Evidence in my post above
That is a rather cherry picked set of advantages. And even then, with a watered down version of the sovereignty type questions, "some EU legislation as part of a wider deal" the gap narrows substantially from 63-66% in favour of the really nice to have things to just over 50% (and the against nearly doubles). How much is some? A lot or just a bit? What do you think the %'s would say if they were asked "adopt EU legislation over UK legislation in order to secure a deal", or even "adopt the EU as currency" both of which are requirements for EU membership?
And that again is a cross section*, what remainers already think is of far lower relevance than what the folk in red wall/blue wall swing seats think.
* I assume, it's a picture of a table with no citation. You could have made that up in your bedroom this lunchtime 😉
Taken from the huffpost link
I have been on the forum long enough to know sources will be challenged 🙂
Which you have spent ages denying and agreeing with Starmer ” no case for rejoin” Clearly there is a case – we would be better off
Show us the proof of this, quantifiable proof, and also define 'we'.
so why is Starmer refusing to do that? Out of the CU and SM is hard brexit and cannot be softened
You talk as if there are only three positions - out, CM/SU, and in. I don't think that's the case.
For example, we could have passed regulation that says an EU certified product is also acceptable in the UK. That means that you only face customs charges if you want to export. However, we decided to create our own certification body purely so that we could be different. The EU wont' recognise that so anything we export would have to be RE certified (as I understand it) before doing so thereby adding additional costs on top of customs charges and tariffs. Adopting EU standards would constitute a softer Brexit than creating our own different standards on purpose.
I seem to remember reading many such issues but I do not have the details to hand.
Also
Fear of the right wing press
Should you not fear those who wield power? If he's not going to care about what they think, then how is he going to reduce their influence? Before he's even PM?
Which you have spent ages denying and agreeing with Starmer ” no case for rejoin” Clearly there is a case – we would be better off
Oh FFS TJ, are you bring deliberately obtuse? We would obviously be better off if we could have instantaneous carbon neutral matter transportation, but that doesn't mean we can just have it. You saying 'Rejoin' has as much chance of success as if you said 'Build me a matter transporter'.
In that scenario, tomorrow never comes. Comfort breeds complacency. Where’s the incentive for that lofty goal?
Exactly, which is why I've said previously on here that we won't be rejoining the EU within our lifetimes. Maybe the norway model as per Tired's post but even that is a remote possibility right now. TBH in 50 years time there's a high chance the EU won't exist in its current form so there'll be nothing to rejoin.
I haven’t come here to join whatever dull echo chamber you’ve got going on, but just to briefly rejoice that in the Council of Europe, to which we still belong, the election for president of the parliamentary assembly is over and we will continue under Tiny Kox! Titter ye not!
TBH in 50 years time there’s a high chance the EU won’t exist in its current form so there’ll be nothing to rejoin
Dazh's dream, Brit Cit!
Edit: the direct link to the Dredd's World map failed so you'll have to look here:
https://judgedredd.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Mega-States
Oh FFS TJ, are you bring deliberately obtuse?
No _I am pointing out the logical flaw in your argument.
You cannot have it both ways. If you agree we would be better off in the SM and CU then " no case to rejoin" is false as the case for rejoin is "we would be better off" Its an either / or. Both things cannot be true
🙂
I'll try to keep this really simple for you.
We would be better off in the SM and CU.
But the cost of getting back into the SM and CU and the time it would take to get there, and the neglect of our other problems for that length of time mean that overall the payback time would be measured in decades.
Therefore there is no case for attempting to get back into the SM and CU today.
Did you follow that?
But the cost of getting back into the SM and CU
I keep reading you guys saying that trying to join the SM or CU is going to result in rivers of blood running in the street but you never explain the in between steps.
It goes:
Step 1: Apply to join SM or CU
Step 2: BLOODBATH!!!
I can't help but feel some steps are missing.
Did you follow that?
yes and it contains a clear logical fallacy as above. But then Starmers whole position is one of carefully constructed ambiguity and full of logical flaws
the longer we leave r it the harder it gets.
I followed that but it's possible to promote getting back into the SM and CU without neglecting other problems. As it is it seems to me Starmer is both neglecting other problems and needlessly delaying SM reentry. Even a problem as big as making the NHS a fully functioning public service only merits tinkering around the edges of defacto privatisation. Come on Starmer, give people something to believe in rather than pandering to the ignorant, biggoted, super rich, lobby groups, red wall... . Aim at the people who believe in everyone working for both themselves and the collective good and providing services and infrastructure to benefit all.
yes and it contains a clear logical fallacy as above.
You have a different understanding of logic to me. I'm out.
Fixing all the other issues is made harder by embracing a hard brexit
the logical flaw is simple - the two things cannot co exist. If being in the CU and SM is good for the country then that IS the case for joining them. If there is no case for rejoining them then you accept that the CU and SM are NOT good for the country or you don't want to do what you accept is good for the country
I said I'm out but your increasingly ridiculous non-sequiturs and total inability to consider that a problem might have more than one parameter are provoking me. I really should know better, I've watched you argue for 20 years now.
Bananas are tasty and nutritious. That is the case IS the case for buying a banana.
This banana costs £1000.
I'll pass on the banana, thanks. I still believe that bananas are tasty and nutritious, and I still want to eat tasty and nutritious food, but I'm not buying that banana.
You can't have your banana and eat it, banana split:
Some things about Europe are simply better.
Aye - we both should have dropped it a while back apologies if its annoying you.
I am infuriated by Starmers position and by the logical contortions people are adopting to defend the indefensible. Its not even as if he is merely following public opinion - he is actively opposing public opinion and worst of all letting the tories off the hook for the blame
Step 1: Apply to join SM or CU
Step 2: BLOODBATH!!!
Something like:
Labour (say) switches to a remain policy and applies
Loses a load of its support instantly
UKIP awakens to hoover up that support
Labour lose some support to Tories
UKIP become kingmakers again
Both sides now need to try and outdo UKIP to retain support
Country drifts to right.
Labour split by people who are actually Brexiteers, remainers, and remainers who want to respect the referendum
Tories split by headbangers and common sense remainers
CU/SM application happens
Loads of rebellions by MPs who feel they should support their constituents' wishes anyway or are scared of losing seats
Factions all over the place, now leaders have to work like hell to try and hold their parties together instead of actually governing
Parliament spending all its time debating CU/SM instead of actually fixing everyday issues (CU/SM won't do that on its own remember)
Companies and investors look at us and think 'what the actual **** you bunch of nutters, UK is irredeemable let's go somewhere else'
Parties may end up actually splitting and thereby ensuring we have minority governments for the foreseeable future
Something like that.
It isn't 2016 anymore, Molgrips. Brexiteers are now starting to live "project fear" and some are starting to regret. Tory cuts are starting to hurt the very people who vote Tory, and the Tory base of small business owners is feeling Brexit pain. These voters need an alternative to Tory policy not a poor imitation of it.
The trend is towards Brexit remorse and Starmer trying to swim against that current.
some are starting to regret
Enough? Don't forget plenty of people wanted to uphold the result despite being on the losing end. I think that a significant Labour aren't calling for rejoining is that they don't want it to be 2016 again.
These voters need an alternative to Tory policy not a poor imitation of it.
We don't know what Labour policy actually is yet. There's more to a governing a country that whether or not it's a member of the EU.
The trend is towards Brexit remorse and Starmer trying to swim against that current.
Looks to me like he's trying to enable it in a sneaky subtle and very slow way. Let's face it, he's a remainer as you and I are, but he needs the support of those who aren't. And he's also very likely to be in possession of a lot more facts and analysis than either of us.
Enough? Don’t forget plenty of people wanted to uphold the result despite being on the losing end.
Your recent posting tells me you've become one of them, Molgrips. Another Brexit apologist rather than pro-European.
We don’t know what Labour policy actually is yet.
I read a list of policy points from Starmer, that's policy. If we really don't know what Labour policy is yet then they're a bigger shambles than even I thought.
Something like that.
Wow, lots of effort went into that I see.
I can't be bothered going into all that detail so at a certain point I'm just going to copy and paste your work. See if you can spot where.
Option 1:
SKS wasn't lying about SM/CU. They press ahead with 'regulatory alignment'. At the end of Starmer's first term he proudly announces that after five years of negotiations and several concessions made to avoid various vetos, tinned sardines can now be imported and exported tariff free between the EU and UK (with the UK only having to pay 1bn per year for the privilege).
Meanwhile, 25% of UK households have had to boil their wallpaper for dinner at least once in the previous 6 months.
A particularly nasty strain of Tory soundly beats Labour in the election.
Option 2:
SKS was lying about SM/CU.
Loses a load of its support instantly
UKIP awakens to hoover up that support
Labour lose some support to Tories
UKIP become kingmakers again
Both sides now need to try and outdo UKIP to retain support
Country drifts to right.
Labour split by people who are actually Brexiteers, remainers, and remainers who want to respect the referendum
Tories split by headbangers and common sense remainers
CU/SM application happens
Loads of rebellions by MPs who feel they should support their constituents’ wishes anyway or are scared of losing seats
Factions all over the place, now leaders have to work like hell to try and hold their parties together instead of actually governing
Parliament spending all its time debating CU/SM instead of actually fixing everyday issues (CU/SM won’t do that on its own remember)
Companies and investors look at us and think ‘what the actual **** you bunch of nutters, UK is irredeemable let’s go somewhere else’
Parties may end up actually splitting and thereby ensuring we have minority governments for the foreseeable future
the neglect of our other problems for that length of time mean that overall the payback time would be measured in decades.
Ok I think possibly this is where the biggest disagreement lies.
I dispute that preparing the ground for re-entry into SM, CU and potentially EU would cause a neglect of other problems. I consider that moving towards regulatory alignment would in fact ameliorate many problems, the faster we do that (which is entirely under parliamentary control), the better.
In contrast, pursuing the never-ending brexit with continual promises of unicorns just around the corner has already caused the neglect of other problems and will continue to do so until this insanity is eventually dumped. Which it will be, whether it takes years or decades.
I don't see how anyone could honestly argue that a change of policy towards something more sane would be more harmful than the bit of a mess we already have. Hence all sorts of people trying to claim that Starmer can't really mean what he says and trying to twist some sense out of his nonsense.
I consider that moving towards regulatory alignment would in fact ameliorate many problems, the faster we do that (which is entirely under parliamentary control), the better.
Key point - and the converse is also true - the longer we leave it the harder to return and the worse the mess is - so if its too difficult now its only going to get harder
I read a list of policy points from Starmer, that’s policy.
Isn't the Labour manifesto and policy decided at the conference?
Key point – and the converse is also true – the longer we leave it the harder to return and the worse the mess is – so if its too difficult now its only going to get harder
Technically harder, politically possible. If Starmer stops the deliberate divergence for the sake of awkwardness now, (even that would constitute a softening), or even promotes alignment, then when the time comes it will be easier, whenever that is.
BruceWee - honestly mate take a break, you're not making sense.
Isn’t the Labour manifesto and policy decided at the conference?
Nope - not for a long time now. Blair bypassed conference,
When Labour is not in government, the final say on which items make it into the manifesto is made at a meeting of Labour's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC), the shadow cabinet and key figures from both the Parliamentary Labour Party and the National Policy Forum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34357018
Edit - thats an old piece but by my understanding policy is what the leader and his appointees says it is as that says
In government conference has a say but can be overruled (IIRC) and also cannot comment on individual aspects just accept or reject tranches - and I don't think even that vote is binding
I'm not totally clear tho
There's plenty of Brexit still to come
Labour will have its work cut out reversing the damage
CBI boss Tony Danker absolutely flaying retained EU law bill - describes it as opposite of what business actually want; unserious; path to uncertainty, disruption; "foolish"
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/speech-is-the-uk-in-a-rut-on-growth/
, then when the time comes it will be easier, whenever that is.
Nope - I disagree strongly. the longer we leave it the harder it will become both politically - because brexit will become normalised, the tories will not be nailed with the blame because Starmers labour shares it and because the longer its left the harder to change course and technically because the EU is not static - it will be moving away from us. So the longer we leave it the bigger the gap to be bridged
Starmer has ruled out any significant movement towards the EU
But as I have said many times - Starmer has nailed his colours to the mast of brexit and altering that course now is not going to happen. Its too late and he has blown it condemning us to further impoverishment,loss of growth, loss of jobs, loss of investment
Starmer has ruled out any significant movement towards the EU
Your words, not his.
CU. SM, FOM, all ruled out the 4 freedoms are indivisible
What significant movement toward the EU can there be having ruled those things out?
The rest are just stating that we would be better off in the SM and CU, which as I have stated many times, is self evidently true.
It isn't.
I disagree strongly. the longer we leave it the harder it will become both politically – because brexit will become normalised
Ok - well, you know best. Have you considered popping him a note?
Its my opinion. am I not entitled to it? I gave you my reasoning. It makes as much sense as any other opinion on here. Its a view shared by many commentators, politicians and economists. Of course the UK and EU will diverge year on year - the EU will develop and deepen
It makes more sense than some of the wishful thinking on here
TJ - take a break before your head explodes; why don't you...go on a long bike tour?
BruceWee – honestly mate take a break, you’re not making sense.
I literally copied and pasted what you wrote.
If it doesn't make sense to you, now you understand how your entire argument sounds to the rest of us.
Ok – well, you know best. Have you considered popping him a note?
The key point you absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that Starmer's only priority is to maximise the number of Labour MPs returned at the next election even if it's at the expense of the well being of the UK.
He has different priorities to us (unless you have some vested interest in as many Labour MPs as possible being on the payroll that includes you too).
More Labour MPs does not automatically translate into being better for the country, especially if Starmer has ruled out a CU/SM/Swiss deal in the name of maximising those seats.
Why is the idea of Starmer having a different priorities to the rest of us so difficult for you to understand?
Anyway moving on from a scanners moment.,,
On my last order from the u.k the ‘handling’ fee of DHL was €50 which was 10% of the total bill on top of vat, delivery.
There’s no way that’s viable for small companies.
(Still waiting for the delivery but express isn’t anymore)
I’m used to this when I’ve bought stuff from the other side of the globe but not your closest market which is a vast 21 miles(ish) crossing.
Like I’ve said I’ve had parts delivered to fix the car whilst on holiday,you wouldn’t attempt that now.
The key point you absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that Starmer’s only priority is to maximise the number of Labour MPs returned at the next election even if it’s at the expense of the well being of the UK.
I acknowledged that is is his priority, but I don't think it's a bad thing at this stage. Let's see what happens.
Good article in the guardian about Lammy running a charm offensive which is of course a good thing. More cordial relations can only help - but it ( and remember the guardian is totally uncritical of anything Starmers team does)
Some EU experts believe Labour is underestimating the difficulties it will face in forging a new relationship with Europe, or the determination of Brussels to protect the integrity of the single market
Which is what my point is. The room for improvement in trade is very limited without SM. CU and the four freedoms. those who think or say otherwise are either being disingenuous or engaging in wishful thinking
good article otherwise and nice to see someone actually being an adult
All just feelgood word salad though, no explanation of whether and how my tax paying business will be able to start up again, taking part in the Horizon2020 and other international science programs and visiting other EU members for working visits.
So I listened to that Starmer interview on the news agent podcast while out on my run. Complete softball interviewers, obviously hugely sympathetic to him and they gave him every opportunity to say something meaningful....and he just ducked it all. Not the SM, not like Switzerland, not like Norway, not alignment, just "better" in some completely undefinable and intangible way.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is remotely convinced by him. How can you vote for someone who can't even provide a hint as to what they might do?
He talked about "high standards" but didn't come up with a single example as to what that might mean.
How can you vote for someone who can’t even provide a hint as to what they might do?
That's what happens every frigging time!
But anyway - it's not voting time yet, you don't have to vote for anyone.
No, I don't accept that is true at all. Of course no-one delivers the entire manifesto and there's a bit of room for debate over the details but Blair certainly promised a minimum wage, and Cameron promised a ref on the EU. Just to take two random examples. It's hard to find any Tory policy that Starmer is prepared to repudiate. He just claims he'll do the same stuff only better.
It’s hard to find any Tory policy that Starmer is prepared to repudiate. He just claims he’ll do the same stuff only better.
Simply not true. Show me a policy area (apart from Ukraine) where Labour haven't said they'll implement a different policy to the current government? They're claiming some of the campaign promises, such as "levelling up" and "take back control" but hanging them on real policies that have come from Labour teams led by previous leaders and others committed to implementing Labour policies and undoing the damage of the last decade while being as forward looking as possible. On Europe in particular, keeping EU standards as a minimum to enable equivalence and harmonisation helps with the NI situation, and also helps manufacturers in the rest of the UK to rebuild trading links with the rest of Europe. Yes, it feels like a baby step compared to where we where before the vote of 2016... but the alternative is aggressive divergence with the Conservatives, as part of a race to the bottom on working conditions and environmental standards that will drive an even deeper wedge between the UK and our neighbours. Yes, things can get much worse still. Brexit isn't over yet, there's still more destructive expensive divergence coming... we haven't even implemented UKCA and import controls yet... Brexit is still only half done.
Starmer explicitly rejected keeping EU standards in that News Agents interview, having been repeatedly invited to confirm it. If he has ever said "keeping EU standards as a minimum" let's have the quote please. I suspect you've just made that up but would genuinely love to be proved wrong as keeping EU standards would indeed be a progressive step.
And just to take another topical example, he refused to say he would disagree with the govt's stance on the Scottish GRC law, he claimed he would do better somehow by talking but didn't repudiate their action. Hard to put a fag paper between them on most policy issues.
There are a few differences where Labour is genuinely better, but on Brexit in particular, it's just wishful thinking from people still desperately hanging on to this vain belief in the absence of any supporting evidence. They are 100% hard Brexit cultists at this point.
In other news, the ever finger-on-the-pulse "The UK in a Changing Europe" (great name that, considering how the UK has changed while the EU just points and laughs) think tank has pronounced that Brexit will drag on and on for ever and ever.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/24/brexit-uk-eu-finance-britain
Rather blows the "rejoining will take too much time and effort" argument out of the water. What is the "payback time" (as a previous poster put it) on *not* rejoining?
Starmer explicitly rejected keeping EU standards in that News Agents interview
No, he didn't. He's very careful how it words it.
Here's a quick transcription...
KS: Well, I think that by being really clear about issues such as the standards that we would adhere to, we go a long way to removing the barriers so there...
so you keep European standards
KS: Look, high standards are something which the...
not just high standards, but aligned with what Europe does
KS: Yeah, right. But the first thing is to say high standards because there are high standards in Europe. Most of them, well many of them came from the UK. We have been a country of high standards for a very, very long time. I think it's very important for a Labour government to be clear as we go to the election and obviously the other side of the election that we would maintain those high standards because the tension, you can see it in the Protocol, but it stayed with the deal, the tension is where this divergence obviously when it comes to how do you make sure that you maintain high standards. There's a discussion to be had about the mechanism, I don't want to get ahead of myself because that is a discussion, that is a two way discussion. But the first thing is to be clear that we wouldn't be a government that wants to deregulate lower standards because that is fundamentally at odds with the approach that we would take as Labour government.
Rather blows the “rejoining will take too much time and effort” argument out of the water.
Remember this argument sits with the EU too. Brexit has taken a lot of time and effort from the EU they could have spent on other activity. The idea they'd be interested in the UK rejoining without UK membership being a settled matter across all parties and at least a couple of parliaments is perhaps optimistic. To rejoin we'd need to be able to prove we intended to stay.
kelvin, immediately prior he had ridiculed the Swiss model because they had changed it 200 times (um…to align with changing EU regs).
He can say all he wants about high standards, but that rejection of repeated changes is explicitly ruling out any sort of alignment. Alignment very obviously means adjusting our regs to take account of changes in theirs. What he is saying is smoke and mirrors stuff to fool people who want to be fooled.
Yeah, right. But the first thing is to say high standards because there are high standards in Europe. Most of them, well many of them came from the UK.
Utter bollocks. 15 years of normes (standards) before Britain even joined. And once it joined it spent its time dragging it's heels and opposing in a bizarre exceptionalism. I would argue that the US and Japan had more input into European normes than Britain during Britain's membership. It then spent much time dragging its heels on the application of standards it had voted for. Euroscepticism dominated the UK's approache to Europe whatever the government of the day.
Britain adopted EU standards because it had to and sought exceptions or watering down when it could.
He can say all he wants about high standards
And you'll go and claim he said the opposite. If you come away from that encounter thinking that he's ruled out keeping EU standards, then I feel you're going to argue no matter what. Look, there is a clear choice between the Conservative and Labour parties and how they intend to handle Europe. Starmer is more aware of the problems and processes ahead than any of us... which is why he isn't promising anything that's impossible for any UK government to unilaterally deliver. A UK government can promise not to deregulate and not to increase divergence and the problems that come from that... which is what he is doing. And the current government is not. Where that leads in terms of agreements with the EU isn't in the gift of the next government. Repair relationships, stop the rot, reject the race to deregulate and undercut the EU on standards. Basic uncontroversial step one. What unfolds from there... well... patience and lots of ally building ahead for the UK, rather than wishing for a magic undo button that is sadly really is not there, no matter how hard we wish that it was.
Oldbloke makes a good point. It makes it all the more critical that the labour party show real support for rejoin in some form rather than the carefully chosen weasel words used that are clearly intended to give deniability and to allow people to read into them what they wish
If he thinks that the EU will agree to cutting checks on the basis that the UK has high but not aligned standards, that's just more of the same cakeism. Otherwise, it's alignment that will require repeated changes which he explicitly ruled out.
If you came away from that thinking he'd promised to align to EU standards, in the very interview where he ridiculed Switzerland for their need to make repeated changes to align to EU standards, then I think you're going to believe that no matter what he says and make up nonsense to convince yourself afterwards.
Just a thought...maybe you genuinely didn't realise that it's not just about *deregulation* (which he can promise if he wants) but also the need to *raise* standards whenever the EU does? That's what alignment means.
(NB alignment also does not mean identical standards, it means meeting a level of minimum standards, via mechanisms and laws which may differ across countries according to their systems. It's true that in some respects we had/have higher standards than other EU countries.)
It’s true that in some respects we had/have higher standards than other EU countries
I'm intrigued by that, such as? Possibly the British plug back when houses weren't fitted with differential breakers but where does Britain have higher standards today?
To rejoin we’d need to be able to prove we intended to stay.
Exactly. Put yourself in the EUs position. They've just spent a fortune and diverted a lot of their best people on negotiating how we are going to leave. During that process, we've turned up unprepared, signed things in bad faith that we didn't even understand, failed to implement most of the things we had agreed to, and constantly hurled insults their way. Starmer turns up, says 'We'd like to rejoin please' - they're just going to piss themselves laughing. There is no way they are going to embark on a 5 year negotiation when it's highly probable that the ****wit electorate is going to elect Bluekip again and the whole thing will be thrown out. We are going to have to show sustained enthusiasm for rejoining for many years before they'll even consider starting the process. And for those of you who think that we can avoid complex negotiations by just rolling over and accepting unconditionally whatever deal the EU offers (looking at you TJ) , you're living in cloud cuckoo land. You'd suddenly find that your majority for rejoin was now a bigger majority for staying out than the 52% we had last time.
in the very interview where he ridiculed Switzerland for their need to make repeated changes to align to EU standards
Switzerland's repeated changes aren't just caused by iterative raising of standards (only you have said, that Starmer did not), but also because of the way they enact their own legislation and the nature of their democracy and how they manage their relationship with the EU (and elsewhere). The UK/EU could choose a framework that bundles far more together, with less direct democracy involved. The UK wouldn't chose to copy Switzerland's way of dealing with the EU, as we have a very different form of government and approach to treaties.
To rejoin we’d need to be able to prove we intended to stay.
You can join the CU/SM without being full EU members.
Whatever the mechanism, automatic or voting, Britain would still have to update its legislation everytime the EU does to maintain compliance just as Norway and Switzerland do, Kelvin. And Karmer just blabs about high standards in almost word for word Boris speak.
At present the UK are drifting apart and there are number of hurdles approaching which will concentrate minds on the issue as the EU will have to decide whether to prolong or drop time-limited agreements. On current form I recekon it'll be "no, you're not playing fair".
If the UK won't play ball the way Switzerland and Norway do it will just become an adversary like the US, with punitive tarifs, retaliation, a simmering trade war... .
Britain would still have to update its legislation everytime the EU does to maintain compliance
Yes, but they don't have to do so in the same piecemeal fashion that the Swiss do.
just as Switzerland does
There are other ways. The other EFTA countries handle it far better. You could argue that Switzerland retains more sovereignty and its people have more democratic oversight over it all... but I think they mostly waste time and cause confusion... although that's what a lot of the Brexit sovereignty junkies seem to mean by that word.
At present the UK are drifting apart and there are number of hurdles approaching which will concentrate minds on the issue as the EU will have to decide whether to prolong or drop time-limited agreements. On current form I recekon it’ll be “no, you’re not playing fair”.
Absolutely agree.
Oh, for what it's worth... I still think the end game is the UK as an EEA country, or damn close to it, just as those that pushed for Brexit proposed back before they did their bait and switch. But it isn't something that Labour can or should promise the voters at the next election. Step one is to stop the drifting apart, regain trust, and rebuild bridges. Starmer will be long gone before we are inside the Single Market again. It's not a near term aim... well, it is for some, but they can't deliver it.
As you've split my sentence to change the sense of it I've modified it to remove the ambiguity, Kelvin. A stealth edit to counter an irritating interpretation. 😉
But seriously, Starmer is just pandering to the Brexiteers and sticking his head in the sand with regard to the consequences of having "high standards" rather than "EU standards". The EU doesn't care what British standards are, if they don't comply with European ones Britain will be (and is being) slowly shut out of the European market.
Edit: I see you've been editting too and you are aware of the issues, you couldn't have a word in Starmer's ear could you ?
Well, you've changed its meaning entirely. Yes, Norway is closer to what we could achieve, but they still go around in circles a lot, because of their carve outs for fishing and agriculture... we'd likely have similar problems. But I was addressing the claims about the Swiss/EU relationship directly, especially the frequency and disparate nature of how they change their legislation to "keep up" with EU standards.
The EU doesn’t care what British standards are, if they don’t comply with European ones Britain will be (and is being) slowly shut out of the European market.
Agreed. And listen to the interview, or read the messy transcript I posted... he agrees that we'd need to align, but he is absolutely talking about it in a way that is designed to keep everyone on side, not just those that know/admit that leaving the EU was a mistake. The need for remainers to have their egos stroked by a possible future UK PM is all a bit desperate. We need someone who'll rebuild our relationship with all the European countries, not just the EU, but they don't and shouldn't need to be framing it in a way that tells people who voted Brexit "ha ha, we told you so"... that's not in the interest of the UK, even if it would make some people feel a bit better about what they/we have lost because of other people voting for Brexit.
I’m intrigued by that, such as? Possibly the British plug back when houses weren’t fitted with differential breakers but where does Britain have higher standards today?
Parental leave is an obvious example. There's plenty of wildlife/farm/enviro stuff too, like veal crates, hedgerow protection. The UK is (was) not quite the laggard it's often made out to be, that's a narrative that suits everyone to maintain but isn't really true.
Yes, but they don’t have to do so in the same piecemeal fashion that the Swiss do.
LOL. Sorry, this is just desperate wishful thinking.
We had all this before with brexit before it happened. Remember when it was all nudge nudge wink wink we know labour aren't really pro-brexit, they just can't say too much? And then "80% of people voted for pro-brexit parties" and they fell lock-step in with the tory brexit: "of course we are pro-brexit, didn't you listen to a word we said?"
He was repeatedly offered the chance to say anything positive about alignment and refused, he ridiculed other countries (both Norway and Switzerland) for their alignment, he just said he wanted high standards and wouldn't deregulate, which is an obvious dodge designed to mislead as it avoids entirely the vital question of rising standards.
After the election, when he says "of course I'm not planning to align, didn't you listen to a word I said?" how will you respond?
Fool me once, shame on him. Fool me twice, shame on me.
“80% of people voted for pro-brexit parties”
Well, if you fell for that bullshit from David Davies, that’s not Labour’s fault… they never said that.
It's not a matter of what I fell for, it's what the parliamentary labour party whipped for, voted for in parliament. Which fortunately is a matter of public record and not subject to strained reinterpretation of words.
Parental leave is an obvious example.
What, you mean congé parental. Not so obvious when other countires have it too.
There’s plenty of wildlife/farm/enviro stuff too
Like sewage in the sea. 😉
Veal crates are banned in the EU.
Hedges etc. In France that's:
Textes de référence
Articles L. 123-8, L. 126-3 à L. 126-5, et R. 126-12 et suivants du code rural et de la pêche maritime (CRPM) ;
Arrêté du 28 avril 1995 pris pour l’application du décret n° 95-488 du 28 avril 1995 relatif aux boisements linéaires, haies et plantations d’alignement susceptibles d’être protégés et complétant le code rural ;
Circulaire DERF/ SDEF/ n°3016 du 27 septembre 1995 relative aux formations boisées hors forêt et au bénéfice des aides attachées à la forêt.
I'm intrigued by the other farm/enviro stuff ? I suggest having a look at other countrys' non-EU legislation before claiming Britain does more.
80% of people voted for pro-brexit parties
Labour had 'Trigger Article 50' in their election manifesto, as did the Tories. Hence, Theresa May was able to say that 80% of people voted for parties that supported triggering Article 50.
That's why it's so dangerous to assume that when political parties say something they actually mean something completely different.
what the parliamentary labour party whipped for, voted for in parliament
Ah, well that's something else, and I agree. If you want to go back that far. A right mess.
That’s why it’s so dangerous to assume that when political parties say something they actually mean something completely different.
If you mean Starmer ruling out joining the Single Market. I take that to mean the UK won't join the Single Market after the next election if he becomes PM. No-one should expect that to change. When he says he'll stop the divergent lowering of standards that the current government are set on, and be more constructive towards the rest of Europe, I hope he means that as well.
I'm not saying UK is the best overall. But the parental leave example still stands, you can look it up if you want, many countries are way lower.
Hedges TBH I was talking specifically about the hedge trimming to protect nesting birds, which dates back to Thatcher. I know that farmers in the UK have ripped up a lot. Veal crates were banned in the UK in 1992 and subsequently throughout the EU at the end of 2006.
It's fair to say some of my knowledge is rather out of date as while I was a union rep in the 1990s I was subsequently out of the country for over a decade and haven't bothered keeping up. I thought you were making a general point about the historical trajectory.
A bit of googling finds that sow stalls is a current example. Banned in UK, allowed for 4 weeks in EU. Numerous further examples here:
So you thought very hard and found a few exceptions, thecaptain. I'll take it from the other side and point out that where the UK has had the liberty to decide it's own laws it is well below what other EU countries have decided for themselves.
As an ex-union rep what do you think of zero-hours contracts and the ease of hire and fire in the UK?
Edit: having gone through your examples and the grocer article it's clear that Britain adopted the relevant bans when forced to do so by EU wide legislation with the exception of the veal crates - it was a follower not a leader.
Edukator,
Back at the turn of the century my (govt-controlled, but not official civil service) employer did a very fair and reasonable job of implementing EC Directive 1999/70/EC
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0070&from=EN
which purported to control/outlaw short contracts in many situations. It was genuinely a big step forward that gave a much-needed degree of job security to a cohort of my colleagues.
I honestly don't know how the backsliding and evasion has subsequently become so widespread. Seems to be a combination of "self-employed" gig workers and "permanent contract but no guaranteed work". A willingness to turn a blind eye at all levels to an undermining of the intent of the directive which is still well worth reading for the principles it outlines. I think the current situation in the UK is terrible. I don't know specifically about my ex-employer, I suspect (and hope) it may have kept the same system as I saw.
I really hope no one is advocating for a Norwegian or Swiss style deal because there are very clear borders for goods crossing between those countries and the rest of the EU. Much like the one that would be necessary between the rest of the UK and an independent Scotland that became an EU member...
TBH it’s like a Dallas shower moment, I feel I’ve come out the shower and back in the May ‘Brexit means Brexit’ phase when all the types of Brexit were being talked about like we even had a choice.
I really hope no one is advocating for a Norwegian or Swiss style deal because there are very clear borders for goods crossing between those countries and the rest of the EU. Much like the one that would be necessary between the rest of the UK and an independent Scotland that became an EU member
But less expensive than what we've now got.
And yes, when Scotland joins the EU it will create another land border for the EU, but it seems that the EU manages their border a bit better than the UK does, so feels comfortable for us (in Scotland) that we'll be better protected against dodgy imports than we are at present.
Wishful thinking not confined to those who see mileage in Starmer's position.
Wishful thinking not confined to those who see mileage in Starmer’s position.
Yes, but wishing Starmer is going to do something he has categorically ruled out is taking things a step beyond.
Edit: having gone through your examples and the grocer article it’s clear that Britain adopted the relevant bans when forced to do so by EU wide legislation with the exception of the veal crates – it was a follower not a leader.
Look, I'm not holding up the UK as some idealised paragon of virtue here, and I'm sure that in some respects it was a laggard brought kicking and screaming to the table. But this sort of broad generalisation simply doesn't hold up. The article directly points to several more examples of the UK going beyond the legislative minimum, and while you say it was a "follower", all you can actually deduce is that it brought in the legislation in a timely manner as indicated by the EU-wide agreement. That doesn't make it a follower any more than any other EU member state, and in some cases the UK was definitely on the side of pushing for the EU-wide agreement. They are even now talking about a ban on live animal exports for slaughter, for example, which the EU is not considering. The UK has long been a leader in farm animal welfare specifically, and some environmental stuff like wild birds. Sure there are plenty of black spots too.
Ok, crop stubble burning too. Outlawed in the UK in 1993, long before the EU. A significant pollution hazard and also environmentally harmful in other ways.
They are even now talking about a ban on live animal exports for slaughter, for example, which the EU is not considering.
Isn't this more to do with an export from France could be a couple of hours through a couple of countries by lorry, whereas for the UK it's always included a ferry/ship?