Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Time for Starmer to be less timid about the Brexit? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,794
edited June 2023 in General
imageTime for Starmer to be less timid about the Brexit? – politicalbetting.com

The above is from YouGov and has the latest view on Brexit. The data I always look to in Brexit polling is the one here on the far right on the table – what the C2DE split is. These, of course, were always regarded as the big drivers of the referendum outcome and have tended to remain supportive. But that has changed. Look now and 55% think it has been more of a failure compared with just 11% saying a success.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023
    So still only 47%, less than half, of working class C2DEs think we were wrong to Leave the EU compared to 62% of middle class ABC1s who think we were wrong to leave the EU. Starmer knows full well that if he goes for rejoin after a 2nd EU referendum now or even just single market plus free movement he would give Sunak potentially the redwall seats on a plate and dash his hopes of becoming PM under FPTP.

    Instead as the Telegraph reported at the weekend the Labour plan is to be very cautious at the next general election and promise to respect the Brexit vote to ensure a Labour majority. Then in a first time align closer to the EU, perhaps along the lines of the NZ deal with the EU on food exports and maybe rejoin a customs union too. Then only if Labour look to be heading for a second term would they consider going for rejoining the EEA or full EU after a second EU referendum

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/27/labour-keir-starmer-plan-take-britain-back-eu-brexit/
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963
    Surely the Starmer plan is simple: Brexit is the past, let's talk about the future. He has already got his missions lined up. When he takes office and sees the details, there will be an unavoidable fix needed to drive the economy- closer alignment with Europe.

    So we will get nothing before the election, but afterwards we're heading for Norway light.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,021
    It's interesting that Labour voters are now more anti-Brexit than Lib Dems. I suspect that's just a sign of a successful campaign to brand it as something associated with the Tories.

    Whether this translates into genuine pro-EU sentiment after the election of a Labour government is another question.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,075

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    I kind of like "we are where we are". It's what you say when you try to deal with the mess after you have royally screwed up.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,021
    DavidL said:

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members.

    I don't think EU membership was ever a catch-all scapegoat in the way that Brexit has become.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,236
    edited May 2023
    Is there a question as to whether they are sick to the back teeth of it or not?

    Because it would be a massive mistake to say anything beyond "like everything else, the Tories have made a total mess of Brexit; the first step for a Labour government is to do the hard work of rebuilding our reputation around the world, especially with our closest trading partners in Europe."

    And "would you take us back in" is I repeat of that - "No government can tie the hands of its successors, but, given that the Tories made a total mess of Brexit, the first step...etc..."
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    DavidL said:

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members.

    I don't think EU membership was ever a catch-all scapegoat in the way that Brexit has become.
    It was amongst the ERG. Those people are every bit as mad as those obsessing about Brexit now.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    "Brexit will shrink our economy because a lack of imported labour will stop us growing." Net immigration a record.

    "Brexit will cause Sterling to go into a tail spin boosting inflation". Sterling one of the stronger currencies in 2023.

    "The UK will have a year long recession because of Brexit." Nope, it won't.

    "The UK will be the slowest growing of the G7." Nope. About average actually.

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members. Maybe, just maybe, Starmer, Sunak and, nah Davie is a completely lost cause, well, some of our politicians might start to address our real problems. A horrendous balance of payments deficit that built up whilst we were in the single market. A serious training gap that arose because freedom of movement disincentivised training of our own people. A disconnect between our education system and the skills actually needed.

    Or we can just keep blaming the bogey man. I suppose its easier.

    There is only one national party that is the party of Brexit. Whether Brexit is the most important reason for our current malaise is beside the point. The Tories own Brexit, and it is as popular as a disintegrating turd in a swimming pool.

    Starmer will continue to be timid over Brexit, but the Tories campaigning on "Brexit under threat if Starmer PM" will just push more votes to Labour when the voters want Brexit under threat.

    The Tories have snookered themselves.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,335
    Succession finale.

    They will be talking about it for decades to come and for all the right reasons.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,075

    It's interesting that Labour voters are now more anti-Brexit than Lib Dems. I suspect that's just a sign of a successful campaign to brand it as something associated with the Tories.

    Whether this translates into genuine pro-EU sentiment after the election of a Labour government is another question.

    The old chestnut - actually quite a lot of people think the moon landings were faked. 10% of Americans think that. In contrast statistically no Labour or Lib Dem supporter thinks Benefit a success. No-one at all.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113

    DavidL said:

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members.

    I don't think EU membership was ever a catch-all scapegoat in the way that Brexit has become.
    The difference is that Brexit was a radical change to our economic arrangements. It's not obsessing to say that we've dealt badly with adapting to the change, and that policy needs to address that.
    Brexit also wholly determined the governments we've had since 2019, and not to our benefit.

    Whereas membership was status quo.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    "Brexit will shrink our economy because a lack of imported labour will stop us growing." Net immigration a record.

    "Brexit will cause Sterling to go into a tail spin boosting inflation". Sterling one of the stronger currencies in 2023.

    "The UK will have a year long recession because of Brexit." Nope, it won't.

    "The UK will be the slowest growing of the G7." Nope. About average actually.

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members. Maybe, just maybe, Starmer, Sunak and, nah Davie is a completely lost cause, well, some of our politicians might start to address our real problems. A horrendous balance of payments deficit that built up whilst we were in the single market. A serious training gap that arose because freedom of movement disincentivised training of our own people. A disconnect between our education system and the skills actually needed.

    Or we can just keep blaming the bogey man. I suppose its easier.

    There is only one national party that is the party of Brexit. Whether Brexit is the most important reason for our current malaise is beside the point. The Tories own Brexit, and it is as popular as a disintegrating turd in a swimming pool.

    Starmer will continue to be timid over Brexit, but the Tories campaigning on "Brexit under threat if Starmer PM" will just push more votes to Labour when the voters want Brexit under threat.

    The Tories have snookered themselves.
    I would agree that the politics of Brexit have not developed to the Tories' advantage. That is a completely different matter.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,163
    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    One interesting cross tab is that the number thinking Brexit was the right decision is such that a considerable number of people think it both the right decision, and "more of a failure".

    There is a stubbornness to people, but even allowing for that, potential for Brexit to become even more unpopular.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,163
    For the record:

    We were right to leave.
    The Tories have made an arse of it.
    Hopefully the next government will do a better job of it.

    That's where I sit.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,362
    For me, EU membership was always about more than just economics; it was an attitude of mind. Were we at one with our neighbours or were we ourselves alone?
    In that sense, I think Brexit has been a total failure; I’ve got family and friends all over the world, but I still think of myself as a European, not as a citizen of some artificial grouping around the Pacific rim!
    So for me, Brexit is a total failure.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    For the record:

    We were right to leave.
    The Tories have made an arse of it.
    Hopefully the next government will do a better job of it.

    That's where I sit.

    I don't think Starmer can polish a turd any more than Sunak can.

    Sooner or later one or both PM and LOTO will have to follow the public in their opinion of Brexit.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,335
    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    "Brexit will shrink our economy because a lack of imported labour will stop us growing." Net immigration a record.

    "Brexit will cause Sterling to go into a tail spin boosting inflation". Sterling one of the stronger currencies in 2023.

    "The UK will have a year long recession becausee of Brexit." Nope, it won't.

    "The UK will be the slowest growing of the G7." Nope. About average actually.

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members. Maybe, just maybe, Starmer, Sunak and, nah Davie is a completely lost cause, well, some of our politicians might start to address our real problems. A horrendous balance of payments deficit that built up whilst we were in the single market. A serious training gap that arose because freedom of movement disincentivised training of our own people. A disconnect between our education system and the skills actually needed.

    Or we can just keep blaming the bogey man. I suppose its easier.

    There is only one national party that is the party of Brexit. Whether Brexit is the most important reason for our current malaise is beside the point. The Tories own Brexit, and it is as popular as a disintegrating turd in a swimming pool.

    Starmer will continue to be timid over Brexit, but the Tories campaigning on "Brexit under threat if Starmer PM" will just push more votes to Labour when the voters want Brexit under threat.

    The Tories have snookered themselves.
    I would agree that the politics of Brexit have not developed to the Tories' advantage. That is a completely different matter.
    They did in 2019 to beat Corbyn.

    Had Remain narrowly won in 2016 the 2020 election would certainly not have been the Tory landslide Boris got in 2019.

    Instead Corbyn may even have become PM of a Labour minority government in a hung parliament with new pre election PM Osborne leaking Tory votes like a sieve to a resurgent Farage and UKIP
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,163
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    I agree with you there. Cameron played it very badly. It cost him his job, and rightly so.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    "Brexit will shrink our economy because a lack of imported labour will stop us growing." Net immigration a record.

    "Brexit will cause Sterling to go into a tail spin boosting inflation". Sterling one of the stronger currencies in 2023.

    "The UK will have a year long recession becausee of Brexit." Nope, it won't.

    "The UK will be the slowest growing of the G7." Nope. About average actually.

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members. Maybe, just maybe, Starmer, Sunak and, nah Davie is a completely lost cause, well, some of our politicians might start to address our real problems. A horrendous balance of payments deficit that built up whilst we were in the single market. A serious training gap that arose because freedom of movement disincentivised training of our own people. A disconnect between our education system and the skills actually needed.

    Or we can just keep blaming the bogey man. I suppose its easier.

    There is only one national party that is the party of Brexit. Whether Brexit is the most important reason for our current malaise is beside the point. The Tories own Brexit, and it is as popular as a disintegrating turd in a swimming pool.

    Starmer will continue to be timid over Brexit, but the Tories campaigning on "Brexit under threat if Starmer PM" will just push more votes to Labour when the voters want Brexit under threat.

    The Tories have snookered themselves.
    I would agree that the politics of Brexit have not developed to the Tories' advantage. That is a completely different matter.
    They did in 2019 to beat Corbyn.

    Had Remain narrowly won in 2016 the 2020 election would certainly not have been the Tory landslide Boris got in 2019.

    Instead Corbyn may even have become PM of a Labour minority government in a hung parliament with new PM Osborne leaking Tory votes like a sieve to a resurgent Farage and UKIP
    That is also true. But that was then and this is now.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,163
    Foxy said:

    For the record:

    We were right to leave.
    The Tories have made an arse of it.
    Hopefully the next government will do a better job of it.

    That's where I sit.

    I don't think Starmer can polish a turd any more than Sunak can.

    Sooner or later one or both PM and LOTO will have to follow the public in their opinion of Brexit.
    I think that the majority of folk would like us to be in "The Common Market", but not necessarily the EU. If Starmer can negotiate a settlement along those lines, that will be a successful Brexit.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    edited May 2023

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Worth noting that Brexitism is an anomaly, and that Tory policy for the half century from MacMillan to Cameron, via Heath and Thatcher, was in favour of Membership.

    Tories are notoriously capable of a reverse ferret. I might even consider voting Tory again if they came out as the party of Rejoin.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,285
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    The problem with David Cameron's renegotiation were that he was not asking for anything in particular, just something big, and he was asking the wrong people. Cameron bought into the Brexiteer line that the EU was run by Germany and France, so he tried to negotiate with Angela Merkel rather than the EU, for things that were outside Merkel's gift. Of course, it did not help that Cameron had pulled Tory MEPs out of their group in the EU parliament, where they had been allied with, erm, Germany and France.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited May 2023
    Why would Starmer need to be less timid about it when it appears to be working? I don't think it would cost him anything - if people are becoming increasingly negative and feel they made a mistake they'll react accordingly without the potential backlash of him telling people they made a mistake in more robust fashion.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    It'll be a bit longer than that, I think, but in the 2030s is possible - too many of the current lot will be around in 2033 for the base of the party to have switched positions.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295


    I don't think EU membership was ever a catch-all scapegoat in the way that Brexit has become.

    It is highly amusing how Brexit gets the blame for everything but it wouldn't be possible if it weren't a failure on its own terms with zero benefits and many disbenefits.

    SKS won't want to startle the chavs with any flashy Brexit announcements this side of a GE. After the election he'll leave them examining the Cheesy Wotsit dust in their navels while the government subtly realigns with the EU.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,285
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited May 2023
    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA
  • Options
    RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,193

    Foxy said:

    For the record:

    We were right to leave.
    The Tories have made an arse of it.
    Hopefully the next government will do a better job of it.

    That's where I sit.

    I don't think Starmer can polish a turd any more than Sunak can.

    Sooner or later one or both PM and LOTO will have to follow the public in their opinion of Brexit.
    I think that the majority of folk would like us to be in "The Common Market", but not necessarily the EU. If Starmer can negotiate a settlement along those lines, that will be a successful Brexit.
    Bear in mind that would mean accepting FoM. Would you be happy with that?
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426
    FPT

    Is Madrid the most right wing capital city in Europe?

    https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1662912807933730823

    Spain (Madrid local election):

    Provisional results, 33.79% counted

    PP-EPP: 41%
    MM/VQ-G/EFA: 20%
    PSOE-S&D: 19%
    VOX-ECR: 9%
    Podemos/IU/AV-LEFT: 5%
    CS-RE: 3%

    It may well be.
    As the French surrealists (IIRC) said, during the time of General Franco, "If you want to see the Middle Ages, just cross the border."
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426
    edited May 2023
    Dura_Ace said:


    I don't think EU membership was ever a catch-all scapegoat in the way that Brexit has become.

    It is highly amusing how Brexit gets the blame for everything but it wouldn't be possible if it weren't a failure on its own terms with zero benefits and many disbenefits.

    SKS won't want to startle the chavs with any flashy Brexit announcements this side of a GE. After the election he'll leave them examining the Cheesy Wotsit dust in their navels while the government subtly realigns with the EU.
    That would make a change - a British government led by a grownup.
    Brown should have joined the eurozone and then Labour should have painted Tory and UKIP efforts to bring back the groat as similar to 1690-ism. If Italy could manage to join! Prudent Gordon's five tests were total toss.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    Foxy said:

    For the record:

    We were right to leave.
    The Tories have made an arse of it.
    Hopefully the next government will do a better job of it.

    That's where I sit.

    I don't think Starmer can polish a turd any more than Sunak can.

    Sooner or later one or both PM and LOTO will have to follow the public in their opinion of Brexit.
    The problem for the Conservatives and Labour is that, at the moment, 31% thinking Brexit was the right decision is still higher than most estimates of Conservative support. It's a problem for the Conservatives because of the huge overlap between the Brexit 31 and the Conservative support; they can't afford to lose anyone by apostasy on Brexit. It's a problem for Labour because their moving faster on Brapprochment would help Sunak get the old gang back together and Starmer can't risk a "Brexit is in peril" election.

    The interesting bit is if (and I emphasise if) the numbers continue to drift. Labour are reasonable to fear 30% of the electorate, especially with FPTP. But there's some threshold where the democratic thing is to ignore the minority. Twenty percent? Fifteen percent?

    And then, if Norwayish is the next thing to try... What aspects of life is the UK going to tag along with the EU on, and where are we taking a different path? And if nearly all the rest of the continent is involved in one political setup, do we really want to be outside that? You might say "we don't want the politics", but how do you get democracy without politics?
    After the inevitable disruption of our departure from the EU there is a lot of room to improve relations and cooperation with them again where we have common interests. That will happen under Labour or Tory governments. It started with this government with the Windsor accords.

    The EU will also change. Poland is a coming power in the EU and will build a group that will shape the EU more to their liking. Our good relations with Poland over the Ukraine will make this another opportunity. The French will be unhappy about how things are going but we might just cope with that as well.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited May 2023
    I know there's always room for improvement and complacency should be avoided, but I cannot shake the feeling that a lot of the comments about how Keir should be much more explicit about Bresit related matters are speaking more from a desire to hear it said, to really stick it to the Tories rhetorically, rather than out of an expectation if it would in fact benefit his position any more than now.

    I mean, if people are turning against their own support of Brexit they're going to vote Labour or LD anyway, and while people may often say they don't know what Keir stands for they know he's not a Tory (outside the minds of Corbynites anyway). He can point to things as they are and promise vaguely to fix it, he doesn't need to add 'and btw, what a bunch of fools anyone who voted for Brexit is, right?', which is the impression I get of what some want.

    That's just not necessary and it may be motivated by a desire for vindication, but when someone is on their knees, you help them back to their feet, if they react against what they did you can save the gloating for later, lest you push them back to their old position.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    Perhaps the Brexiteer Tories missed a trick by not doing some Lexity things on public utilities. It would have put Labour in a much more difficult position.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Term 1 - closer alignment with EU
    Term 2 - formal assosciation with EU/explicit talk of rejoining
    Term 3 - rejoin EU

    The EU would want at least that long to see if the Brexit desire had become an acceptably small part of the electorate.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    Perhaps the Brexiteer Tories missed a trick by not doing some Lexity things on public utilities. It would have put Labour in a much more difficult position.
    Missing Tricks has pretty much been the entirety of the tory brand since 2016.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,075
    edited May 2023
    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    "Brexit will shrink our economy because a lack of imported labour will stop us growing." Net immigration a record.

    "Brexit will cause Sterling to go into a tail spin boosting inflation". Sterling one of the stronger currencies in 2023.

    "The UK will have a year long recession because of Brexit." Nope, it won't.

    "The UK will be the slowest growing of the G7." Nope. About average actually.

    Every day there is more nonsense blaming Brexit for some ill. Its exactly the same nonsense that we used to get in reverse when the EU was blamed for all our ills when we were members. Maybe, just maybe, Starmer, Sunak and, nah Davie is a completely lost cause, well, some of our politicians might start to address our real problems. A horrendous balance of payments deficit that built up whilst we were in the single market. A serious training gap that arose because freedom of movement disincentivised training of our own people. A disconnect between our education system and the skills actually needed.

    Or we can just keep blaming the bogey man. I suppose its easier.

    Brexit directly caused some problems; it made other problems worse; it made unrelated problems more difficult to solve.

    The issue for its few remaining supporters is that it hasn't actually solved any problems at all. They are unable to point to something and say, that's a clear benefit of Brexit. Yet they have so little curiosity about why their project has failed so comprehensively.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,202
    HYUFD said:

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
    "Never" is a long time, and political parties can flip in a remarkably short time. Consider the journey the Conservatives have been on in the last 30 years.

    (The funniest future history is the one where the next government manoevres the UK into independently agreeing with almost everything the EU does in order to allow the four freedoms so that the economy works. Then it's the Conservatives who rail against this in a "we are a great nation and should be in the room, leading not following" way. To save EEA types the time, it doesn't matter how rational or true this is. We left because of the feels, if we rejoin it will be because of the feels.)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    "NATO is not a progressive force"...

    No shit.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    "NATO is not a progressive force"...

    No shit.
    What does that even mean, honestly, a 'progressive force'? It doesn't seem as widespread in talk now, but it strikes me as similar to woke in that there are some identifiable elements to the term, but it is very hard to define what is meant.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    2% tax on UK rich list families ‘could raise £22bn a year’
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/may/29/2-tax-uk-rich-list-families-raise-22bn-year-reform-inequality
    ...The campaigners said similar wealth taxes in Norway, Spain and Switzerland had helped to reduce inequality and eased the cost of living crisis for some of the poorest people in those countries...

    Or it might raise nothing at all - Norway saw a net decrease in revenue with their wealth tax.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
    "Never" is a long time, and political parties can flip in a remarkably short time. Consider the journey the Conservatives have been on in the last 30 years.

    (The funniest future history is the one where the next government manoevres the UK into independently agreeing with almost everything the EU does in order to allow the four freedoms so that the economy works. Then it's the Conservatives who rail against this in a "we are a great nation and should be in the room, leading not following" way. To save EEA types the time, it doesn't matter how rational or true this is. We left because of the feels, if we rejoin it will be because of the feels.)
    If the Tories backed rejoining the EU anytime soon, they would not only cease to be the government they would also cease to be the main opposition. As you well know Farage would return and his party would overtake the Tories as the main party of the right. Indeed, the Tories would be virtually wiped out apart from a handful of seats in Surrey, Oxfordshire and West London at most.

    The only party in the next generation who could take the UK back into the EU would be Labour with LD support
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Dura_Ace said:


    I don't think EU membership was ever a catch-all scapegoat in the way that Brexit has become.

    It is highly amusing how Brexit gets the blame for everything but it wouldn't be possible if it weren't a failure on its own terms with zero benefits and many disbenefits.

    SKS won't want to startle the chavs with any flashy Brexit announcements this side of a GE. After the election he'll leave them examining the Cheesy Wotsit dust in their navels while the government subtly realigns with the EU.
    I'm very happy to agree with Mr Ace on this one. I voted for Brexit, lots of people did for many different reasons, but things like regulatory alignment do not exercise many people, so there's lots of alignments that could be done without upsetting anymore but frothers, and can be presented as just common sense cooperation without any explicit end goal. Next thing you know we're deeply entwined and people go, eh, does it really matter if we go further then?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    Perhaps the Brexiteer Tories missed a trick by not doing some Lexity things on public utilities. It would have put Labour in a much more difficult position.
    Missing Tricks has pretty much been the entirety of the tory brand since 2016.
    That a reference to the MP who called the whips for help from a brothel ?

    Or just how badly they've played their cards.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited May 2023
    Westie said:

    FPT

    Is Madrid the most right wing capital city in Europe?

    https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1662912807933730823

    Spain (Madrid local election):

    Provisional results, 33.79% counted

    PP-EPP: 41%
    MM/VQ-G/EFA: 20%
    PSOE-S&D: 19%
    VOX-ECR: 9%
    Podemos/IU/AV-LEFT: 5%
    CS-RE: 3%

    It may well be.
    As the French surrealists (IIRC) said, during the time of General Franco, "If you want to see the Middle Ages, just cross the border."
    Spain has a general election later this year. Looks like it could follow Italy with a swing to the right against the current trend of a swing to the centre left in the western world
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    They loved the NHS, that's true, but they also hated immigration. They felt especially enjoyably angry when they were egged on to think about the Turks as well as about southern and eastern Europeans, e.g. Nigel Farage's "Romanians next door". They didn't give a toss about "levelling up". Nobody cares about that. They want better lives and their falling-apart conditions to improve, but they don't know how anybody with an income in excess of say 100K actually lives. Different worlds.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Nigelb said:

    2% tax on UK rich list families ‘could raise £22bn a year’
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/may/29/2-tax-uk-rich-list-families-raise-22bn-year-reform-inequality
    ...The campaigners said similar wealth taxes in Norway, Spain and Switzerland had helped to reduce inequality and eased the cost of living crisis for some of the poorest people in those countries...

    Or it might raise nothing at all - Norway saw a net decrease in revenue with their wealth tax.

    22bn is a surprisingly low amount from what I expected that to estimate.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    "NATO is not a progressive force"...

    No shit.
    What does that even mean, honestly, a 'progressive force'? It doesn't seem as widespread in talk now, but it strikes me as similar to woke in that there are some identifiable elements to the term, but it is very hard to define what is meant.
    It's just a fundamental inability to analyse the world.

    A defensive alliance is just a defensive alliance. Although I suppose you could say that by its very nature it's necessarily reactionary...
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    We were wrong to leave.

    Leaving was and is a disaster.

    But we can't rejoin - so we need to make the best of it now. The Brexiteers have failed to do that, time for a competent Remainer to give it a go.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,075

    Foxy said:

    For the record:

    We were right to leave.
    The Tories have made an arse of it.
    Hopefully the next government will do a better job of it.

    That's where I sit.

    I don't think Starmer can polish a turd any more than Sunak can.

    Sooner or later one or both PM and LOTO will have to follow the public in their opinion of Brexit.
    The problem for the Conservatives and Labour is that, at the moment, 31% thinking Brexit was the right decision is still higher than most estimates of Conservative support. It's a problem for the Conservatives because of the huge overlap between the Brexit 31 and the Conservative support; they can't afford to lose anyone by apostasy on Brexit. It's a problem for Labour because their moving faster on Brapprochment would help Sunak get the old gang back together and Starmer can't risk a "Brexit is in peril" election.

    The interesting bit is if (and I emphasise if) the numbers continue to drift. Labour are reasonable to fear 30% of the electorate, especially with FPTP. But there's some threshold where the democratic thing is to ignore the minority. Twenty percent? Fifteen percent?

    And then, if Norwayish is the next thing to try... What aspects of life is the UK going to tag along with the EU on, and where are we taking a different path? And if nearly all the rest of the continent is involved in one political setup, do we really want to be outside that? You might say "we don't want the politics", but how do you get democracy without politics?
    I have always thought "we'll do this political thing without the politics" to be a dumb take.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,218
    Yes very much so!

    Get Brexit Undone!

    The clamour is getting so loud even the Trappist Monks in the Shadow Cabinet must be hearing it.
  • Options
    WestieWestie Posts: 426
    edited May 2023
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    "NATO is not a progressive force"...

    No shit.
    What does that even mean, honestly, a 'progressive force'? It doesn't seem as widespread in talk now, but it strikes me as similar to woke in that there are some identifiable elements to the term, but it is very hard to define what is meant.
    It's just a fundamental inability to analyse the world.

    A defensive alliance is just a defensive alliance. Although I suppose you could say that by its very nature it's necessarily reactionary...
    "A defensive alliance is just a defensive alliance."

    Great argument you've got there. Relying on X=X but saying other people can't analyse. Who were NATO defending themselves against in Afghanistan or Serbia?

    I can't see any good reason to take that idiot Paul Mason's scribblings seriously.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,113
    Vietnam emerges as major market for Korean chipmakers
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=351906
    ..."In particular, Vietnam is now home to major smartphone manufacturers' production bases. Korean semiconductors are used as intermediary goods in Vietnam to produce finished IT goods," the report added.

    The report noted that Vietnam's abundant low-wage workforce and high accessibility to the Chinese market are prompting global businesses, including those from Korea, to build manufacturing facilities in the Southeast Asian country.

    For instance, Samsung Electronics relocated its smartphone and computer production bases to Vietnam from 2018 to 2020. Apple also moved parts of its iPad production lines from China to Vietnam last June, while Google is also considering such a relocation.

    The revival of Vietnam's economy is another encouraging factor. While its economy had slowed during the COVID-19 lockdown, it rebounded sharply and achieved 8 percent growth last year. ..

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited May 2023
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    "NATO is not a progressive force"...

    No shit.
    What does that even mean, honestly, a 'progressive force'? It doesn't seem as widespread in talk now, but it strikes me as similar to woke in that there are some identifiable elements to the term, but it is very hard to define what is meant.
    It's just a fundamental inability to analyse the world.

    A defensive alliance is just a defensive alliance. Although I suppose you could say that by its very nature it's necessarily reactionary...
    These people think there is equivalence between nations voluntarily joining an alliance because they want to, and it being justified to invade a country for even thinking about joining that alliance because of the effect on their own colonial interests and imperialist ambitions. And they think it is 'anti-imperialist' to do so, and morally superior to support the aggressor (they might deny that, but when you repeat their talking points and your solutions give the aggressor what they want, well...). They are not deep thinkers. The world may not be simple black and white options, even on this, but dear gods.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    Westie said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    "NATO is not a progressive force"...

    No shit.
    What does that even mean, honestly, a 'progressive force'? It doesn't seem as widespread in talk now, but it strikes me as similar to woke in that there are some identifiable elements to the term, but it is very hard to define what is meant.
    It's just a fundamental inability to analyse the world.

    A defensive alliance is just a defensive alliance. Although I suppose you could say that by its very nature it's necessarily reactionary...
    "A defensive alliance is just a defensive alliance."

    Great argument you've got there. Relying on X=X but saying other people can't analyse. Who were NATO defending themselves against in Afghanistan or Serbia?

    I can't see any good reason to take that idiot Paul Mason's scribblings seriously.
    Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9/11 on US soil launched on his command
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,754
    darkage said:
    There are plenty of people who have a negative opinion of Toby Young, but the work he’s done with the FSU has been brilliant. Standing up in this case for an individual civil servant, who dared to raise concerns about racist and sexist activism in her own department.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,394
    kle4 said:

    I know he's been on the outs with that wing of the party for quite some time, but it is still amusing to see some of the 'disappointed' replies to Paul Mason trotting out the exact faux pacificism and 'both sides'ism he is calling out.

    6/6 This is how it works: shill for the Kremlin, add some Marxoid claptrap for members of the cult, deny genocide...but for the @ucu delegates just wrap it all up in pacifism and "both sides" with a bit of anti-Israel stuff thrown in ... as below. It's a political technique that, if it was an academic paper, would get a fail. But a slim majority fell for it.

    Translation for tankies in @ucu ... Russia fired 37 cruise missiles and 30 drones at Kyiv last night ... they were shot down using American/German supplied weapons saving countless lives. There's your moral equivalence - maybe explain it to any survivors of the UK blitz 🤷🏻‍♂️
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1662860900414439426?cxt=HHwWhIC2gbjL1ZMuAAAA

    Mason represents the left that Starmer needs within the tent. Socialist, sure, but with a moral compass. A legitimate part of the labour landscape.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,754
    Nigelb said:

    2% tax on UK rich list families ‘could raise £22bn a year’
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/may/29/2-tax-uk-rich-list-families-raise-22bn-year-reform-inequality
    ...The campaigners said similar wealth taxes in Norway, Spain and Switzerland had helped to reduce inequality and eased the cost of living crisis for some of the poorest people in those countries...

    Or it might raise nothing at all - Norway saw a net decrease in revenue with their wealth tax.

    Of course it did. If you aggressively target a small number of very rich people, expecting to collect massive amounts of tax, then you’ll drive many of them offshore. It’s not as if someone with a billion in assets, can’t choose to live anywhere in the world they please.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,693
    It's always best to work out first what your opponents want you to do, and then do the opposite.

    The Tories are trying to make out that Starmer will take the UK back into the EU at a bat of an eyelid, but they're having difficulty making the charge stick. They would love Starmer to go all in on rejoin.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,285
    Westie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    They loved the NHS, that's true, but they also hated immigration. They felt especially enjoyably angry when they were egged on to think about the Turks as well as about southern and eastern Europeans, e.g. Nigel Farage's "Romanians next door". They didn't give a toss about "levelling up". Nobody cares about that. They want better lives and their falling-apart conditions to improve, but they don't know how anybody with an income in excess of say 100K actually lives. Different worlds.
    "Levelling up" means improving their conditions. That's why they voted for it. That's why they still want it. Immigration is a red herring, much as it suits woke europhiles to ally with Nigel Farage in pretending voters are a bunch of racists.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,218
    edited May 2023

    It's interesting that Labour voters are now more anti-Brexit than Lib Dems. I suspect that's just a sign of a successful campaign to brand it as something associated with the Tories.

    Whether this translates into genuine pro-EU sentiment after the election of a Labour government is another question.

    It didn't require a campaign to brand Brexit as 'something associated with the Tories'. Labour voters like everyone else are experiencing the effects of Brexit first hand and it one of the reasons the Tories- whoever their leader- are held in such contempt. It exposes a world view which to most is deeply unattractive
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,000
    "The Brexit"?

    Is that as any good as "The Predator" or "The Batman"?
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Do the Brexiteers have a plan for Brexit yet? They've been in Government now since 2019, is it coming soon?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,754

    It's always best to work out first what your opponents want you to do, and then do the opposite.

    The Tories are trying to make out that Starmer will take the UK back into the EU at a bat of an eyelid, but they're having difficulty making the charge stick. They would love Starmer to go all in on rejoin.

    Of course they would!

    My personal view, is that over time more pragmatic politicians will exist both in the UK and the EU, and maybe even in France. This will lead to more flexibility on the main areas of friction that exist at the moment, it will be an evolving process.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,217
    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/
  • Options
    pm215pm215 Posts: 980

    "The Brexit"?

    Is that as any good as "The Predator" or "The Batman"?

    I hear it's more horror than action...
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,124
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. B, wealth taxes aren't about generating revenue, but trying to financially penalise those who have committed the sin of prosperity.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,075

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. B, wealth taxes aren't about generating revenue, but trying to financially penalise those who have committed the sin of prosperity.

    Two arguments get conflated. One is that wealth taxes are counterproductive. The other is that on principle wealth shouldn't be taxed at all. The second is a difficult argument to make as it means taxes falling on those without wealth instead. So people tend to be more comfortable making the first argument. But if it really is really about practical outcomes, you would keep the taxes but make them harder to avoid.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,848

    Andy_JS said:

    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/

    There are currently 14 million people in the UK who have limited or no access to the internet. The idea that we can force them into a cashless society is for the birds.
    The problem is that handling cash is expensive and a very fixed cost (time taken to go to bank and deposit / cost of someone collecting the money) so as people stop paying cash it rapidly gets to the point where it can cost a fortune to handle cash.

    How you resolve it in a way that allows everyone still use things is an interesting question. I suspect we need the post office or similar to create a cash card...
  • Options
    TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,799
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    So still less than half of C2DEs think we were wrong to Leave the EU. Starmer knows full well that if he goes for rejoin after a 2nd EU referendum now or even just single market plus free movement he would give Sunak potentially the redwall seats on a plate and dash his hopes of becoming PM under FPTP.

    Instead as the Telegraph reported at the weekend the Labour plan is to be very cautious at the next general election and promise to respect the Brexit vote to ensure a Labour majority. Then in a first time align closer to the EU, perhaps along the lines of the NZ deal with the EU on food exports and perhaps rejoin a customs union too. Then only if Labour look to be heading for a second term would they consider going for rejoining the EEA or full EU after a second EU referendum

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/27/labour-keir-starmer-plan-take-britain-back-eu-brexit/

    Sometimes your spinning is funny, sometimes it's ugly and offensive. But this has the tang of the tragic.

    "Less than half C2DEs think we were wrong to Leave the EU". Yeah, and even less than that think we were right.

    And you're spinning for the side you opposed, that's what's so weird.
    I didn't read any spin in HYUFD's post.
    I simply read into it that Starmer is (rightly) terrified of what might happen if he announced either EFTA+ or EEA as Labour's position (with or without a referendum).

    Starmer is looking at the current situation and going for a simple, "Don't rock any boats. Oppositions don't win GE, governments lose them, and at the moment the government is losing it."
    He'll say nothing and then AFTER he's won, point out that hidden within a microdot on page 34 of their manifesto was a commitment to join the EEA [1] and therefore implement that.

    We're inching back towards the EU. Doubt membership is on the cards this decade, and possibly not even the next, but I would hazard a guess we'll be members again in the 2040s (assuming the world still exists in some recognisable format like it does today).

    [1] Along with the captains message.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963

    Westie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    They loved the NHS, that's true, but they also hated immigration. They felt especially enjoyably angry when they were egged on to think about the Turks as well as about southern and eastern Europeans, e.g. Nigel Farage's "Romanians next door". They didn't give a toss about "levelling up". Nobody cares about that. They want better lives and their falling-apart conditions to improve, but they don't know how anybody with an income in excess of say 100K actually lives. Different worlds.
    "Levelling up" means improving their conditions. That's why they voted for it. That's why they still want it. Immigration is a red herring, much as it suits woke europhiles to ally with Nigel Farage in pretending voters are a bunch of racists.
    It's the same thing. Not that it is "racism" - last time I checked the Romanians next door were the same white European Christians as we are.

    A lot of the red wall dislikes outsiders. Their community was proud due to cotton / steel / coal etc and quite insular. Someone from outside the area is suspicious enough, never mind foreigners.

    These places have been broken economically and socially. They need levelling up as they have nothing. So their lack of services / jobs / prospects is only made worse by outsiders competing for jobs and resources.

    Get rid of the outsiders, spend money on local services for local people - that's why a wall of non-voters turned out both for Brexit and then Boris.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,217
    edited May 2023
    "Britain Elects
    @BritainElects

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (-)
    CON: 28% (-1)
    LDEM: 9% (-2)
    GRN: 7% (+2)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via @OpiniumResearch, 23 - 26 May"
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,242
    edited May 2023

    For me, EU membership was always about more than just economics; it was an attitude of mind. Were we at one with our neighbours or were we ourselves alone?
    In that sense, I think Brexit has been a total failure; I’ve got family and friends all over the world, but I still think of myself as a European, not as a citizen of some artificial grouping around the Pacific rim!
    So for me, Brexit is a total failure.

    In that sense it was always going to be a total failure for you no matter what happened. That is hardly an argument one way or another in terms of this thread.

    Of course I do not consider myself 'European' in your terms and Brexit has made no difference to my ability to have friends and family all over the world. And given that (unsurprisingly) all the dire warnings of disaster that were promulgated by the Remain campaign have failed to happen, I consider Brexit to have been a success. It achieved its aim of getting us out of the (for me) undemocratic political institutions of the EU.

    It could be even more of a success were we to have a sensible Government that took us into the EEA but I am content at the moment with where we are along the road.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,963
    edited May 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    "Britain Elects
    @BritainElects

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (-)
    CON: 28% (-1)
    LDEM: 9% (-2)
    GRN: 7% (+2)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via @OpiniumResearch, 23 - 26 May"

    ABC on 59%, with proven tactical voting at play. Tories on 28%, NatCs on 6%. Proven anti-tactical voting stopped the Tories winning seats like Stockton North in 2019. Doesn't look good for HY and the corruption party.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,285
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/

    There are currently 14 million people in the UK who have limited or no access to the internet. The idea that we can force them into a cashless society is for the birds.
    The problem is that handling cash is expensive and a very fixed cost (time taken to go to bank and deposit / cost of someone collecting the money) so as people stop paying cash it rapidly gets to the point where it can cost a fortune to handle cash.

    How you resolve it in a way that allows everyone still use things is an interesting question. I suspect we need the post office or similar to create a cash card...
    Cashless works best when your payment processor does not have an outage. Thankfully, that has not happened for a couple of weeks at least.

    Oh, and if the government has not blocked your cards because you are a terrorist paedophile serial killer on the run or have posted something disrespectful about the Prime Minister.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    For me, EU membership was always about more than just economics; it was an attitude of mind. Were we at one with our neighbours or were we ourselves alone?
    In that sense, I think Brexit has been a total failure; I’ve got family and friends all over the world, but I still think of myself as a European, not as a citizen of some artificial grouping around the Pacific rim!
    So for me, Brexit is a total failure.

    In that sense it was always going to be a total failure for you no matter what happened. That is hardly an argument one way or another in terms of this thread.

    Of course I do not consider myself 'European' in your terms and Brexit has made no difference to my ability to have friends and family all over the world. And given that (unsurprisingly) all the dire warnings of disaster that were promulated by the Remain campaign have failed to happen, I consider Brexit to have been a success. It achieved its aim of getting us out of the (for me) undemocratic political institutions of the EU.

    It could be even more of a success were we to have a sensible Government that took us into the EEA but I am content at the moment with where we are along the road.
    A sensible Government delivering that policy would have been called traitors by your side, Richard.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    FPT:
    rcs1000 said:

    ohnotnow said:

    From John Redwood's blog:

    "I have long been critical of some UK plans to take us on the road to net zero. They entail making it very dear to use energy here so we import high energy using products from abroad. They stop us getting out our own oil and gas so we import more from overseas. They run down our food production from home farms, only to bring in more from abroad.

    All those who do think getting world CO2 down is a crucial priority should attack these plans, as they mean more CO 2 produced in shipping all the things to us. If we bring in more LNG gas that produces far more CO 2 in its compression, shipping and conversion than our own gas down a pipe. If we import German or Chinese steel they may produce more CO 2 in its manufacture than we do, but they will certainly produce more CO 2 in its transport.

    Today I want to concentrate on the damage these policies do to our state finances. They lose us lots of revenue, by substituting foreign for domestic production. All the super taxes paid on oil and gas output go to a foreign producer government not to the Treasury. All the taxes on wages and profits in making things go to overseas governments where the exporting factories lie. There is a major drain on our balance of payments which means the country has to borrow more from overseas to pay the bills in foreign currencies, leading to a higher debt interest burden. This is economic self harm on a grand scale... "

    Why do we live in a UK where these sorts of basic facts need to be spelled out as if to a 5yr old? Germany also has to grapple with Net Zero, but when it comes to keeping their economy on the rails, they're pulling down towns to dig coal mines.

    Satire of the highest order. Top stuff.
    Except he is right in every singke thing he says in that article.
    He is spot on that outsourcing CO2 still means the CO2 is produced... it just means it isn't produced in the UK.

    With that said, i'm not convinced on the "LNG produces more CO2" argument.

    Sure liquefaction involves energy (you do need to supercool the gas) and therefore emissions, but the amount of work required to bring a field onstream is probably going to account for a far higher proportion than any cost of cooling.

    This is one of these areas where the market is probably right. If it's cheaper to import LNG, then we should probably do it over subsidising local production.
    Redwood isn't proposing subsidising local production. What he is talking about is ceasing to plunder the profits and scare away investors. That behaviour isn't 'the market', that's the Government tipping the balance away from domestic producers, which is insane behaviour that no other country possessing the same resources would do.

    Furthermore, bringing a new gas field onstream is a one-off event, liquefaction takes place on every import.

    I respect your knowledge of the industry deeply, but I also cannot consider you entirely unbiased in this area given your professional interests. It's not that I'm accusing you of trying to talk up your pocketbook, but I do think that working for a certain industry in a certain country carries inherent biases in favour of that interest and against competitors. I believe the same to be true of Richard's views on fracking. I take into account both your career backgrounds when I consider what you're saying on these subjects.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
    "Never" is a long time, and political parties can flip in a remarkably short time. Consider the journey the Conservatives have been on in the last 30 years.

    (The funniest future history is the one where the next government manoevres the UK into independently agreeing with almost everything the EU does in order to allow the four freedoms so that the economy works. Then it's the Conservatives who rail against this in a "we are a great nation and should be in the room, leading not following" way. To save EEA types the time, it doesn't matter how rational or true this is. We left because of the feels, if we rejoin it will be because of the feels.)
    If the Tories backed rejoining the EU anytime soon, they would not only cease to be the government they would also cease to be the main opposition. As you well know Farage would return and his party would overtake the Tories as the main party of the right. Indeed, the Tories would be virtually wiped out apart from a handful of seats in Surrey, Oxfordshire and West London at most.

    The only party in the next generation who could take the UK back into the EU would be Labour with LD support
    No, just as you flipped from Remain to Leave, you can flip back.

    Just pretend that it never happened, like the Truss Premiership.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,202
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/

    There are currently 14 million people in the UK who have limited or no access to the internet. The idea that we can force them into a cashless society is for the birds.
    The problem is that handling cash is expensive and a very fixed cost (time taken to go to bank and deposit / cost of someone collecting the money) so as people stop paying cash it rapidly gets to the point where it can cost a fortune to handle cash.

    How you resolve it in a way that allows everyone still use things is an interesting question. I suspect we need the post office or similar to create a cash card...
    They exist already, don't they? At the moment, they're niche products (pocket money and foreign travel), but there can't be any fundamental reason not to use them more widely.

    There may be important psychological reasons not to want to use them, but that's a different thing.

    (We've got to make better, more dignified use of Post Offices, as a place in every parish where money can be handled securely, officially and efficiently. Shame the recent management have screwed up the dignity- in several senses- so badly.)
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    ...
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
    "Never" is a long time, and political parties can flip in a remarkably short time. Consider the journey the Conservatives have been on in the last 30 years.

    (The funniest future history is the one where the next government manoevres the UK into independently agreeing with almost everything the EU does in order to allow the four freedoms so that the economy works. Then it's the Conservatives who rail against this in a "we are a great nation and should be in the room, leading not following" way. To save EEA types the time, it doesn't matter how rational or true this is. We left because of the feels, if we rejoin it will be because of the feels.)
    If the Tories backed rejoining the EU anytime soon, they would not only cease to be the government they would also cease to be the main opposition. As you well know Farage would return and his party would overtake the Tories as the main party of the right. Indeed, the Tories would be virtually wiped out apart from a handful of seats in Surrey, Oxfordshire and West London at most.

    The only party in the next generation who could take the UK back into the EU would be Labour with LD support
    No, just as you flipped from Remain to Leave, you can flip back.

    Just pretend that it never happened, like the Truss Premiership.
    Who's pretending that never happened? Constantly evoking the bogeyman of Truss/Kwarteng is about the only thing enabling the dismal decline manager to cling on to power.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,423
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/

    There are currently 14 million people in the UK who have limited or no access to the internet. The idea that we can force them into a cashless society is for the birds.
    The problem is that handling cash is expensive and a very fixed cost (time taken to go to bank and deposit / cost of someone collecting the money) so as people stop paying cash it rapidly gets to the point where it can cost a fortune to handle cash.

    How you resolve it in a way that allows everyone still use things is an interesting question. I suspect we need the post office or similar to create a cash card...
    The complainant has the internet. It's just a whineathon. Standard play these days to whine about things you dont like..
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,423
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
    "Never" is a long time, and political parties can flip in a remarkably short time. Consider the journey the Conservatives have been on in the last 30 years.

    (The funniest future history is the one where the next government manoevres the UK into independently agreeing with almost everything the EU does in order to allow the four freedoms so that the economy works. Then it's the Conservatives who rail against this in a "we are a great nation and should be in the room, leading not following" way. To save EEA types the time, it doesn't matter how rational or true this is. We left because of the feels, if we rejoin it will be because of the feels.)
    If the Tories backed rejoining the EU anytime soon, they would not only cease to be the government they would also cease to be the main opposition. As you well know Farage would return and his party would overtake the Tories as the main party of the right. Indeed, the Tories would be virtually wiped out apart from a handful of seats in Surrey, Oxfordshire and West London at most.

    The only party in the next generation who could take the UK back into the EU would be Labour with LD support
    No, just as you flipped from Remain to Leave, you can flip back.

    Just pretend that it never happened, like the Truss Premiership.
    Like Brown didn't completely screw the economy and at the end spent madly to make it as difficult as possible for Cameron and then cut his salary as the last act of a really nasty person. A real Scumbag.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,075
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/

    There are currently 14 million people in the UK who have limited or no access to the internet. The idea that we can force them into a cashless society is for the birds.
    The problem is that handling cash is expensive and a very fixed cost (time taken to go to bank and deposit / cost of someone collecting the money) so as people stop paying cash it rapidly gets to the point where it can cost a fortune to handle cash.

    How you resolve it in a way that allows everyone still use things is an interesting question. I suspect we need the post office or similar to create a cash card...
    For this reason, if we want enterprises to accept cash, it will have to be legislated.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,285

    Westie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    They loved the NHS, that's true, but they also hated immigration. They felt especially enjoyably angry when they were egged on to think about the Turks as well as about southern and eastern Europeans, e.g. Nigel Farage's "Romanians next door". They didn't give a toss about "levelling up". Nobody cares about that. They want better lives and their falling-apart conditions to improve, but they don't know how anybody with an income in excess of say 100K actually lives. Different worlds.
    "Levelling up" means improving their conditions. That's why they voted for it. That's why they still want it. Immigration is a red herring, much as it suits woke europhiles to ally with Nigel Farage in pretending voters are a bunch of racists.
    It's the same thing. Not that it is "racism" - last time I checked the Romanians next door were the same white European Christians as we are.

    A lot of the red wall dislikes outsiders. Their community was proud due to cotton / steel / coal etc and quite insular. Someone from outside the area is suspicious enough, never mind foreigners.

    These places have been broken economically and socially. They need levelling up as they have nothing. So their lack of services / jobs / prospects is only made worse by outsiders competing for jobs and resources.

    Get rid of the outsiders, spend money on local services for local people - that's why a wall of non-voters turned out both for Brexit and then Boris.
    Immigrants were not flocking to left-behind northern seaside towns; the only outsiders were jobless druggies dumped there by local authorities elsewhere.

    If you look at Labour pollster Deborah Mattinson's analysis, one key marker was loss of "destination" high street stores. Perhaps the government should incentivise Marks & Spencer. Though as you imply, the underlying cause is often the loss of the one industry in one-industry towns.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    It’ll be funny as hell in say 2033 when after nearly a decade in opposition the Tories elect a leader who plans to take the Tories back into the EU.

    I mean in less than a decade the Tory leadership went from being pro Section 28 to introducing same sex marriage.

    Most Tory MPs voted against same sex marriage even if they backed civil unions, it was Labour and LD MPs who got it through, just now most of the Tory Party accepts it.

    The Tories would never take the UK back into the EU, a future re elected Labour government might but again it would be a future Tory leader and Tory Party accepting that not the Tory Party leading on it
    "Never" is a long time, and political parties can flip in a remarkably short time. Consider the journey the Conservatives have been on in the last 30 years.

    (The funniest future history is the one where the next government manoevres the UK into independently agreeing with almost everything the EU does in order to allow the four freedoms so that the economy works. Then it's the Conservatives who rail against this in a "we are a great nation and should be in the room, leading not following" way. To save EEA types the time, it doesn't matter how rational or true this is. We left because of the feels, if we rejoin it will be because of the feels.)
    If the Tories backed rejoining the EU anytime soon, they would not only cease to be the government they would also cease to be the main opposition. As you well know Farage would return and his party would overtake the Tories as the main party of the right. Indeed, the Tories would be virtually wiped out apart from a handful of seats in Surrey, Oxfordshire and West London at most.

    The only party in the next generation who could take the UK back into the EU would be Labour with LD support
    No, just as you flipped from Remain to Leave, you can flip back.

    Just pretend that it never happened, like the Truss Premiership.
    Like Brown didn't completely screw the economy and at the end spent madly to make it as difficult as possible for Cameron and then cut his salary as the last act of a really nasty person. A real Scumbag.
    I agree, which is why I voted Con in 2010.

    Not sure what it has to do with my post though. Was it intended for another post?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,362

    For me, EU membership was always about more than just economics; it was an attitude of mind. Were we at one with our neighbours or were we ourselves alone?
    In that sense, I think Brexit has been a total failure; I’ve got family and friends all over the world, but I still think of myself as a European, not as a citizen of some artificial grouping around the Pacific rim!
    So for me, Brexit is a total failure.

    In that sense it was always going to be a total failure for you no matter what happened. That is hardly an argument one way or another in terms of this thread.

    Of course I do not consider myself 'European' in your terms and Brexit has made no difference to my ability to have friends and family all over the world. And given that (unsurprisingly) all the dire warnings of disaster that were promulgated by the Remain campaign have failed to happen, I consider Brexit to have been a success. It achieved its aim of getting us out of the (for me) undemocratic political institutions of the EU.

    It could be even more of a success were we to have a sensible Government that took us into the EEA but I am content at the moment with where we are along the road.
    That of course, in a nutshell, is why we differ. In spite, perhaps, of my genetics showing me to be almost entirely from England and Wales, I’ve always thought of myself as a European. And I don’t think the EU is ‘undemocratic’; it could be, and one day will be, better but it’s on the right track.
    And UK could have been a force for good in that journey.
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 699
    Andy_JS said:

    "Pensioner forced to retire from tennis because of cashless society
    Leisure centres could not take cash despite many older people still unable to use the internet" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/28/juliet-casciano-leisure-centre-kent-cash-pensioners-tennis/

    BUt.. it's nothing to do with the internet. According to the article, she was told she can pay with a debit card - which she has, but doesn't want to use. For a membership, she needs an email address, but she doesn't want to be a member, just a casual user. But she is refusing to pay with a method she has access to, which they are offering.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Westie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    "Less timid" sounds nice but what's the actual line?

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to do nothing about it" doesn't sound great.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to renegotiate it" might be OK but it sounds a bit lame, and he'll be pressed to rule out unpopular things like restoring freedom of movement. If he rules out all the domestically unpopular things then he won't be able to actually renegotiate anything meaningful because the EU won't agree.

    "Brexit was a stupid idea, I plan to reverse it" is bold and glorious and he can make massive free spending commitments with all the extra GDP it would bring. But reversing it isn't in his power, it has to be agreed by all the EU member states. His opponents will credibly claim that he'd have to join the Euro and Schengen, which are way less popular than just "rejoin".

    Indeed, I voted Remain in 2016 but would have voted Leave had Remain required joining the Euro
    You would have voted Leave if David Cameron had campaigned for Leave.

    You just followed the party line.
    Cameron would never have allowed a referendum had he thought Remain wouldn't win it, he would never have campaigned for Leave. His mistake was not getting a sufficient renegotiation, especially on free movement to reflect the fact Blair never used the transition controls on Eastern European migration we were entitled to post 2004
    No Camerons mistake was in not being sufficiently pro-European and in not getting the wholehearted support of those in other parties, and in no party.
    Nope, the pro Europeans in Labour, the LDs and SNP virtually all voted Remain anyway even with Cameron leading the Remain campaign. They were already in the 48%. It was the swing voters concerned over free movement from Eastern Europe with no transition controls that won it for Leave
    It was previous non-voters who wanted to Take Back Control and spend the EU money on the NHS who won it for Leave. Dominic Cummings understood they were not motivated by Brexit but wanted their lives, their towns, to recover. Cummings understood the importance of Levelling Up to keep these voters onside; Rishi appears not to.
    They loved the NHS, that's true, but they also hated immigration. They felt especially enjoyably angry when they were egged on to think about the Turks as well as about southern and eastern Europeans, e.g. Nigel Farage's "Romanians next door". They didn't give a toss about "levelling up". Nobody cares about that. They want better lives and their falling-apart conditions to improve, but they don't know how anybody with an income in excess of say 100K actually lives. Different worlds.
    "Levelling up" means improving their conditions. That's why they voted for it. That's why they still want it. Immigration is a red herring, much as it suits woke europhiles to ally with Nigel Farage in pretending voters are a bunch of racists.
    It's the same thing. Not that it is "racism" - last time I checked the Romanians next door were the same white European Christians as we are.

    A lot of the red wall dislikes outsiders. Their community was proud due to cotton / steel / coal etc and quite insular. Someone from outside the area is suspicious enough, never mind foreigners.

    These places have been broken economically and socially. They need levelling up as they have nothing. So their lack of services / jobs / prospects is only made worse by outsiders competing for jobs and resources.

    Get rid of the outsiders, spend money on local services for local people - that's why a wall of non-voters turned out both for Brexit and then Boris.
    Immigrants were not flocking to left-behind northern seaside towns; the only outsiders were jobless druggies dumped there by local authorities elsewhere.

    If you look at Labour pollster Deborah Mattinson's analysis, one key marker was loss of "destination" high street stores. Perhaps the government should incentivise Marks & Spencer. Though as you imply, the underlying cause is often the loss of the one industry in one-industry towns.
    With a few exceptions in the Fens, Brexitism was more or less inversely proportional to amount of local immigration. Indeed in some of the most Brexity places like Copeland the population was actually declining.

    What troubled people in such places wasn't local immigration, it was that when they went to the big city, or even just watched telly, they would see a changed country, and one doing a lot better than their locale.

    Though of course this is broad brush, even in Hartlepool or Boston 30% voted Remain, and in Cambridge or Brighton 20% voted Leave.
This discussion has been closed.