Brexit benefits – lets start a list

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/22/rachel-reeves-push-to-improve-eu-ties-remains-boxed-in-by-red-lines

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?

Strawman. 

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)

There is a huge number of places between “continue with hard brexit” and” rejoin”

Yep, and none of those options are open to us right now. “Settled will of the people” an’ all that nonsense.

you bed it made the lie your in – rearrange etc etc

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.

Its a point of EU law.

The UK doesn’t care about that. We left, remember? And they need us more than we need them.

“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”

Which is another one of Starmers falsehoods that you have accepted.

Above you talk about convergance as something that is happening.   Its not and cannot

Its not and cannot

Plenty of convergence doesn’t require the EU to do anything, just for us to adopt their regulations and standards as they change. Just get on and quietly do this, rather than diverging. That is all that can be done at this point to enable anything closer in future. The argument about actually joining the Single Market or Customs Union is for so far down the road as to be pointless right now… just get on with the slow slog ahead.

And have this recognised by the EU

convergence will have zero effect on the non tarriff barriers.  Only a renegotiation will and that cannot even start until we have finished implementing the WA

That Starmer has no ability to move public opinion but Farage can reverse the direction of movement immediately and dramatically?

Pretty much. Brexit was in the main, a vote against the elite Establishment. It was a poke in the eye to mainstream politicians from voters who felt as if they’d been ignored. Starmer’s Labour party (the left in general these days) are the party of both the establishment, and of authorities, and the New Age-QAnon overlap, cultural wars, the Covid-era migration of formerly left-wing skeptics of Big Pharma onto right-wing politics and platforms, all the way through to doubts about the European establishment are now coded as right-wing, Trumpy, Farage and populist. What Farage thinks about the EU will define where our involvement goes in at least the next five years, certainly not what Starmer thinks – despite your claims of gaslighting, I’d bet money if you conducted a poll right now in any UK high street , most people would say that Starmer is a remainer who wants back in.

I’d bet money if you conducted a poll right now in any UK high street , most people would say that Starmer is a remainer who wants back in.

correct IMO – and so are the vast majority of the population.

What a position of despair.  So we can do nothing, the majority view counts for nothing, the labour party must dance to Farages tune”
None of this is true.  That is Starmers illogical position and far too many of you accept it.

With that – I am out

There’s so much going on now..

EU convergence aside I think the next big test of Starmers mettle will be if he can legislate to prevent Musk giving farage the rumored 100 million donation. It’s absolute pocket change for Musk to buy influence in another country.

Yes I realise there are already laws in place for foreign donors, but Musk can easily just bypass that by funneling donations through a UK subsidiary company he owns.

Dark times indeed.

What a position of despair.  So we can do nothing, the majority view counts for nothing, the labour party must dance to Farages tune”

Not just Labour, but all the mainstream parties. He is; like it or not the voice for as many as 1 in 6 voters. I could go downstairs to my patient waiting room and hear any umber of Farage adjacent opinions from everyone from new mums to old giffers who should know better. It is as you point out; totally idiotic, but here we all are.

Populism, who knew it would be so…er…popular?

1 in 6 is a small minority. “Democracy”, remember?

And they need us more than we need them.

I would be grateful if someone could explain to those (or maybe it’s just me) who are behind the curve on the basis for this.

Cheers

And they need us more than we need them

I supsect …

I would be grateful if someone could explain to those (or maybe it’s just me)

Not just you, 51% of the UK public as demonstrated in the Brexit vote are objectivley stupid and/or selfish.

I would be grateful if someone could explain to those (or maybe it’s just me) who are behind the curve on the basis for this.

Cheers

I read it as sarcasm in response to my post.  I said some of what Starmer is saying he is going to do in improving relations with the EU is impossible due to it being incompatible with EU law.

IN response to the objections to my use of the term “gaslighting”  I apologise if this has upset anyone.  change it to:

Starmer has created a demonstrably false narrative around brexit and many folk have bought into this false narrative

I don’t think anyone with any modicum of inteligence is singing the praises of Starmer…we are only just slightly, relieved that the govenment is not Tory/reform.

It’s a very low bar, but that’s where we are.  🙁

And they need us more than we need them

I read it as sarcasm in response to my post

Nope, on the basis, or my assumption, it was meant as … they (the EU) need us (GB) more than we need them, I was simply asking the question, what is out there that backs this up.

I sort of get the comment that some of the 52% may have thought that way.