Evidence in my post above

In that scenario, tomorrow never comes

Nope – thats what Starmers position leads us to.  No significant change in our relationship with the EU, continuing UK economic decline

I’ve ordered a few things from the UK for Spain and TBH its a total ‘mare.

It’s not the fault of the people I’ve bought from either but as soon as stuff hits the customs zone its just meh. Pre-paid customs or not still meh.

Spanish delivery can be interesting but the the customs zone just makes it a whole new PITA.

If they have a European hub then no problems but everything else ends up in ‘Here be dragons’.

But none of them are offering practical routes to get back in, and neither are you.

I can’t provide a step by step roadmap because, as is always the case with these things, step 2 relies on the result of step 1, step 3 relies on the result of step 2, etc.

However, ruling out SM/CU/Swiss deal means that you close the door to step 1. Unless he was lying which creates its own problems.

There was no reason for him to rule these options out at this stage. It can only damage the country further, one way or the other.

There was no reason for him to rule these options out at this stage.

there is a reason.  In fact two.  Fear of the right wing press and fear of racists in those red wall seats.

I don’t think its a good enough reason but that is his reasoning I am sure.

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.

Which you have spent ages denying and agreeing with Starmer ” no case for rejoin”  Clearly there is a case – we would be better off

You cannot have that both ways.

There is also a possibility that after 6 years of being completely immersed in the Westminster bubble, he actually believes what he’s saying.

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!

https://pace.coe.int/en/news/8940/tiny-kox-re-elected-president-urges-a-stronger-role-for-pace-as-the-most-relevant-european-agora-

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?