearly towards rejoin right across the electorate and is also attracting some tory voters to rejoin when Starmer is backing brexit how much further would that go if Starmer backed rejoin?
Who do folk on here keep on saying the tories could change that major shift in public opinon that is travelling fast towards rejoin back to brexit but Starmer could not have shifted it further towards rejoin? That makes no sense. Why do you say only the tories can change public opinion even if thats a total chage of direction but labour cannot nudge public opinion further along the direction it is going? It makes no sense
Jonv - thanks for actually reading what I was posting and actually thinking about it rather than just kneejerking - a refreshing thing
Doesn’t bilateral just mean there are two parties
It was the "deal", singular, that I was picking up on, not use of unilateral.
Much as I'd love Starmer to commit to rejoining in full as soon as possible I think his current strategy is right. The red wall voters are drifting back, any mention of reversing Brexit will spook that. His current sensible man of politics is also allowing a lot of middle ground middle class voters back and the Tories are not doing anything to retain people like that with their car crash politics.
The next GE but one is the time to talk CU and FOM.
I don't need him to commit to rejoining ASAP, I just need him to say some vaguely credible and honest stuff about how Brexit has been incredibly damaging and how he plans to ameliorate that harm. Pretending that Brexit is great, or at least will be once he's implemented a few fantasy secret tweaks that he promises to achieve, just makes him sound stupid or dishonest or both, depending whether the listener thinks he really means what he's saying or not.
I mean, really, is there anyone left in the country who genuinely believes his promise that he will make a success of Brexit?
In the wide-ranging BBC interview, Starmer also said:
Labour would not take the UK back into the EU or the single market, and he resisted the idea that Brexit was to blame for the country’s financial troubles.
From the grauniad
I get the need for caution. I am using rejoin as shorthand for " concrete moves towards serious rapprochement with the EU l"
Why do you say only the tories can change public opinion
Tories recently have been adept at saying absolutely anything and then completely ignoring it. This is what made them so effective in the last few elections.
Starmer on the other hand seems to be much more subtle than that. I expect small movements towards EU harmonisation which will lay groundwork for more small steps. That's not the same as what Johnson did.
It was the “deal”, singular, that I was picking up on, not use of unilateral.
Once you start talking about international deals/treaties or whatever I doubt there are many that are a single bit of paper. Most are made up of multiple smaller agreements, I would imagine.
But sure, I will say bilateral arrangement from now on to avoid confusion.
This popped up on my FB. No idea what the text was but the headline is certainly interesting.
Wish we could put that genie back in the bottle, but i can't see it being in any way beneficial for the UK after the bridge burning that was Brexit.
Only chance of it is if the Ukraine / Russia nightmare starts making having the UK more appetising for the EU, especially France, there is absolutely no way France let the UK back in after their wins from our exit, or let us join in any real way where we can side with the Germans to outvote the French.
This popped up on my FB. No idea what the text was but the headline is certainly interesting.
Reads like a Brexiteer who has pretty much given up on ac**** of the incompetence of those in power.
Indeed, the clock has totally run down on what were always half-baked efforts to set out a tangible long-term vision for Britain post-Brexit. And a Westminster system still dominated by people who were never all that enthused about leaving the EU in the first place is only partly to blame. The grave reality is that even those ostensibly committed to making the most of our new freedoms never really worked out how to do so.
Brexit has led to a shortfall of 330,000 people in the UK labour force, mostly in the low-skilled economy, a report by leading researchers has found.
its wrecked the scottish tourism industry that used to rely on young europeans on gap years in the main as seasonal workers
That Telegraph headline is interesting, I also heard another interesting take on it. That if Labour don't pick it up, given there is undoubtedly a trend in a lot of the UK towards closer EU ties then the Tories may have to to chase votes and minimise the deficit they currently face in polling. But clearly they can't because it would rip the Tory party apart even further than they are. Damned if they do......and labour can just leave it there like a trap.
What the otherjonv said