Forum menu
Because wanting something and it being available are not the same thing.
And why would that cause an election loss?
There is zero logic in what you say.
Starmer by refusing the 4 freedoms has ruled this out.
Are you pretending not to see what would happen if Labour went into an election in less than 5 years time saying it was in favour for the 4 freedoms. Come on now…
Consider yourself sucessfullygaslight. So apolicy wanted by 2/3 of tbe population and opposed by less than 1 in 5 lose votes?
60% supposedly back rejoining the EU. But, presumably, given the ****wittery exhibited back in 2016 - much of that 60% will think we can just waltz back in to the same arrangements we had before. That won't be the case.
God knows what the solution is, but the question should never have been asked back in 2016.
No. They are meant to get you to think about what has happened to folk that adopt your position which has no basis in logic or fact and is instead the oppiste of where facts and logic take you
According to you a policy which is hugely popular and would create an immediate economic boost would be a vote loser.
Its absurd
Even a majority of brexit voters would now accept sm and cu
Where are you getting these numbers from?
instead the oppiste of where facts and logic take you
Where your interpretation of both UK politics and EU treaties take you… both of which we can talk about, and I don’t agree with. I think you misjudge the voters south of the border, and have rose tinted glasses on when looking at what is required for the UK to become a partner in the Single Market again… and the Customs Union is even more tricky, and further off. We ideally need to be involved with both, but in the short term it’s impossible, and gifting power to Reform or the Tories proposing things that aren’t going to happen anytime soon would be madness.
it’s going to have to be Starmer who starts it
I do wonder suddenly whether the whole point of Starmer is to fly a holding pattern until his replacement arrives.
You have been successfully gaslit
You keep using that word, etc.
To gaslight someone is to manipulate them into a position where they question their own sanity, where they mistrust their own recollection of events. Is that what you're suggesting is happening here? Frankly that's an offensive accusation.
IMHO , ‘Stop the boats’ and Farage have to be out of the picture before the people are offered the opportunity to vote for something involving the Single Market and Customs Union.
If Musk starts funding Reform and supporting them with his platform plus the uncertainty of what madness will come out of Amerika.
The drip-drip of of anti immigration rhetoric is likely to become a flood, it’s currently already on drip feed on Facebook at the moment.
There’s still legs in Brexit as a political McGuffin it’s not played out yet.
"Labour back in opposition at the next possible opportunity"
Labour is already going to be back in opposition at the next possible opportunity. They could barely muster 33% following the most catastrophic tory govt in...ever, and only "won" because the right wing split. In any normal election year it would have been a dismal loss, and the way things are going it will certainly be a dismal loss next time.
The only question is whether they actually try to do anything worthwhile in the 5 years they have available.
The only hope they have of winning next time is if they dare to try to turn things around and inspire some enthusiasm and support, "more of the same" certainly won't cut it.
Yup, that would be brave… the betrayal narrative would see Labour back in opposition at the next possible opportunity
But that's the point isn't it . At some point someone is going to have to be the leader that stands up to the mail and the sun and all the other Brexit backers who will scream betrayal. The longer it's left the more damage will be done and the harder it will be to repair.
Labours main goal can't be to not lose the next election , I was willing to cut them a lot of slack during opposition and the election as for me getting the Tories out was the priority. But they have the ball now and at some point they have to run with it .
What was it
Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher
Well that’s probably not as good as Sir Starmer and the Granny Harmers little Christmas song of Freezing this Christmas.
The second freedom of movement is mentioned, the Pied Piper of Clacton will be tuning up.
If a straight rejoin/join referendum could be held in, say March, it would not be >60% in favour. And don't forget what impact that shit-stirrer Musk could have too.
Even a majority of brexit voters would now accept sm and cu
Do you have the stats for this?
Although bearing in mind that was what was being promised by the brexit turds at the referendum it is fairly believable. Just depends on how many believe the reprogramming that they actually voted for the hardest of brexits.
It is fascinating all the people arguing that no one should speak in favour of closer links to Europe in fear of upsetting the right wing loons.
They seem to miss the fact the opponents are basically unreachable anyway. They will believe the lies of the right wing press so might as well do the job properly and let the right wing rags speak the truth for once.
That way labour might retain a few votes.
It is
fascinatingworrying all the people arguing that no one should speak in favour of closer links to Europe in fear ofupsetting the right wing loonsstirring up the hidden prejudices in a serious minority or narrow majority of UK voters again.
Non-populist politicians are shit-scared about what 23/06/16 revealed about the electorate. Even the substance of what it revealed is uncertain. Gullibility? Prejudice? Racism? In what proportions?
For populists, of course, it is a dream come true.
David ****ing Cameron has a lot to answer for.
It is fascinating all the people arguing that no one should speak in favour of closer links to Europe in fear of upsetting the right wing loons.
“Building closer links to Europe” is exactly what the government should be talking about. That doesn’t need to include talk about “joining” anything though, that’s years off, and it risks a new government coming in and getting back on with bridge burning divergence. There’s a huge job to get on with now, without a distracting argument about something that isn’t happening for a long, long time.
Cougar
Its the only explanation i can see for all tbe folk on here who believe that Starmer is 1 doing his best to reconcile with europe and 2 that starmer is telling the truth about europe.
His actions and words do not match. He says one thing and does another. He says he is trying to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. The eu have told him that there will be no discussions until the withdrawal agreement is fully implemented and that and changes will be minor unless he accepts the 4 freedoms.
Starmer has also said no economic advatages to rejoin and talks about brexit benefits. Both nonsense
Starmer has also insultingly dismissed every olive branch offered. He has squandered all the goodwill shown.
What other explanation is there fir believing Starmer on this ? Wishful thinking?
“Building closer links to Europe” is exactly what the government should be talking about
Correct. Instead they spout fine words whilst their actions make the situation worse and increase barriers. There can be no cliser links while Starmer insists on a hard brexit continuing
Refusing the young persons mobilty schems was a highly offensive slap in the face to the EU and told tbe EU Starmer is not interested in anything other than warm words
Starmer says he is going to do stuff that is incompatible with EU law
Its obvioys the EU have decided he is not serious abot raporoachment
The level of delusion amongst Starmers supporters on here is brexiteer levels of delusion
We cannot have significantly cliser links whike we refuse tbe 4 freedoms and while he insultingly refuses every olive branch offered
Reeves is saying she wants less barriers to trade. Nothing can be done untill we actually implement the withdrawal agreement.
https://www.politico.eu/article/poll-brexit-voter-accept-free-movement-eu-single-market-access/
took all of 15 seconds to find this poll that was widely reported and discussed, so I really wonder about those attempting to engage in this discussion who professed ignorance of it.
Even a majority of brexit voters would now accept sm and cu
Well, that's a shame, as those things are gone, and aren't coming back again. We* voted to leave @tjagain, Which bit of the democratic process are you struggling with? Or does it only count when it's democracy that you approve of? There may very well be a majority who want back in, they probably should've thought harder about what they voted for. Sure Starmer could work harder for closer ties, but the real politik is that he'd be writing both Farage's and Badenoch's campaign for them, and they'd have a 4 year head start on scaring the beejesus out of a group of folks who were stupid enough to vote for it the first time around, and that's without the [reasonably accurate] criticism of "elites ignoring the will of the people" that you could throw at Labour.
We might go back in at a point if it's the settled manifesto of both political parties that has overwhelming support, and Farage's party (or legacy) has been thrown out by the public and no sooner, that's probably a decade away at best. It's not in Starmer's gift to do anything but words, because: Reform UK.
* not them or those people, us. That's how it works.
In 1856 the people voted for the Whigs. How dare you suggest that we ever have any more votes on anything ever? What bit of “democracy “ don’t you understand?
Its the only explanation i can see for all tbe folk on here who believe that Starmer is 1 doing his best to reconcile with europe and 2 that starmer is telling the truth about europe.
Starmer is doing his best to reconcile with Europe whilst operating within the narrow range defined by "don't stir up the bigotry again". Hence he lies.
As I've said many times before, Brexit is so stupid and the vote exposed undercurrents that mainstream politicians were stunned by, and don't know how to cope with.
The whole thing was/is a reality-bending **** up. Starmer's credibility is merely the latest casualty. A former QC and DPP feeling forced to tell ridiculous lies.
And there are no benefits for us.
How dare you suggest that we ever have any more votes on anything ever?
Although, I doubt many politicians right now are thinking that referendum are the way forward for resolving matters of national importance. Especially given that in reality, the person who'll decide whether we rejoin the EU or not probably doesn't want to end his career in politics just at the point where he's finally got where he wants to be, and is going to have money thrown at him by the world's richest man ( and I reckon I can guess Elon's view of the EU without needing to google it)
Its the only explanation i can see for all tbe folk on here who believe that Starmer is 1 doing his best to reconcile with europe and 2 that starmer is telling the truth about europe.
Who are those folk? What you've got here isn't gaslighting, it's a strawman.
I'm no fan of Starmer, he has the charisma of undercoat. But he's in a fairly impossible situation. If it were me I'd be pushing the angle that "the people" clearly voted for change. :shrug:
Which bit of the democratic process are you struggling with?
The bit where we have a representative democracy, not a direct one.
In 1856 the people voted for the Whigs. How dare you suggest that we ever have any more votes on anything ever? What bit of “democracy “ don’t you understand?
Quite. A democracy which cannot change its mind fails to be a democracy.
Even a majority of brexit voters would now accept sm and cu
Well, that’s a shame, as those things are gone, and aren’t coming back again
The EU might listen to that majority in, say, 20 years. As for the terms offered, those still around are going to have to swallow hard 🙁
Quite. A democracy which cannot change its mind fails to be a democracy.
At what point then do you stop having referendums over EU membership? I know, we could do best of three. Rock paper scissors? Heads we stay out? I doubt we'll get offered the chance to have a single issue vote again in the near future. When/if we go back in, it'll be Parliament that decides.
We never stop having votes on whatever the govt chooses to have votes on.
That’s sort of fundamental to having democracy, the votes don’t suddenly stop.
Honestly, it’s a very weird argument that you seem to be making. Democracy means we can’t vote on things?
There’s no constitutional reason why we have to have a specific vote on SM membership but there will be lots of voices arguing that we should. Either way, the process has to start somewhere and there more delaying there is now the further into the future it will be.
whose interest does that serve then?
Democracy means we can’t vote on things?
Vote on what?
What’s ahead is thousands of points of alignment and convergence, many of which won’t even get to parliament, never mind a public vote. Font size on chemical labelling anyone? Place your votes…
At what point then do you stop having referendums over EU membership?
Minus one referendumbs ago. It was a bloody stupid idea to have one in 2016 without first having proper checks and balances in place, and it would be equally stupid to have another one today.
I can't believe I'm still having to explain this eight years on. In a representative democracy the people don't vote on individual policies, they vote for political parties who they believe are most likely to act in their best interests. (Or at least where we stand now, least worst.) In a direct democracy such as Switzerland the people do vote on policies but the powers that be still hold the right of veto if the people come up with something bloody stupid like, say, as a totally random example, leaving the EU.
We don't need another referendum, that's the dead last thing we need. We need politicians to grow the **** up and do the job we're paying far too many of them far too much taxpayers' money to do.
Honestly, it’s a very weird argument that you seem to be making. Democracy means we can’t vote on things?
It's not the argument I'm making. The govt at the time decided to abdicate their responsibility and pass it on the people of the UK directly, and they voted. Same as Scottish Independence and alternative voting systems. We get a chance and do the thing. Asking voters to have another crack at it is like saying "You didn't get it right, have another go"
If on the other hand MPs take decisions that we don't want, we get a chance to show our displeasure by voting them out, and asking the other lot to have a go - democracy in action. As @Cougar2 points out, it was a daft decision in the first place, asking people to have another go at it isn't going to make it any better.
The govt at the time decided to abdicate their responsibility and pass it on the people of the UK directly, and they voted.
The government at the time decided to hold an opinion poll, it was only after the result was in and the headbangers got hold of it that we were on a one-way trajectory.
Asking voters to have another crack at it is like saying “You didn’t get it right, have another go”
Again, this is a) eight years later and b) still as bloody stupid as it was three posts back.
We hold local and general elections every few years in case voters have changed their minds and every vox pop survey about brexit has indicated that this is the case since before we actually left. Was this year's GE a case of "you didn’t get it right, have another go"? This argument too is, well, see point b above.
Again again: "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy." Of all people, this is a quote from (future brexit secretary) David Davies.
If we had a system (like the Swiss) who use public referendum frequently, then yep, direct democracy you could do those things, but we don't - we have representative democracy where, generally speaking, unless politicians are too frit or stupid, we don't get asked on particular issues.
Are you really claiming that despite public opinion have moved strongly in favour of return that even small steps towards rapprochement would suddenly reverse public opinion?
That Starmer has no ability to move public opinion but Farage can reverse the direction of movement immediately and dramatically?
Kelvin.
There can be no agreement on anything including convergance until we actually implement the agreements we have made
If we had a system (like the Swiss) who use public referendum frequently, then yep, direct democracy you could do those things, but we don’t – we have representative democracy where, generally speaking, unless politicians are too frit or stupid, we don’t get asked on particular issues.
Are you just arguing with yourself now? That's what I've been saying for half a page. I'm genuinely confused as to what you're trying to say.
Cougar. There are multiple falsehoods promoted by Starmer that are accepted as fact by many folk on here. These statements are demonstrably false.
The idea we can make significant changes to the barriers to trade without the 4 freedoms is the biggest. Its not a question of will. Its a point of EU law.
The next is that we can renegotiate the wirhdrawal agreement. No renogiation is going to hapoen tbe eu have made that clear and also that no discussion even on minor points will happen until we finish implementing the withdrawal agreement
Multipkefolk on here keep saying that these things ate possivle when they are not
There can be no agreement on anything including convergance until we actually implement the agreements we have made
As I said... "There’s a huge job to get on with now, without a distracting argument about something that isn’t happening for a long, long time"
That Starmer has no ability to move public opinion but Farage can reverse the direction of movement immediately and dramatically?
The mistake you're making here - the mistake we are making here - is not recognising/acknowledging/accepting that Farage is so much better at it than Starmer is.