Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
I don't think it is. If we rejoined we'd still have flat growth, high welfare spending, and high taxes - just as we do now - except with even more bitterness, and a resumption of free movement. It would continue to infect our politics for decades. None of that is going to end well.
Britain has always been a global trading nation, but we are chiefly a services-exporting one and the single market really doesn't do much for us except in agriculture and (some) goods and that isn't enough of an advantage for me to support a political project to build a new country called Europe, which is what it is.
Sorry.
Even more bitterness? Are you saying Brexiteers would be even more graceless losers than they are winners?
Brave use of the phrase 'graceless loser' from you there I feel.
The difference would be that the bitterness would still be directed at the EU rather than migrants and others and we'd be better off economically and still have freedom of movement.
I'd definitely take that, nothing can done about people determined to be bitter regardless.
We wouldn't be better off, but it's highly possible that a good portion of political debate would be being taken up with Europe, and that would be (as it was) an effective distraction from the very serious issues within the British state. I'm delighted we have lost the EU, as a bogeyman and as a cherished lodestar. Our migration policy is now the sole responsibility of the UK Government, and they get rightly pulverised when they don't make it work. Same with economic policy. It's really a golden age of political accountability.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Given how shit a sporting weekend it has been so far for me, I fully expected Max Verstappen to complete the Devil's trifecta this afternoon by winning the F1 title.
If it makes you feel any better, that's my second best result for the title market.
It's okay, my biggest winner is Verstappen, then Piastri, then Norris.
Winning big money on Verstappen feels immoral.
You won't lose money betting on the Old Millfieldian......
Yes, remember 2015GE and how Martin "Kaboom" Boon reacted to this, by self-censoring his polls.
Being an outlier is uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. It is high-risk though: you are feted as a genius if you're right, and pilloried if you're wrong.
It was Damian from Survation who self censored his own poll.
Fair enough. I recall Martin Boon making a fool of himself over it, though.
Perhaps he was simply too confident of the result and the outcome (incorrectly) on his Twitter feed.
2017 was a bonkers time.
I was told the week Mrs May announced the election the Tory private polling had the Tories winning a majority of 294 and potentially over 300 if Scotland played ball.
I have no doubt that poll was kosher (I think the best public poll had the Tories winning a majority of around 200).
The irony is that the polling led Mrs May to propose the dementia tax thinking a hefty majority was in the bag.
OGH and I made a hefty profit selling the Tories at 395ish seats.
And Scotland did "play ball", with the Scottish Tories going from 1 seat to 13. But May stuffed them by sucking up to the DUP instead.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I just think you're wrong on this.
I realise the following is anecdotal (but I also think you are just following your gut): my values are much more closely aligned to the individual state sovereignty that we (theoretically) have post-Brexit. I'm basically in Corbyn's camp when it comes to the EU.
But I am also a realist. We aren't big or powerful enough to actually enact the theoretical sovereignty that Brexit offers us. And even if we are, any benefit is likely to be subsumed in the enormous economic and social inefficiency from going it alone security-wise just as our most reliable.security partner (USA) exits stage right, and our most troubling adversary (Russia) appears to have made alliances and consolidated power domestically such that we actually have to defend ourselves.
Theoretical notions of sovereignty will mean little if we go to war with Russia whilst unable to defend ourselves. I realise the EU has never really been about military security, so I don't think we should be looking back at Rejoin. But I do think we should accept a loss of the ability to make trade deals in order to more closely align ourselves to the other powerful nations in Europe (and simultaneously hope that that do not implode as the USA has done)
I don't see how Brexit has had a major impact on security cooperation.
Britain has been leading and developing cooperation with the Scandis and Baltics through JEF. There's a very recent agreement on maritime security with Norway. Cooperation to assist Ukraine has been very close via the Rammstein format within NATO, the European Political Community and the Coalition of the Willing (to waffle).
There are a couple of minor snags. It looks like the French have spitefully shut Britain out of SAFE as a short-sighted measure to benefit their defence industry. And Britain hasn't been at the table when the EU discusses using Russian assets to help Ukraine. But generally I think both sides have worked well to cooperate despite Brexit.
Very fair comeback.
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I just think you're wrong on this.
I realise the following is anecdotal (but I also think you are just following your gut): my values are much more closely aligned to the individual state sovereignty that we (theoretically) have post-Brexit. I'm basically in Corbyn's camp when it comes to the EU.
But I am also a realist. We aren't big or powerful enough to actually enact the theoretical sovereignty that Brexit offers us. And even if we are, any benefit is likely to be subsumed in the enormous economic and social inefficiency from going it alone security-wise just as our most reliable.security partner (USA) exits stage right, and our most troubling adversary (Russia) appears to have made alliances and consolidated power domestically such that we actually have to defend ourselves.
Theoretical notions of sovereignty will mean little if we go to war with Russia whilst unable to defend ourselves. I realise the EU has never really been about military security, so I don't think we should be looking back at Rejoin. But I do think we should accept a loss of the ability to make trade deals in order to more closely align ourselves to the other powerful nations in Europe (and simultaneously hope that that do not implode as the USA has done)
I don't see how Brexit has had a major impact on security cooperation.
Britain has been leading and developing cooperation with the Scandis and Baltics through JEF. There's a very recent agreement on maritime security with Norway. Cooperation to assist Ukraine has been very close via the Rammstein format within NATO, the European Political Community and the Coalition of the Willing (to waffle).
There are a couple of minor snags. It looks like the French have spitefully shut Britain out of SAFE as a short-sighted measure to benefit their defence industry. And Britain hasn't been at the table when the EU discusses using Russian assets to help Ukraine. But generally I think both sides have worked well to cooperate despite Brexit.
Very fair comeback.
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
Right, so is pizza with pineapple a Christmas meal or not?
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I just think you're wrong on this.
I realise the following is anecdotal (but I also think you are just following your gut): my values are much more closely aligned to the individual state sovereignty that we (theoretically) have post-Brexit. I'm basically in Corbyn's camp when it comes to the EU.
But I am also a realist. We aren't big or powerful enough to actually enact the theoretical sovereignty that Brexit offers us. And even if we are, any benefit is likely to be subsumed in the enormous economic and social inefficiency from going it alone security-wise just as our most reliable.security partner (USA) exits stage right, and our most troubling adversary (Russia) appears to have made alliances and consolidated power domestically such that we actually have to defend ourselves.
Theoretical notions of sovereignty will mean little if we go to war with Russia whilst unable to defend ourselves. I realise the EU has never really been about military security, so I don't think we should be looking back at Rejoin. But I do think we should accept a loss of the ability to make trade deals in order to more closely align ourselves to the other powerful nations in Europe (and simultaneously hope that that do not implode as the USA has done)
I don't see how Brexit has had a major impact on security cooperation.
Britain has been leading and developing cooperation with the Scandis and Baltics through JEF. There's a very recent agreement on maritime security with Norway. Cooperation to assist Ukraine has been very close via the Rammstein format within NATO, the European Political Community and the Coalition of the Willing (to waffle).
There are a couple of minor snags. It looks like the French have spitefully shut Britain out of SAFE as a short-sighted measure to benefit their defence industry. And Britain hasn't been at the table when the EU discusses using Russian assets to help Ukraine. But generally I think both sides have worked well to cooperate despite Brexit.
Very fair comeback.
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
Right, so is pizza with pineapple a Christmas meal or not?
Pizza is not part of a Christmas Festive meal anywhere in the world.
So until you fix that issue the secondary question is irrelevant..
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I don't accept we have harmed ourselves. I see it as a positive move that has enhanced British democracy and freedom of action.
As I've said before on here - you can always make an economic argument against disintegration: if, say, there was a global single currency and global confederal government with global free movement we'd almost certainly have much higher nominal GDP growth too - trading costs would be far lower as would the costs of labour - however, it would favour large panglobal firms and also raise very serious political and sovereignty questions.
Leaving it would come at a significant cost to economic growth. That wouldn't make it irrational or illegitimate. Nor would it legitimise bile and pomposity coming at those who saw it differently. In fact, it would just aggravate them.
The argument works both ways.
I'm not asking you to accept the argument, merely asking you to give your opponents due respect by opposing their best arguments rather than their worst.
I also didn't say 'harmed ourselves' in general. I think it is unequivocal now that the economic and security implications of Brexit are negative.
The interesting argument (though perhaps not on here as Brexit has been done to death) is where the balance lies between those effects and others, including those that you mention.
I suspect the public have made their minds up, hence agreeing with your original point on the last thread that Labour may be tactically astute to use a customs union or similar as the base for a coalition of voters at the next election.
I will respect those who don't jump to insulting me and show me respect. There is none. And therefore this argument is pointless, as it has been for the last 10 years.
I'm not wasting another day of my life debating Brexit on here.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I just think you're wrong on this.
I realise the following is anecdotal (but I also think you are just following your gut): my values are much more closely aligned to the individual state sovereignty that we (theoretically) have post-Brexit. I'm basically in Corbyn's camp when it comes to the EU.
But I am also a realist. We aren't big or powerful enough to actually enact the theoretical sovereignty that Brexit offers us. And even if we are, any benefit is likely to be subsumed in the enormous economic and social inefficiency from going it alone security-wise just as our most reliable.security partner (USA) exits stage right, and our most troubling adversary (Russia) appears to have made alliances and consolidated power domestically such that we actually have to defend ourselves.
Theoretical notions of sovereignty will mean little if we go to war with Russia whilst unable to defend ourselves. I realise the EU has never really been about military security, so I don't think we should be looking back at Rejoin. But I do think we should accept a loss of the ability to make trade deals in order to more closely align ourselves to the other powerful nations in Europe (and simultaneously hope that that do not implode as the USA has done)
I don't see how Brexit has had a major impact on security cooperation.
Britain has been leading and developing cooperation with the Scandis and Baltics through JEF. There's a very recent agreement on maritime security with Norway. Cooperation to assist Ukraine has been very close via the Rammstein format within NATO, the European Political Community and the Coalition of the Willing (to waffle).
There are a couple of minor snags. It looks like the French have spitefully shut Britain out of SAFE as a short-sighted measure to benefit their defence industry. And Britain hasn't been at the table when the EU discusses using Russian assets to help Ukraine. But generally I think both sides have worked well to cooperate despite Brexit.
Very fair comeback.
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
Right, so is pizza with pineapple a Christmas meal or not?
Pizza is not part of a Christmas Festive meal anywhere in the world.
So until you fix that issue the secondary question is irrelevant..
Yes, remember 2015GE and how Martin "Kaboom" Boon reacted to this, by self-censoring his polls.
Being an outlier is uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. It is high-risk though: you are feted as a genius if you're right, and pilloried if you're wrong.
It was Damian from Survation who self censored his own poll.
Fair enough. I recall Martin Boon making a fool of himself over it, though.
Perhaps he was simply too confident of the result and the outcome (incorrectly) on his Twitter feed.
2017 was a bonkers time.
I was told the week Mrs May announced the election the Tory private polling had the Tories winning a majority of 294 and potentially over 300 if Scotland played ball.
I have no doubt that poll was kosher (I think the best public poll had the Tories winning a majority of around 200).
The irony is that the polling led Mrs May to propose the dementia tax thinking a hefty majority was in the bag.
OGH and I made a hefty profit selling the Tories at 395ish seats.
And Scotland did "play ball", with the Scottish Tories going from 1 seat to 13. But May stuffed them by sucking up to the DUP instead.
No, all the Scottish Tory MPs were also from the party of government but most of Scotland elected SNP MPs still, whereas England had a majority of Tory MPs and Northern Ireland had a majority of DUP MPs in 2017
Zarah Sultana on Kuenssberg proposes nationalisations of much of industry, a referendum on the monarchy and says Zelensky is not a friend of the working class
Who is she trying to appeal to?
Putinesque socialist republicans? 3% of the voting population, but maybe 15% of the Labour supporting population? She's a spoiler. It might make sense if there was PR.
Yes, Your Party have seen a gap in the market for socialists who like Putin and dislike the King and royal family. Not being too anti Putin also distinguishes them from the Greens as even though Polanski is also a socialist republican even he has backed Zelensky and condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
They are the ideal party for communist students basically who want purity above all without having to bother with the real world
Yes, remember 2015GE and how Martin "Kaboom" Boon reacted to this, by self-censoring his polls.
Being an outlier is uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. It is high-risk though: you are feted as a genius if you're right, and pilloried if you're wrong.
It was Damian from Survation who self censored his own poll.
Fair enough. I recall Martin Boon making a fool of himself over it, though.
Perhaps he was simply too confident of the result and the outcome (incorrectly) on his Twitter feed.
2017 was a bonkers time.
I was told the week Mrs May announced the election the Tory private polling had the Tories winning a majority of 294 and potentially over 300 if Scotland played ball.
I have no doubt that poll was kosher (I think the best public poll had the Tories winning a majority of around 200).
The irony is that the polling led Mrs May to propose the dementia tax thinking a hefty majority was in the bag.
OGH and I made a hefty profit selling the Tories at 395ish seats.
Yes, she got found it. I lost money because I thought no-one would ever touch Jeremy Corbyn. Her style of privately deciding what to do and then refusing to engage, communicate or listen really pissed people off.
Thankfully, I traded out my position to near neutral on the night itself.
I still think she would have won a majority but for the London Bridge attack, the Tories were going to flood the airwaves and social media with Corbyn's past Britain hating love of terrorists which didn't happen for obvious reasons.
I think the unsaid thing too, is how popular Corbyn's chat of a merciful release from austerity and a spending bonanza was.
She had time to be found out. He didn't.
London Bridge was not the only terrorist outrage during the general election campaign, there was the Ariana Grande concert too, where 10 children were among the 22 killed. It did not help that Theresa May denied that her axing 10,000 police had made any difference.
For all her strengths - and she had some - Theresa May proved to be an utterly terrible campaigner, devoid of charisma. That, and the fact that Corbyn is charismatic and very good on the campaign trail, that is what lost her the election.
The same thing nearly happened to Starmer but fortunately for him he was not quite as wooden as MAy and he was up against another pretty ineffective campaign in Rishi.
Worth comparing the 2017 and 2024 campaign poll leads versus result:
2017 Start of campaign c19% Con lead; actual result 2.5% Con lead. 16.5% lost during campaign.
2024 Start of campaign c22% Lab lead; actual result 10% Lab lead. 12% lost during campaign.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I just think you're wrong on this.
I realise the following is anecdotal (but I also think you are just following your gut): my values are much more closely aligned to the individual state sovereignty that we (theoretically) have post-Brexit. I'm basically in Corbyn's camp when it comes to the EU.
But I am also a realist. We aren't big or powerful enough to actually enact the theoretical sovereignty that Brexit offers us. And even if we are, any benefit is likely to be subsumed in the enormous economic and social inefficiency from going it alone security-wise just as our most reliable.security partner (USA) exits stage right, and our most troubling adversary (Russia) appears to have made alliances and consolidated power domestically such that we actually have to defend ourselves.
Theoretical notions of sovereignty will mean little if we go to war with Russia whilst unable to defend ourselves. I realise the EU has never really been about military security, so I don't think we should be looking back at Rejoin. But I do think we should accept a loss of the ability to make trade deals in order to more closely align ourselves to the other powerful nations in Europe (and simultaneously hope that that do not implode as the USA has done)
I don't see how Brexit has had a major impact on security cooperation.
Britain has been leading and developing cooperation with the Scandis and Baltics through JEF. There's a very recent agreement on maritime security with Norway. Cooperation to assist Ukraine has been very close via the Rammstein format within NATO, the European Political Community and the Coalition of the Willing (to waffle).
There are a couple of minor snags. It looks like the French have spitefully shut Britain out of SAFE as a short-sighted measure to benefit their defence industry. And Britain hasn't been at the table when the EU discusses using Russian assets to help Ukraine. But generally I think both sides have worked well to cooperate despite Brexit.
Very fair comeback.
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
Right, so is pizza with pineapple a Christmas meal or not?
Pizza is not part of a Christmas Festive meal anywhere in the world.
So until you fix that issue the secondary question is irrelevant..
Top it with turkey, cranberry and pineapple?
I have a Christmas jumper with pepperoni pizza slices on it.
Can't comment on pineapple, though, especially with the banhammer already looming given my comments about Verstappen...
Yes, remember 2015GE and how Martin "Kaboom" Boon reacted to this, by self-censoring his polls.
Being an outlier is uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. It is high-risk though: you are feted as a genius if you're right, and pilloried if you're wrong.
It was Damian from Survation who self censored his own poll.
Fair enough. I recall Martin Boon making a fool of himself over it, though.
Perhaps he was simply too confident of the result and the outcome (incorrectly) on his Twitter feed.
2017 was a bonkers time.
I was told the week Mrs May announced the election the Tory private polling had the Tories winning a majority of 294 and potentially over 300 if Scotland played ball.
I have no doubt that poll was kosher (I think the best public poll had the Tories winning a majority of around 200).
The irony is that the polling led Mrs May to propose the dementia tax thinking a hefty majority was in the bag.
OGH and I made a hefty profit selling the Tories at 395ish seats.
And Scotland did "play ball", with the Scottish Tories going from 1 seat to 13. But May stuffed them by sucking up to the DUP instead.
Zarah Sultana on Kuenssberg proposes nationalisations of much of industry, a referendum on the monarchy and says Zelensky is not a friend of the working class
Who is she trying to appeal to?
Putinesque socialist republicans? 3% of the voting population, but maybe 15% of the Labour supporting population? She's a spoiler. It might make sense if there was PR.
Yes, Your Party have seen a gap in the market for socialists who like Putin and dislike the King and royal family. Not being too anti Putin also distinguishes them from the Greens as even though Polanski is also a socialist republican even he has backed Zelensky and condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
They are the ideal party for communist students basically who want purity above all without having to bother with the real world
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Zarah Sultana on Kuenssberg proposes nationalisations of much of industry, a referendum on the monarchy and says Zelensky is not a friend of the working class
Who is she trying to appeal to?
Putinesque socialist republicans? 3% of the voting population, but maybe 15% of the Labour supporting population? She's a spoiler. It might make sense if there was PR.
Yes, Your Party have seen a gap in the market for socialists who like Putin and dislike the King and royal family. Not being too anti Putin also distinguishes them from the Greens as even though Polanski is also a socialist republican even he has backed Zelensky and condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
They are the ideal party for communist students basically who want purity above all without having to bother with the real world
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I don't accept we have harmed ourselves. I see it as a positive move that has enhanced British democracy and freedom of action.
As I've said before on here - you can always make an economic argument against disintegration: if, say, there was a global single currency and global confederal government with global free movement we'd almost certainly have much higher nominal GDP growth too - trading costs would be far lower as would the costs of labour - however, it would favour large panglobal firms and also raise very serious political and sovereignty questions.
Leaving it would come at a significant cost to economic growth. That wouldn't make it irrational or illegitimate. Nor would it legitimise bile and pomposity coming at those who saw it differently. In fact, it would just aggravate them.
The argument works both ways.
I'm not asking you to accept the argument, merely asking you to give your opponents due respect by opposing their best arguments rather than their worst.
I also didn't say 'harmed ourselves' in general. I think it is unequivocal now that the economic and security implications of Brexit are negative.
The interesting argument (though perhaps not on here as Brexit has been done to death) is where the balance lies between those effects and others, including those that you mention.
I suspect the public have made their minds up, hence agreeing with your original point on the last thread that Labour may be tactically astute to use a customs union or similar as the base for a coalition of voters at the next election.
I will respect those who don't jump to insulting me and show me respect. There is none. And therefore this argument is pointless, as it has been for the last 10 years.
I'm not wasting another day of my life debating Brexit on here.
Enjoy your Sunday.
brexit - 10 years of graceless flouncing
You are very much making CR's point for him.
if he need''s his bottom kissed there are other places on the internet that will fulfill that need
I think it'd be easier to move on if everbody acknowledged three things. Leave won the vote fair and square. Brexit therefore had to hapoen. It was nevertheless a mistake.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
I think it'd be easier to move on if everbody acknowledged three things. Leave won the vote fair and square. Brexit therefore had to hapoen. It was nevertheless a mistake.
Same as Labour winning a 170 seat majority with 33.7% was a mistake.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I don't accept we have harmed ourselves. I see it as a positive move that has enhanced British democracy and freedom of action.
As I've said before on here - you can always make an economic argument against disintegration: if, say, there was a global single currency and global confederal government with global free movement we'd almost certainly have much higher nominal GDP growth too - trading costs would be far lower as would the costs of labour - however, it would favour large panglobal firms and also raise very serious political and sovereignty questions.
Leaving it would come at a significant cost to economic growth. That wouldn't make it irrational or illegitimate. Nor would it legitimise bile and pomposity coming at those who saw it differently. In fact, it would just aggravate them.
The argument works both ways.
I'm not asking you to accept the argument, merely asking you to give your opponents due respect by opposing their best arguments rather than their worst.
I also didn't say 'harmed ourselves' in general. I think it is unequivocal now that the economic and security implications of Brexit are negative.
The interesting argument (though perhaps not on here as Brexit has been done to death) is where the balance lies between those effects and others, including those that you mention.
I suspect the public have made their minds up, hence agreeing with your original point on the last thread that Labour may be tactically astute to use a customs union or similar as the base for a coalition of voters at the next election.
I will respect those who don't jump to insulting me and show me respect. There is none. And therefore this argument is pointless, as it has been for the last 10 years.
I'm not wasting another day of my life debating Brexit on here.
Enjoy your Sunday.
brexit - 10 years of graceless flouncing
You are very much making CR's point for him.
if he need''s his bottom kissed there are other places on the internet that will fulfill that need
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961 2024 $55,800 29.9% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988 2024 $52,636 28.4% up
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Data is facile, juvenile nonsense but the opinions of some economists is ok?
Yes, remember 2015GE and how Martin "Kaboom" Boon reacted to this, by self-censoring his polls.
Being an outlier is uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. It is high-risk though: you are feted as a genius if you're right, and pilloried if you're wrong.
It was Damian from Survation who self censored his own poll.
Fair enough. I recall Martin Boon making a fool of himself over it, though.
Perhaps he was simply too confident of the result and the outcome (incorrectly) on his Twitter feed.
2017 was a bonkers time.
I was told the week Mrs May announced the election the Tory private polling had the Tories winning a majority of 294 and potentially over 300 if Scotland played ball.
I have no doubt that poll was kosher (I think the best public poll had the Tories winning a majority of around 200).
The irony is that the polling led Mrs May to propose the dementia tax thinking a hefty majority was in the bag.
OGH and I made a hefty profit selling the Tories at 395ish seats.
Yes, she got found it. I lost money because I thought no-one would ever touch Jeremy Corbyn. Her style of privately deciding what to do and then refusing to engage, communicate or listen really pissed people off.
Thankfully, I traded out my position to near neutral on the night itself.
I still think she would have won a majority but for the London Bridge attack, the Tories were going to flood the airwaves and social media with Corbyn's past Britain hating love of terrorists which didn't happen for obvious reasons.
I think the unsaid thing too, is how popular Corbyn's chat of a merciful release from austerity and a spending bonanza was.
She had time to be found out. He didn't.
London Bridge was not the only terrorist outrage during the general election campaign, there was the Ariana Grande concert too, where 10 children were among the 22 killed. It did not help that Theresa May denied that her axing 10,000 police had made any difference.
For all her strengths - and she had some - Theresa May proved to be an utterly terrible campaigner, devoid of charisma. That, and the fact that Corbyn is charismatic and very good on the campaign trail, that is what lost her the election.
The same thing nearly happened to Starmer but fortunately for him he was not quite as wooden as MAy and he was up against another pretty ineffective campaign in Rishi.
Worth comparing the 2017 and 2024 campaign poll leads versus result:
2017 Start of campaign c19% Con lead; actual result 2.5% Con lead. 16.5% lost during campaign.
2024 Start of campaign c22% Lab lead; actual result 10% Lab lead. 12% lost during campaign.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Interesting that you omit France and use the 2016 data instead of the 2019 ie the last year the UK was in the EU.
The change from 2019 is:
UK +23% EZ +19% SP +19% IT +19% GE +17% FR +14%
1. I was responding to Barty's points about Britain growing faster than Germany and the Eurozone (neither is true).
2. The damage was done as soon as the referendum was counted.
Even on such 'reasoning' the damage is then the responsibility of those Remainer politicians who tried for over three years to thwart the referendum result.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Interesting that you omit France and use the 2016 data instead of the 2019 ie the last year the UK was in the EU.
The change from 2019 is:
UK +23% EZ +19% SP +19% IT +19% GE +17% FR +14%
1. I was responding to Barty's points about Britain growing faster than Germany and the Eurozone (neither is true).
2. The damage was done as soon as the referendum was counted.
Even on such 'reasoning' the damage is then the responsibility of those Remainer politicians who tried for over three years to thwart the referendum result.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I would like to make a formal, abject apology to all of you.
This thread becoming about Brexit was almost entirely my fault.
@tse, should you wish to wield the banhammer I shall take it gracefully. I would ban myself at this point if I had the power.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
Given how shit a sporting weekend it has been so far for me, I fully expected Max Verstappen to complete the Devil's trifecta this afternoon by winning the F1 title.
As a Wolves supporter, it's been a great weekend, because we don't lose until Monday.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
You can only make such claims about the short term. In the long term the answer can only be "it depends" because there are too many variables that are unknowable in advance.
Redcar council have based their budgets on Teesworks being a success resulting in increased business rates - now they weren't foolish and belived Ben Houchen's figures but equally they couldn't dismiss them out of hand - so they've budgeted so extra money arriving.
Sadly Teesworks is currently an abject failure for open businesses so even the revised budget is significantly higher than actual revenue.
Given how shit a sporting weekend it has been so far for me, I fully expected Max Verstappen to complete the Devil's trifecta this afternoon by winning the F1 title.
As a Wolves supporter, it's been a great weekend, because we don't lose until Monday.
Got to say were I a Wolves supporter I would be making the most of my year of visiting other stadiums (probably by train as I suspect I would be drinking too much to drown the pain to be able to drive back).
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I would like to make a formal, abject apology to all of you.
This thread becoming about Brexit was almost entirely my fault.
@tse, should you wish to wield the banhammer I shall take it gracefully. I would ban myself at this point if I had the power.
well also because nothing else is happening today. I guess Nigel must be having an extended hide and Labour have somehow managed not to do something stupid over the weekend for a change.
Economic growth does not mean one-off expansions of output or per capita output. It means continuous, ongoing expansions. 99% of comments on this topic make this mistake
As always, ventures by the remainer faction into deploying facts and figures disintegrate almost immediately and we resort to 'the damage was done when the result was announced' (a corker), and 'exiting your biggest market' (we didn't) etc. etc.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Interesting that you omit France and use the 2016 data instead of the 2019 ie the last year the UK was in the EU.
The change from 2019 is:
UK +23% EZ +19% SP +19% IT +19% GE +17% FR +14%
1. I was responding to Barty's points about Britain growing faster than Germany and the Eurozone (neither is true).
2. The damage was done as soon as the referendum was counted.
Even on such 'reasoning' the damage is then the responsibility of those Remainer politicians who tried for over three years to thwart the referendum result.
always someone elses fault
Indeed, Ben is trying to blame the UK's economic performance while in the EU for its improved performance after it had left.
In reality it is political uncertainty and a lack of decision making which is often the most damaging thing.
As we have seen this year and last with Reeves continually floating tax raising ideas for the Budgets.
Those pointing to FON as the truthful heretics ought to be careful what they wish for... The same company picks up a very high Green share.
Pretty sure that's also due to the aggressiveness of FON's enthusiasm filter. Nigel and Zak have fans, Keir notoriously doesn't.
I'm which case, FON probably gets low turnout elections righter than high turnout ones
Maybe it's last nights shandies, but isn't that the wrong way round? FON give more weight to those less likely to vote, so would be more likely to be correct on a high turnout
As always, ventures by the remainer faction into deploying facts and figures disintegrate almost immediately and we resort to 'the damage was done when the result was announced' (a corker), and 'exiting your biggest market' (we didn't) etc. etc.
By leaving the EU we made it harder for EU companies to purchase our goods and services - that is to some level exiting a market, whether it's your biggest depends on who you were exiting to.,
I know it's made making some purchases far more paperwork intensive for me than it used to be.
Yes, remember 2015GE and how Martin "Kaboom" Boon reacted to this, by self-censoring his polls.
Being an outlier is uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. It is high-risk though: you are feted as a genius if you're right, and pilloried if you're wrong.
It was Damian from Survation who self censored his own poll.
Fair enough. I recall Martin Boon making a fool of himself over it, though.
Perhaps he was simply too confident of the result and the outcome (incorrectly) on his Twitter feed.
2017 was a bonkers time.
I was told the week Mrs May announced the election the Tory private polling had the Tories winning a majority of 294 and potentially over 300 if Scotland played ball.
I have no doubt that poll was kosher (I think the best public poll had the Tories winning a majority of around 200).
The irony is that the polling led Mrs May to propose the dementia tax thinking a hefty majority was in the bag.
OGH and I made a hefty profit selling the Tories at 395ish seats.
Yes, she got found it. I lost money because I thought no-one would ever touch Jeremy Corbyn. Her style of privately deciding what to do and then refusing to engage, communicate or listen really pissed people off.
Thankfully, I traded out my position to near neutral on the night itself.
I still think she would have won a majority but for the London Bridge attack, the Tories were going to flood the airwaves and social media with Corbyn's past Britain hating love of terrorists which didn't happen for obvious reasons.
I think the unsaid thing too, is how popular Corbyn's chat of a merciful release from austerity and a spending bonanza was.
She had time to be found out. He didn't.
London Bridge was not the only terrorist outrage during the general election campaign, there was the Ariana Grande concert too, where 10 children were among the 22 killed. It did not help that Theresa May denied that her axing 10,000 police had made any difference.
For all her strengths - and she had some - Theresa May proved to be an utterly terrible campaigner, devoid of charisma. That, and the fact that Corbyn is charismatic and very good on the campaign trail, that is what lost her the election.
The same thing nearly happened to Starmer but fortunately for him he was not quite as wooden as MAy and he was up against another pretty ineffective campaign in Rishi.
Worth comparing the 2017 and 2024 campaign poll leads versus result:
2017 Start of campaign c19% Con lead; actual result 2.5% Con lead. 16.5% lost during campaign.
2024 Start of campaign c22% Lab lead; actual result 10% Lab lead. 12% lost during campaign.
Yes, Sir Keir had a result in being up against a similarly uncharismatic opponent. I have followed IPSOS "Personality Ratings" for years, and they give a fairly good indication of who will be successful.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Interesting that you omit France and use the 2016 data instead of the 2019 ie the last year the UK was in the EU.
The change from 2019 is:
UK +23% EZ +19% SP +19% IT +19% GE +17% FR +14%
1. I was responding to Barty's points about Britain growing faster than Germany and the Eurozone (neither is true).
2. The damage was done as soon as the referendum was counted.
Even on such 'reasoning' the damage is then the responsibility of those Remainer politicians who tried for over three years to thwart the referendum result.
always someone elses fault
Indeed, Ben is trying to blame the UK's economic performance while in the EU for its improved performance after it had left.
In reality it is political uncertainty and a lack of decision making which is often the most damaging thing.
As we have seen this year and last with Reeves continually floating tax raising ideas for the Budgets.
As I've said way too often would have been far better off with 3p on income tax to begin to offset the 4p Employee NI cut.
Then with plenty of money coming in you can handle everything else because there is spare cash floating round.
I have to say announcing things this year that start in 2028/2029 make no sense at all - although it's given me 2 years to work out if I replace my plugin hybrid with a non plugin hybrid or go fully electric and then convince the Mrs.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I just think you're wrong on this.
I realise the following is anecdotal (but I also think you are just following your gut): my values are much more closely aligned to the individual state sovereignty that we (theoretically) have post-Brexit. I'm basically in Corbyn's camp when it comes to the EU.
But I am also a realist. We aren't big or powerful enough to actually enact the theoretical sovereignty that Brexit offers us. And even if we are, any benefit is likely to be subsumed in the enormous economic and social inefficiency from going it alone security-wise just as our most reliable.security partner (USA) exits stage right, and our most troubling adversary (Russia) appears to have made alliances and consolidated power domestically such that we actually have to defend ourselves.
Theoretical notions of sovereignty will mean little if we go to war with Russia whilst unable to defend ourselves. I realise the EU has never really been about military security, so I don't think we should be looking back at Rejoin. But I do think we should accept a loss of the ability to make trade deals in order to more closely align ourselves to the other powerful nations in Europe (and simultaneously hope that that do not implode as the USA has done)
I don't see how Brexit has had a major impact on security cooperation.
Britain has been leading and developing cooperation with the Scandis and Baltics through JEF. There's a very recent agreement on maritime security with Norway. Cooperation to assist Ukraine has been very close via the Rammstein format within NATO, the European Political Community and the Coalition of the Willing (to waffle).
There are a couple of minor snags. It looks like the French have spitefully shut Britain out of SAFE as a short-sighted measure to benefit their defence industry. And Britain hasn't been at the table when the EU discusses using Russian assets to help Ukraine. But generally I think both sides have worked well to cooperate despite Brexit.
Very fair comeback.
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
Right, so is pizza with pineapple a Christmas meal or not?
Pizza is not part of a Christmas Festive meal anywhere in the world.
So until you fix that issue the secondary question is irrelevant..
Top it with turkey, cranberry and pineapple?
I have a Christmas jumper with pepperoni pizza slices on it.
Can't comment on pineapple, though, especially with the banhammer already looming given my comments about Verstappen...
Discovered the other day that Farmfoods do convenient packs of frozen pineapple as well as blackberries, stir fry vegs, broad beans, okra etc. Just right for grabbing a few chunks of pineapple to ornament a pizza before putting int into the oven.
From your link: A magistrate sitting in the City of London opted not to send the case back to the DVLA for a review, convicted the pensioner, and imposed a discharge instead of a financial penalty.
Perhaps the kindest in the circumstances but the single justice procedure is ironically in question just as the government wants to axe juries.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Redcar council have based their budgets on Teesworks being a success resulting in increased business rates - now they weren't foolish and belived Ben Houchen's figures but equally they couldn't dismiss them out of hand - so they've budgeted so extra money arriving.
Sadly Teesworks is currently an abject failure for open businesses so even the revised budget is significantly higher than actual revenue.
Houchen is a tool of global standard. A spectacular failure on Teesside. Look at what he has achieved there and compare and contrast with other metro mayors.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I would like to make a formal, abject apology to all of you.
This thread becoming about Brexit was almost entirely my fault.
@tse, should you wish to wield the banhammer I shall take it gracefully. I would ban myself at this point if I had the power.
I might have started it yesterday by observing that Brexiteers shat the bed, and are refusing to contemplate changing the sheets.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
From what I can gather as the article doesn't mention it but it appears she didn't SORN the vehicle, had she done that she wouldn't have to renew the insurance.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Those pointing to FON as the truthful heretics ought to be careful what they wish for... The same company picks up a very high Green share.
Pretty sure that's also due to the aggressiveness of FON's enthusiasm filter. Nigel and Zak have fans, Keir notoriously doesn't.
I'm which case, FON probably gets low turnout elections righter than high turnout ones
Maybe it's last nights shandies, but isn't that the wrong way round? FON give more weight to those less likely to vote, so would be more likely to be correct on a high turnout
Or have I missed a joke?
It's not that, FON give the same weighting to people expressing a voting intention who haven't voted for several general elections, as they do to people who consistently vote or didn't vote in 2024 but voted in the elections proceeding that.
A golden rule in British politics (plebiscites apart) habitual non voters remain habitual non voters.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
Theoretically, not clearly.
If that market is self-harming by imposing sclerotic, bureaucratic, anti-growth rules that strangle enterprise and prevent growth, then exiting it can be a liberating act that enables more growth.
The EU has consistently under-performed the rest of the developed world.
However we have the advantage of having actual real world data for GDP per capita which shows if we look at 2010 (pre-referendum), or 2018 (pre-Covid, pre-Brexit) to date we can see the UK has out-performed, not under-performed, the rest of Europe and our peers.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
I would like to make a formal, abject apology to all of you.
This thread becoming about Brexit was almost entirely my fault.
@tse, should you wish to wield the banhammer I shall take it gracefully. I would ban myself at this point if I had the power.
well also because nothing else is happening today. I guess Nigel must be having an extended hide and Labour have somehow managed not to do something stupid over the weekend for a change.
Those pointing to FON as the truthful heretics ought to be careful what they wish for... The same company picks up a very high Green share.
Pretty sure that's also due to the aggressiveness of FON's enthusiasm filter. Nigel and Zak have fans, Keir notoriously doesn't.
I'm which case, FON probably gets low turnout elections righter than high turnout ones
Maybe it's last nights shandies, but isn't that the wrong way round? FON give more weight to those less likely to vote, so would be more likely to be correct on a high turnout
Or have I missed a joke?
It's not that, FON give the same weighting to people expressing a voting intention who haven't voted for several general elections, as they do to people who consistently vote or didn't vote in 2024 but voted in the elections proceeding that.
A golden rule in British politics (plebiscites apart) habitual non voters remain habitual non voters.
We are agreeing, I perhaps phrased it badly. "FON give more weight to those less likely to vote" was meant to mean more weight than other pollsters give those habitual non voters, rather than they add weight to them.
So they should be more accurate on high turnouts than low
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
Parked on the drive so it seems someone failed to report it as SORN.
I suspect the issue is that the person dealing with paperwork / has power of attorney lives a distance away and missed all the paperwork (not surprising given she appears to have been in hospital a lot).
Those pointing to FON as the truthful heretics ought to be careful what they wish for... The same company picks up a very high Green share.
Pretty sure that's also due to the aggressiveness of FON's enthusiasm filter. Nigel and Zak have fans, Keir notoriously doesn't.
I'm which case, FON probably gets low turnout elections righter than high turnout ones
Maybe it's last nights shandies, but isn't that the wrong way round? FON give more weight to those less likely to vote, so would be more likely to be correct on a high turnout
Or have I missed a joke?
It's not that, FON give the same weighting to people expressing a voting intention who haven't voted for several general elections, as they do to people who consistently vote or didn't vote in 2024 but voted in the elections proceeding that.
A golden rule in British politics (plebiscites apart) habitual non voters remain habitual non voters.
But on the other hand... the Greens and RefUK might be reaching people who habitually don't vote.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Normally what happens is if you don't renew your insurance your insurer contacts you confirming that your insurance hasn't renewed, they are obliged to inform the authorities, and that it is an offence to not have insurance if the vehicle isn't SORN'd.
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public ..
On current polling, that's really not clear, since around 60% of those polled say it was a mistake.
On the sovereignty question, I'd note that a country which has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives fighting to maintain its independence is still dead set on joining the EU.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Normally what happens is if you don't renew your insurance your insurer contacts you confirming that your insurance hasn't renewed, they are obliged to inform the authorities, and that it is an offence to not have insurance if the vehicle isn't SORN'd.
Indeed, we know what the Process is, but someone who is bed-bound and has surrendered their licence might not and might think that surrendering their licence fulfilled their requirements.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but considering the circumstances and the fact that the licence had been surrendered and she did reply to them with that quote (I am assuming, since it was given in quotation marks), then handling that by enabling the SORN rather than wasting the court's time because Process was not followed might have served justice better.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
Zarah Sultana on Kuenssberg proposes nationalisations of much of industry, a referendum on the monarchy and says Zelensky is not a friend of the working class
What does Zarah Sultana think about Putin's relationship with the working class?
That formulation has been doing the rounds on the European left a bit more recently and it's such a despicable cop-out.
In the current climate I don't think we can afford to have a government that is at best equivocal about Putin.
That rules out Reform, the Greens and the Fruit and Nuts for me. Will have to one of the 3 traditional parties but not sure which at this stage. Probably a tactical vote I expect.
Those pointing to FON as the truthful heretics ought to be careful what they wish for... The same company picks up a very high Green share.
Pretty sure that's also due to the aggressiveness of FON's enthusiasm filter. Nigel and Zak have fans, Keir notoriously doesn't.
I'm which case, FON probably gets low turnout elections righter than high turnout ones
Maybe it's last nights shandies, but isn't that the wrong way round? FON give more weight to those less likely to vote, so would be more likely to be correct on a high turnout
Or have I missed a joke?
It's not that, FON give the same weighting to people expressing a voting intention who haven't voted for several general elections, as they do to people who consistently vote or didn't vote in 2024 but voted in the elections proceeding that.
A golden rule in British politics (plebiscites apart) habitual non voters remain habitual non voters.
Another golden rule is that the future does not always replicate the past. FON thinks that there is a culture change, and that (as Yeats put it) 'the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.' They may of course be right.
FWIW I think it won't be for a couple of years yet that one can start to make rational projections about a 2029 election. Though carrying on making irrational ones will remain a top. entertainment
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Normally what happens is if you don't renew your insurance your insurer contacts you confirming that your insurance hasn't renewed, they are obliged to inform the authorities, and that it is an offence to not have insurance if the vehicle isn't SORN'd.
Indeed, we know what the Process is, but someone who is bed-bound and has surrendered their licence might not and might think that surrendering their licence fulfilled their requirements.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but considering the circumstances and the fact that the licence had been surrendered and she did reply to them with that quote (I am assuming, since it was given in quotation marks), then handling that by enabling the SORN rather than wasting the court's time because Process was not followed might have served justice better.
Back when I was a councillor, there was a pensioner resident in my ward who regularly appeared in the papers because of legal actions the council took against him. The reports were always phrased in terms of the pensioner being 'persecuted' or 'hounded' by a 'vindictive' council. Once there was the uninsured and untaxed vehicle which was 'essential' to him getting around. This was an ex-army lorry which he parked beside his house (despite having a drive) which repeatedly blocked the access to the close of houses behind him, Then there was the 'untidy site' 'witchhunt'. That was when he had moved the lorry to his drive. And it caught fire. And destroyed his neighbour's car. Then there was the next untidy site. That was when he turned his back garden into a timber store. Twelve foot or taller baulks of timber - stored vertically, leaning over into the neighbour's garden. Then he roofed his entire back garden over without planning permission and used it as a workshop from which loud noise and awful noise was emitted at all times of day or night - he was metalworking and paintspraying. That one took years. And was finally brought to a conclusion when on one visit from the enforcement officers they found he was storing gas cylinders in the 'shed' - they estimated that if there had been explosion it would have taken out th entire terrace of four houses.
And every story - from the same journalists, who knew the whole backstory - was about how the council was making him suffer.
I often think of this when I read reports of a resident having 'unreasonable' action being taken against them by a local authority.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
Those pointing to FON as the truthful heretics ought to be careful what they wish for... The same company picks up a very high Green share.
Pretty sure that's also due to the aggressiveness of FON's enthusiasm filter. Nigel and Zak have fans, Keir notoriously doesn't.
I'm which case, FON probably gets low turnout elections righter than high turnout ones
Maybe it's last nights shandies, but isn't that the wrong way round? FON give more weight to those less likely to vote, so would be more likely to be correct on a high turnout
Or have I missed a joke?
Nah, but there are two overlapping effects.
The YouGov effect is that they have records going back decades, and have a fairly shrewd idea of who actually voted in previous elections. As a result, they can take responses from habitual non-voters with a pinch of salt.
The FON effect is that they get panellists to self-report how likely they are to vote next time.
There are a lot of people saying Reform, definitely, who don't normally vote. FON is taking that at face value, whereas other pollsters aren't;
This relationship is caused by the unique profile of Reform voters. From our polling, their voters are the most likely of any party to say that they will “definitely vote” at the next election. Inversely, Labour voters are significantly less likely to say that they will vote.
Who is right? Who knows? There are a group of voters who are inspired by Reform for the first time ever. But it's not easy to tell how big that group is and what they will actually do. Similarly, who knows how many fed-up Labour supporters will drag themselves off the sofa because everyone else is worse?
Watch out Europe, Trump is coming for your elections next MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured. It seems a nonsense that you are required to insure a car if it is not driven or parked on the public highway. My car insurance expires while I'm away for 6 weeks, I will probably just renew it, why is it a problem if it sat on the drive for 4 weeks uninsured? Doing a Sorn for 4 weeks seems pointless
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Data is facile, juvenile nonsense but the opinions of some economists is ok?
Well do please share.
Sorry, wasn't directed at you personally, just get frustrated by this kind of debate. It doesn't really help with anything.
For a betting website, the more important metric is what the rest of the population think.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
As long as they are themselves car owners and insured, they will be able to drive her car 3rd party insured
True - but PSA that's not always automatically on the policy.
Paywalled. Can't see a rather critical issue. Is it on the road, or on her drive?
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
“My car which has always been parked on my drive was of no use to me and I did not insure it on renewal as I will never drive again and have surrendered my driving licence."
There is no mention of whether it was SORNed.
Presumably no, which is the issue of computer-says-no idiots, following the Process State.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
Of course it is, and a family member should have sorted the SORN. The article underplays the fact that she was given what is describes as a 'discharge' - probably meaning an absolute discharge, which means the court is saying you have technically committed an offence but you haven't really done anything wrong.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
If it gave a chance to reply before prosecution, and a reply was given, then surely someone at some point had to read the reply and think "we will still prosecute anyway despite this reply".
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
As it stands the prosecution do not see the letter of mitigation.
From the article, it has just been standing on her drive not caught on the road. So it seems to be a strange offence. AFAICS no real offence affecting other people has been committed. It's purely an administrative matter.
To me it's like the "you did not SORN so a computo-penalty for you" (but worse) ones of which there were around a million around 2007-2010 when it came in, and 100s of k of them had to be withdrawn.
The Minister is considering reform; it will be an easy "treat people like humans" micro-win for Labour if they change the process.
Comments
2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita:
2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita:
2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2024&locations=DE-GB-XC&start=2016
But May stuffed them by sucking up to the DUP instead.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/11/brexit-damage-uk-economy-mark-carney
I think I meant that we present a more appealing target to Putin when divided from Europe, and also that our defence industry needs partners to be effective - long term partnerships with American firms must be questionable right now so European alternatives look more appealing. Those partnerships won't be stopped by Brexit but there is undoubtedly more friction.
However, and despite several posts on the subject, I'm with Casino that an early December Sunday should be spent on better things than debating Brexit.
So until you fix that issue the secondary question is irrelevant..
The same thing nearly happened to Starmer but fortunately for him he was not quite as wooden as MAy and he was up against another pretty ineffective campaign in Rishi.
Worth comparing the 2017 and 2024 campaign poll leads versus result:
2017 Start of campaign c19% Con lead; actual result 2.5% Con lead. 16.5% lost during campaign.
2024 Start of campaign c22% Lab lead; actual result 10% Lab lead. 12% lost during campaign.
Can't comment on pineapple, though, especially with the banhammer already looming given my comments about Verstappen...
The change from 2019 is:
UK +23%
EZ +19%
SP +19%
IT +19%
GE +17%
FR +14%
2. The damage was done as soon as the referendum was counted.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Well do please share.
50% have either a positive or neutral view of Farage according to YouGov.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Nigel_Farage
This thread becoming about Brexit was almost entirely my fault.
@tse, should you wish to wield the banhammer I shall take it gracefully. I would ban myself at this point if I had the power.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
Redcar council have based their budgets on Teesworks being a success resulting in increased business rates - now they weren't foolish and belived Ben Houchen's figures but equally they couldn't dismiss them out of hand - so they've budgeted so extra money arriving.
Sadly Teesworks is currently an abject failure for open businesses so even the revised budget is significantly higher than actual revenue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBn1tfbhEJA
In reality it is political uncertainty and a lack of decision making which is often the most damaging thing.
As we have seen this year and last with Reeves continually floating tax raising ideas for the Budgets.
Or have I missed a joke?
I know it's made making some purchases far more paperwork intensive for me than it used to be.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/the-case-for-making-personality-ratings-a-good-electoral-indicator/
The latest ratings I can find from IPSOS were July this year
Farage 52
Badenoch 23
Starmer 21
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/nigel-farage-extends-his-lead-over-keir-starmer-being-seen-touch-ordinary-people
An 84-year-old woman who is bedbound and reliant on daily care has been convicted of a driving offence after failing to insure a car"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/pensioner-convicted-car-insurance-bedbound-single-justice-procedure-dvla-b1261313.html
Then with plenty of money coming in you can handle everything else because there is spare cash floating round.
I have to say announcing things this year that start in 2028/2029 make no sense at all - although it's given me 2 years to work out if I replace my plugin hybrid with a non plugin hybrid or go fully electric and then convince the Mrs.
If the former, then the alternative is, I suppose, being accused of dumping - which may not be preferable these days?
Also, did she respond to the notice?
Perhaps the kindest in the circumstances but the single justice procedure is ironically in question just as the government wants to axe juries.
Choosing 2018 (pre-Covid, pre-Brexit) you get:
Germany 2018 $47,624; 2024 $55,800; 17.2% up
Eurozone 2018 $39,213; 2024 $47,724; 21.7% up
UK 2018 $42,794; 2024 $52,639; 23.0% up
You get the same if you choose 2010 (pre-Brexit referenda, pre-announcement, pre-swings) as a benchmark too. Same 2024 figures for each obviously:
Germany 2010 $42,409; 31.6% up
Eurozone 2010 $37,496; 27.3% up
UK 2010 $39,599; 32.9% up
Either way the UK has outgrown both Germany and the Euro Area as a whole. "Despite Brexit".
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The Process is to SORN, you have not followed Process, so you must be prosecuted.
The logical response to that response would instead be "OK, if the car is on drive and you are not driving it again and have surrendered your licence, you need to SORN it, we will assist you with that". Rather than "we will send you to court for not following Process".
A golden rule in British politics (plebiscites apart) habitual non voters remain habitual non voters.
If that market is self-harming by imposing sclerotic, bureaucratic, anti-growth rules that strangle enterprise and prevent growth, then exiting it can be a liberating act that enables more growth.
The EU has consistently under-performed the rest of the developed world.
However we have the advantage of having actual real world data for GDP per capita which shows if we look at 2010 (pre-referendum), or 2018 (pre-Covid, pre-Brexit) to date we can see the UK has out-performed, not under-performed, the rest of Europe and our peers.
It ought to be.
So they should be more accurate on high turnouts than low
I suspect the issue is that the person dealing with paperwork / has power of attorney lives a distance away and missed all the paperwork (not surprising given she appears to have been in hospital a lot).
On the sovereignty question, I'd note that a country which has sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives fighting to maintain its independence is still dead set on joining the EU.
Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but considering the circumstances and the fact that the licence had been surrendered and she did reply to them with that quote (I am assuming, since it was given in quotation marks), then handling that by enabling the SORN rather than wasting the court's time because Process was not followed might have served justice better.
The process state does a lot of wickeder things than giving absolute discharges to little old ladies when they have broken the law and their family hasn't come to the rescue.
I imagine the bulk prosecution system gives no attention at all to the public interest when deciding to proceed, it will all be 'Computer says yes'.
That rules out Reform, the Greens and the Fruit and Nuts for me. Will have to one of the 3 traditional parties but not sure which at this stage. Probably a tactical vote I expect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIc3JD2NN9g
FWIW I think it won't be for a couple of years yet that one can start to make rational projections about a 2029 election. Though carrying on making irrational ones will remain a top. entertainment
The courts have a ridiculous backlog and we are wasting court time with this kind of petty crap.
Maybe instead of abolishing trial by jury, we could stop to think from time to time whether every pettifogging Process breach needs to go before a court?
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm, their lawyers were so preoccupied by whether or not they could [prosecute], they didn't stop to think if they should.
Lunchtime anyway, I am told, so have fun everyone.
Once there was the uninsured and untaxed vehicle which was 'essential' to him getting around. This was an ex-army lorry which he parked beside his house (despite having a drive) which repeatedly blocked the access to the close of houses behind him,
Then there was the 'untidy site' 'witchhunt'. That was when he had moved the lorry to his drive. And it caught fire. And destroyed his neighbour's car.
Then there was the next untidy site. That was when he turned his back garden into a timber store. Twelve foot or taller baulks of timber - stored vertically, leaning over into the neighbour's garden.
Then he roofed his entire back garden over without planning permission and used it as a workshop from which loud noise and awful noise was emitted at all times of day or night - he was metalworking and paintspraying.
That one took years. And was finally brought to a conclusion when on one visit from the enforcement officers they found he was storing gas cylinders in the 'shed' - they estimated that if there had been explosion it would have taken out th entire terrace of four houses.
And every story - from the same journalists, who knew the whole backstory - was about how the council was making him suffer.
I often think of this when I read reports of a resident having 'unreasonable' action being taken against them by a local authority.
That suspicion will be that her relatives were previously named drivers on the policy and have continued to have access to the car. It's important that the police keep an eye on stuff like this IMO.
The YouGov effect is that they have records going back decades, and have a fairly shrewd idea of who actually voted in previous elections. As a result, they can take responses from habitual non-voters with a pinch of salt.
The FON effect is that they get panellists to self-report how likely they are to vote next time.
There are a lot of people saying Reform, definitely, who don't normally vote. FON is taking that at face value, whereas other pollsters aren't;
This relationship is caused by the unique profile of Reform voters. From our polling, their voters are the most likely of any party to say that they will “definitely vote” at the next election. Inversely, Labour voters are significantly less likely to say that they will vote.
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/how-pollsters-may-be-understating-the-reform-vote/
Who is right? Who knows? There are a group of voters who are inspired by Reform for the first time ever. But it's not easy to tell how big that group is and what they will actually do. Similarly, who knows how many fed-up Labour supporters will drag themselves off the sofa because everyone else is worse?
Faites vos jeux, messeiurs.
MAGA’s mission to meddle in European politics should terrify Starmer, Macron and Merz. Will any of them fight back?
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-european-elections/
For a betting website, the more important metric is what the rest of the population think.
From the article, it has just been standing on her drive not caught on the road. So it seems to be a strange offence. AFAICS no real offence affecting other people has been committed. It's purely an administrative matter.
To me it's like the "you did not SORN so a computo-penalty for you" (but worse) ones of which there were around a million around 2007-2010 when it came in, and 100s of k of them had to be withdrawn.
The Minister is considering reform; it will be an easy "treat people like humans" micro-win for Labour if they change the process.
It was four losses in five, the third test was a draw.