When will the UK rejoin the EU?

[sonyc 5,491]

Things have to come round in their own time. The public may begin to reassess Brexit after a certain period. You may be right YF in about 10 years. Perhaps when the heat has gone from the pan. It is still hot to the touch I believe.

And Starmer is not stupid.

That said, I would prefer much more of a pathway being illuminated - then, this may evolve because I haven't read his full speech and I would expect politicians to evolve their stance anyway to this question.

Starmer here is reiterating a previous position so he is being consistent. He is attempting to be more considered (safe?). Like a more 'middle of the road' Tory perhaps (has Blair being advising him?). He is trying to capture some of the middle and not alienate the areas suffering the deepest inequalities (e.g. north east) that were Brexit voting.

I'm unsure how a LD or green alignment might work (if at all) with the former being far more pro EU reintegration - in the months ahead. Starmer is trying to simply position his party as Labour only. To do otherwise after all would show great weakness.

Brexit has left huge division (and for me a sadness) and personally I've realised that there is something unpleasant underneath some people who I have been friends with for a long time - so it at least has shown me those personality traits I'd been unaware of - and I have been able to gradually distance myself from them. It's a strange 'plus'. Brexit has affected us all.

I'm not saying here either that every Brexit voter has inbuilt racist views because I believe some Brexiters voted not on grounds of being anti 'foreigners' ...but for some notion of sovereignty or dislike of the European Union or .....??? 

We need a time to heal and re-establish / reset - that includes on a personal level as well as national. I read Starmer's points on that personal angle too. I think people have little tolerance (enough maybe even for me to stop posting my thoughts on it).

People will see through the lies in time, the dishonesty will emerge. For those who feel sad you can either try and move on around it or rage on. I'm trying the former approach. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by sonyc

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

31 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Things have to come round in their own time. The public may begin to reassess Brexit after a certain period. You may be right YF in about 10 years. Perhaps when the heat has gone from the pan. It is still hot to the touch I believe.

And Starmer is not stupid.

That said, I would prefer much more of a pathway being illuminated - then, this may evolve because I haven't read his full speech and I would expect politicians to evolve their stance anyway to this question.

Starmer here is reiterating a previous position so he is being consistent. He is attempting to be more considered (safe?). Like a more 'middle of the road' Tory perhaps (has Blair being advising him?). He is trying to capture some of the middle and not alienate the areas suffering the deepest inequalities (e.g. north east) that were Brexit voting.

I'm unsure how a LD or green alignment might work (if at all) with the former being far more pro EU reintegration - in the months ahead. Starmer is trying to simply position his party as Labour only. To do otherwise after all would show great weakness.

Brexit has left huge division (and for me a sadness) and personally I've realised that there is something unpleasant underneath some people who I have been friends with for a long time - so it at least has shown me those personality traits I'd been unaware of - and I have been able to gradually distance myself from them. It's a strange 'plus'. Brexit has affected us all.

I'm not saying here either that every Brexit voter has inbuilt racist views because I believe some Brexiters voted not on grounds of being anti 'foreigners' ...but for some notion of sovereignty or dislike of the European Union or .....??? 

We need a time to heal and re-establish / reset - that includes on a personal level as well as national. I read Starmer's points on that personal angle too. I think people have little tolerance (enough maybe even for me to stop posting my thoughts on it).

People will see through the lies in time, the dishonesty will emerge. For those who feel sad you can either try and move on around it or rage on. I'm trying the former approach. 

Yes SC - our views are not far apart I just think SKS (or Davey even) doesn't need to paint himself into any corner for an election in a year or two at most. After all - the Tories are in desperation trying now to create so called 'wedge' issues for purely political point scoring - picking senseless fights with the EU or on Rwanda to try and define 'enemies'. Let them sink in their own squalor.

After the next election with hopefully a more thoughtful government of any persuasion, will be the time to start to formally reconsidering Brexit for the following election 4 or 5 years later. It will be a marathon journey not a sprint although the destination is beyond doubt. I wonder if the election after next will be via PR anyway?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

On the subject of the NI protocol, I happened to be working at a Catholic wedding from Northern Ireland at the weekend. I happened to get into conversation with a chap who's a civil servant in Northern Ireland, who actually raised the subject of Northern Irish politics with me and I got some very interesting perspectives from him. 

• The tensions are very real. One of the guests lives on a street which is 50/50 unionist/republican and she could not wear her school uniform on the walk through her street from the catholic school she attended. This is within the last 10 years. 
• Northern Ireland stuck with the UK because it was economically in its interests at the time overall. Northern Ireland's economy has deteriorated substantially since then. 
• Historically, a lot of the work was skilled work that didn't require high levels of education,which were dominated by protestant workforces who would keep the jobs among protestant families and therefore had much less emphasis on education than in catholic families, but as time has gone on and industrial work has dwindled, on the whole catholic communities have had better educations and are now doing better as a result, leaving unionists somewhat disenfranchised. 
• Regarding reunification, he didn't see this as a magic fix for Northern Ireland's problems. His view was that Northern Ireland gets significant amout of money injected into it from the UK and this is another factor why the republic isn't really super keen on reunification.
• He dismissed the importance of religion in the current debate, describing it as more an idea to rally around other than the obvious geopolitical divide. 
• Generally, he felt that both unionist and republican politicians were nakedly opportunistic and everyone gets frustrated at how both camps have been so quick to walk away from making a functioning power sharing agreement, although this may have been even more significant to him as a civil servant. 
• I don't actually recall him saying much at all about Brexit or the NI protocol specifically; I was reluctant to push the subject in the circumstances and it's possible he might have had some thoughts about it that he was being careful with sharing given that I'm English, but I was left with the impression that most people in Northern Ireland are far more interested in a pragmatic desire for keeping peace and stability in their day to day lives than any strong idealism either about the EU, UK, or republic. 
• He agreed with my suggestion that the UK negotiating with the EU and vice versa without Northern Irish politicians being directly engaged in the process was never going to result in anything workable. 

Obviously, it's one person's take on it, but I found it interesting as a raw vox pop that I don't often have access to. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is a perfectly valid and expected position for Labour at the next election - ' Make Brexit work' or don't scare the horses -  however I've always said give it ten years from a year or two ago.  Interestingly the discussion is already starting a little earlier than expected  as the reality of this 'hard' Brexit becomes more and more obvious each day.

Oddly - I suspect as per the 1970s it will actually be a 'reset' and renewed head screwed back on Tory party that will lead the argument for re-engagement with the EU - looking no doubt as in the 1970s enviously at the lower interest rates,  economic success and yes stability there.

Ought to add the next election will simply be all about getting shot of the corrupt/corrupting/sleaze ridden/lying/cheating and basically self-serving Johnson party. There is really no reason for SKS to give any hostages to fortune or divisive let alone confrontational polices.

Agree that it is both expected and valid for Labour to rule out any thought of a referendum in the next Parliament and it is also true that almost irrespective of what Starmer says or does it will be immeasurably better to have him in No10 than Johnson.

But having said that I must say that his determination 'not to scare the horses' at all costs (and in all areas of policy not just Brexit) is both frustrating and downright counterproductive (IMO).

As for Brexit, it is one thing to rule out re-joining but to also rule SM & CU limits his scope and ability to 'make Brexit work' dramatically - so he is setting himself up to fail there from the start.

His lack of any real alternative policies halfway through the parliament, and the general timidity of his statements on almost everything but particularly on all our public services are not just well short of what most Labour MPs want, they are well short of what most of the country want. He seems to have made the assumption that the Tories will continue to fall apart for the next two years and hand him the election on a plate as long as he keeps quiet and doesn't provide the Daily Fail with any ammo. That is the way it looks at the moment but I think it is a very foolish assumption if he is expecting it to continue unchanged for the next two years.

Finally, to explicitly rule out working with other opposition parties at the next election, which I believe he did last week, presumably because he believes that might scare a few horses is an act of mind-boggling stupidity (IMO) and one that could very possibly cost him the election.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

2 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Agree that it is both expected and valid for Labour to rule out any thought of a referendum in the next Parliament and it is also true that almost irrespective of what Starmer says or does it will be immeasurably better to have him in No10 than Johnson.

 

But having said that I must say that his determination 'not to scare the horses' at all costs (and in all areas of policy not just Brexit) is both frustrating and downright counterproductive (IMO).

 

As for Brexit, it is one thing to rule out re-joining but to also rule SM & CU limits his scope and ability to 'make Brexit work' dramatically - so he is setting himself up to fail there from the start.

 

His lack of any real alternative policies halfway through the parliament, and the general timidity of his statements on almost everything but particularly on all our public services are not just well short of what most Labour MPs want, they are well short of what most of the country want. He seems to have made the assumption that the Tories will continue to fall apart for the next two years and hand him the election on a plate as long as he keeps quiet and doesn't provide the Daily Fail with any ammo. That is the way it looks at the moment but I think it is a very foolish assumption if he is expecting it to continue unchanged for the next two years.

 

Finally, to explicitly rule out working with other opposition parties at the next election, which I believe he did last week, presumably because he believes that might scare a few horses is an act of mind-boggling stupidity (IMO) and one that could very possibly cost him the election.

 

 

Its simply strategy for NOW CM. He can always fill in the gaps later.

On Brexit (making it work) for instance - he could always accept CE marking as opposed to from 2023 UKCA marking. Save needless duplications. Accept the EU Vetinary regime and so on. We can easily align without needing to formally rejoin for now.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

22 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Agree that it is both expected and valid for Labour to rule out any thought of a referendum in the next Parliament and it is also true that almost irrespective of what Starmer says or does it will be immeasurably better to have him in No10 than Johnson.

But having said that I must say that his determination 'not to scare the horses' at all costs (and in all areas of policy not just Brexit) is both frustrating and downright counterproductive (IMO).

As for Brexit, it is one thing to rule out re-joining but to also rule SM & CU limits his scope and ability to 'make Brexit work' dramatically - so he is setting himself up to fail there from the start.

His lack of any real alternative policies halfway through the parliament, and the general timidity of his statements on almost everything but particularly on all our public services are not just well short of what most Labour MPs want, they are well short of what most of the country want. He seems to have made the assumption that the Tories will continue to fall apart for the next two years and hand him the election on a plate as long as he keeps quiet and doesn't provide the Daily Fail with any ammo. That is the way it looks at the moment but I think it is a very foolish assumption if he is expecting it to continue unchanged for the next two years.

Finally, to explicitly rule out working with other opposition parties at the next election, which I believe he did last week, presumably because he believes that might scare a few horses is an act of mind-boggling stupidity (IMO) and one that could very possibly cost him the election.

 

 

I think you're selling Starmer short. The only thing that offering policies at this point achieves is to give the Conservative party and journalists something to pick holes in; opposition policies are only of any value when a change of government is in the offing, at which point you publish a manifesto and make your case for it to the public. Sticking to the chief function of opposition to scrutinise government decision-making is far and away the best thing to do. 

Things are not going to get any better for the Conservatives in the next two years.This cost of living crisis is only going to get worse as the Ukraine war continues for a long time to come. Giving the Conservatives enough rope to hang themselves is working. If it stops working, that's the time to change tactics, but not before. 

Finally, ruling out working with other parties at an election is absolutely essential to keep his own party happy, as there's absolutely no way in hell the left fo the Labour party would tolerate cosying up to the Lib Dems. Also, I think it would be bad for the Lib Dems' prospects in Conservative seats to be seen to be cosying up to Labour. As such, quiet gentleman's agreements between constituency parties is far more conducive to repeating the successes of both Labour and the Lib Dems in recent by-elections. By and large, this is what Tony Blair did with the Lib Dems in 1997 on an agreement around electoral reform. Sadly, on that occasion Labour got a majority and electoral reform went by the wayside. Fortunately, the SNP's continued dominance in Scotland makes the chance of a Labour outright majority at the next election very slim, which makes the chances of a Lib Lab coalition that delivers electoral reform much better. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Van wink 2,994]

Awaiting Edd Davey's thoughts.

As for SKS, I'm not sure he even needed to mention Brexit atm,  its quite likely to lose him as much as it gains.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

14 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Its simply strategy for NOW CM. He can always fill in the gaps later.

On Brexit (making it work) for instance - he could always accept CE marking as opposed to from 2023 UKCA marking. Save needless duplications. Accept the EU Vetinary regime and so on. We can easily align without needing to formally rejoin for now.

Yes, indeed and on Brexit it may well be the right electoral strategy although I think what he can achieve without CU or SM is very much at the margins and won't materially improve Johnson's awful deal.

But his general timidity, his lack of policies and his failure to grasp even with a potential anti-Tory vote of maybe 60-70% still isn't enough in a FPTP system when it is spread across 5 parties competing against each other as well as the Tories, makes his strategy a flawed one IMO.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Finally, ruling out working with other parties at an election is absolutely essential to keep his own party happy, as there's absolutely no way in hell the left fo the Labour party would tolerate cosying up to the Lib Dems. Also, I think it would be bad for the Lib Dems' prospects in Conservative seats to be seen to be cosying up to Labour. As such, quiet gentleman's agreements between constituency parties is far more conducive to repeating the successes of both Labour and the Lib Dems in recent by-elections. By and large, this is what Tony Blair did with the Lib Dems in 1997 on an agreement around electoral reform. Sadly, on that occasion Labour got a majority and electoral reform went by the wayside. Fortunately, the SNP's continued dominance in Scotland makes the chance of a Labour outright majority at the next election very slim, which makes the chances of a Lib Lab coalition that delivers electoral reform much better. 

There is undoubtedly some truth in that but whilst informal agreements seem to have worked well in a handful of by-elections I can't see any way that it work nationwide in a general election especially in seats, of which there a quite a few, which are genuinely three way contests with the Tories, Lib Dems, & Labour all potential winners. Those seats are an easy win for a single opposition candidate but I can't imagine either Labour or Lib Dems standing down in a seat they have a real chance of winning unless there is an reciprocal agreement which works for both of them. I would also suggest that without a deal that the SNP, Plaid and Greens all are quite capable of taking a few seats off Labour, not many granted but even a few would be very painful and make Labour's chances of achieving a majority even slimmer than they are already.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

31 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

There is undoubtedly some truth in that but whilst informal agreements seem to have worked well in a handful of by-elections I can't see any way that it work nationwide in a general election especially in seats, of which there a quite a few, which are genuinely three way contests with the Tories, Lib Dems, & Labour all potential winners. Those seats are an easy win for a single opposition candidate but I can't imagine either Labour or Lib Dems standing down in a seat they have a real chance of winning unless there is an reciprocal agreement which works for both of them. I would also suggest that without a deal that the SNP, Plaid and Greens all are quite capable of taking a few seats off Labour, not many granted but even a few would be very painful and make Labour's chances of achieving a majority even slimmer than they are already.

If you want to see an example of it actually happening, then you only have to look at 1997, where there was huge amounts of tactical voting between Labour and Lib Dem voters; the end of Labour voters supporting the Lib Dems tactically in 2015 as a result of coalition was the single biggest factor in bringing the Lib Dems down from around 50 seats to around 10 in 2015. As a direct consequence of that, the Lib Dems had to move to actively discouraging tactical voting for Labour among their supporters in a bid to keep vote share high enough to remain remotely credible. 

https://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1316.pdf

TL; DR re 1997: both Labour and the Lib Dems backed off in many constituencies where they thought campaigning would hurt the chances of unseating the Cosnervative incumbent.

This was in marked contrast to 2015, 2017, and 2019 where Labour constituency parties were furiously attacking Conservative seats where the Lib Dems were the main contenders; under Corbyn in both 2017 and 2019, Labour even ran paid ad campaigns targetting Lib Dem related keywords  directing to a minisite attacking the Lib Dem record in coalition. For their part, online Lib Dem activists were actively running searches for these and clicking them to run down Labour's google ad budget for these. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

48 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

There is undoubtedly some truth in that but whilst informal agreements seem to have worked well in a handful of by-elections I can't see any way that it work nationwide in a general election especially in seats, of which there a quite a few, which are genuinely three way contests with the Tories, Lib Dems, & Labour all potential winners. Those seats are an easy win for a single opposition candidate but I can't imagine either Labour or Lib Dems standing down in a seat they have a real chance of winning unless there is an reciprocal agreement which works for both of them. I would also suggest that without a deal that the SNP, Plaid and Greens all are quite capable of taking a few seats off Labour, not many granted but even a few would be very painful and make Labour's chances of achieving a majority even slimmer than they are already.

I think the policy is right for now - the Brexit 'pot' is slowly coming to the boil all of it's own accord (just listen to the 1pm news on R4 now) as the reality of (hard) Brexit strikes home for the economically involved. All SKS is doing is to make there are no 'wedge' issues that the desperate Tories and their right wing papers can exploit as the argument for realignment with EU (whatever that may mean in due course) happily makes itself more and more obvious and unanswerable by the Brexiteers. He is just going with the consensus for now.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Awaiting Edd Davey's thoughts.

As for SKS, I'm not sure he even needed to mention Brexit atm,  its quite likely to lose him as much as it gains.

I am sure he had to talk about it. The common complaint is that while voters are being put off the Tories they still don't know what Labour stands for. The 5-point plan is quite detailed, and probably the best he could do, given that actually backing any move that smacks of overturning Brexit is out of the question for now.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think the policy is right for now - the Brexit 'pot' is slowly coming to the boil all of it's own accord (just listen to the 1pm news on R4 now) as the reality of (hard) Brexit strikes home for the economically involved. All SKS is doing is to make there are no 'wedge' issues that the desperate Tories and their right wing papers can exploit as the argument for realignment with EU (whatever that may mean in due course) happily makes itself more and more obvious and unanswerable by the Brexiteers. He is just going with the consensus for now.

Fair enough, and maybe it is right for now, i.e. whilst Johnson remains in post but how long is that going to be?

TBH I'm surprised he has managed to hang on this long - the Tories are normally pretty ruthless when it comes to replacing leaders who have become liabilities and I don't think that there can be any doubt whatsoever that Johnson is now a big electoral liability with no realistic chance of turning that perception around.

Its also true that the Tories don't have much of a talent pool from which to draw a replacement but assuming that the Tories give Johnson the bullet he so richly deserves sometime in the next 6 - 12 months and we get a replacement, let's say for the sake of argument Jeremy Hunt, who manages to appear as though he takes the job/his responsibilities seriously, look semi-competent and appoints a Cabinet which actually includes what little talent there is in the current Tory parliamentary party.

If all the above did happen then SKS would need to up his game dramatically and at the moment I'm certainly not convinced that he is capable of that, which is why I'd feel a lot happier if he started to get in a bit of practice when he only has the idiot Johnson to worry about rather than waiting until he is forced to attempt it by someone more competent.

[sonyc 5,491]

3 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Yes, indeed and on Brexit it may well be the right electoral strategy although I think what he can achieve without CU or SM is very much at the margins and won't materially improve Johnson's awful deal.

But his general timidity, his lack of policies and his failure to grasp even with a potential anti-Tory vote of maybe 60-70% still isn't enough in a FPTP system when it is spread across 5 parties competing against each other as well as the Tories, makes his strategy a flawed one IMO.

Agree with this CM. Labour policy appears very safe. But also rather 'beige' and also I would far prefer to see a bolder approach on Europe.

Yet like YF says (and I also agree with his points) I can sort of see the strategy.  Where would I park myself? Probably still closer to the Greens and LD on Europe. Then,  I never voted for Blair in the 90s as his economic policies harked back to Thatcher still (and I hated her tenure). That said, many other reforms he led were in the right direction. 

I still want to see support for a change in FPTP.  I want to see more progressive policies and not just a version of a form of the Conservative party. Doubt I will ever see it. But maybe my children will.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

I think the main thing people are missing in all of this is that we are currently in limbo and and are assuming we will continue to be so; they think that the single market (on the big assumption that we wouldn't have to give huge concessions to the EU for them to countenance it) wouldn't be that complicated to rejoin.

That said, we will be a member of another trade organisation within a year and significant chunks of UK law has been changed to match the requirements of that group that makes it incompatible with the single market, thus the UK would have to make the decision of leaving CPTPP and tearing up new relationships in the Pacific region to do it. By the time this becomes a question, business will have adjusted to the new landscape and will probably have started making headway building in those markets. 

That's why I can see something happening in the future that leans towards freedom to live and work between the UK and the EU, but not reentering the customs union or single market. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

32 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Fair enough, and maybe it is right for now, i.e. whilst Johnson remains in post but how long is that going to be?

TBH I'm surprised he has managed to hang on this long - the Tories are normally pretty ruthless when it comes to replacing leaders who have become liabilities and I don't think that there can be any doubt whatsoever that Johnson is now a big electoral liability with no realistic chance of turning that perception around.

Its also true that the Tories don't have much of a talent pool from which to draw a replacement but assuming that the Tories give Johnson the bullet he so richly deserves sometime in the next 6 - 12 months and we get a replacement, let's say for the sake of argument Jeremy Hunt, who manages to appear as though he takes the job/his responsibilities seriously, look semi-competent and appoints a Cabinet which actually includes what little talent there is in the current Tory parliamentary party.

If all the above did happen then SKS would need to up his game dramatically and at the moment I'm certainly not convinced that he is capable of that, which is why I'd feel a lot happier if he started to get in a bit of practice when he only has the idiot Johnson to worry about rather than waiting until he is forced to attempt it by someone more competent.

Think of it as the 'Swiss' model for now 😉

.

[Herman 9,713]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think the policy is right for now - the Brexit 'pot' is slowly coming to the boil all of it's own accord (just listen to the 1pm news on R4 now) as the reality of (hard) Brexit strikes home for the economically involved. All SKS is doing is to make there are no 'wedge' issues that the desperate Tories and their right wing papers can exploit as the argument for realignment with EU (whatever that may mean in due course) happily makes itself more and more obvious and unanswerable by the Brexiteers. He is just going with the consensus for now.

The following post was put out by the tories a couple of hours ago and it highlights what you are saying. They are desperate to keep the brexit split going so, and although I'm not overly keen an Starmer's words and actions, I can fully understand them.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1543952149767413760

(I won't post it fully, but the link is there if you want to have a look.)

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

The following post was put out by the tories a couple of hours ago and it highlights what you are saying. They are desperate to keep the brexit split going so, and although I'm not overly keen an Starmer's words and actions, I can fully understand them.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1543952149767413760

(I won't post it fully, but the link is there if you want to have a look.)

I think the other thing you have to factor in is Labour needs to reclaim those particularly Brexity so called red wall seats so SKS is doubly cautious here. The Libdems will fry the Tories in the south anyway.

Its all about a strategy for winning in the short 1 to 2 year time frame. Further options may well be acceptable by then anyway.

[ricardo 7,345]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's why I can see something happening in the future that leans towards freedom to live and work between the UK and the EU, but not reentering the customs union or single market. 

The most likely eventual outcome.

Those waiting to rejoin the C.U. or S.M. shouldn't hold their breath.

[Herman 9,713]

53 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The most likely eventual outcome.

Those waiting to rejoin the C.U. or S.M. shouldn't hold their breath.

I think the sensible people of the country know it to be a good idea but at the moment we are not a sensibly run country. It's going to take a while before we can turn this lumbering ship around. 

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

The most likely eventual outcome.

Those waiting to rejoin the C.U. or S.M. shouldn't hold their breath.

Maybe something like the TM deal that was voted down 😁

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

I think the sensible people of the country know it to be a good idea but at the moment we are not a sensibly run country. It's going to take a while before we can turn this lumbering ship around. 

And where will the EU be by then? As the world tries to break Russian determination to conquer Ukraine via sanctions, Scholz is undermining Lithuania's restrictions on sanctioned goods between Russia and Kaliningrad. Utterly spineless.

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-urges-free-transit-for-russian-goods-to-kaliningrad/

I've said it before, but the EU seems to be great at unity and solidarity against the UK re the trade agreement, but pretty useless on any other subject.

Edited July 4, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,713]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And where will the EU be by then? As the world tries to break Russian determination to conquer Ukraine via sanctions, Scholz is undermining Lithuania's restrictions on sanctioned goods between Russia and Kaliningrad. Utterly spineless.

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-urges-free-transit-for-russian-goods-to-kaliningrad/

I've said it before, but the EU seems to be great at unity and solidarity against the UK re the trade agreement, but pretty useless on any other subject.

What is the problem with that? Seems like they are trying to sort something out with sensible dialogue.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

59 minutes ago, Herman said:

What is the problem with that? Seems like they are trying to sort something out with sensible dialogue.

The problem is that the point of sanctions is to make life as uncomfortable for Russia as possible while it's continuining an illegal invasion where it targets civilians as a matter of course. Lithuania took a lead by stopping transit of goods across its territory. The EU commission agreed that this was a reasonable interpretation. Germany's now looking at undermining that and allowing Russia to transit goods through Lithuania like it was joined to Kaliningrad while Russia starves Africa by stealing Ukrainian grain, presumably with more than half an eye on Germany's energy situation. Like I said: Spineless. It's not 'dialogue', it's just more appeasement.

Edited July 4, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,713]

It's not the EU then is it. It's the Germans, a sovereign state, that is causing the problem. You brexiters always forget that individual states have their own agendas and ways of working. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

17 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am sure he had to talk about it. The common complaint is that while voters are being put off the Tories they still don't know what Labour stands for. The 5-point plan is quite detailed, and probably the best he could do, given that actually backing any move that smacks of overturning Brexit is out of the question for now.

What will happen, if there is some non-Tory government after the next election, and probably after the election after that, is what in the Vietnam War was called mission creep, but in a good way.

So the start-point will be the kind of non-threatening baby steps Starmer has outlined, followed by incremental moves back towards towards the economic sanity of a customs' union and eventually the single market.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

28 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

What will happen, if there is some non-Tory government after the next election, and probably after the election after that, is what in the Vietnam War was called mission creep, but in a good way.

So the start-point will be the kind of non-threatening baby steps Starmer has outlined, followed by incremental moves back towards towards the economic sanity of a customs' union and eventually the single market.

Exactly this Purple. One step at a time.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

What will happen, if there is some non-Tory government after the next election, and probably after the election after that, is what in the Vietnam War was called mission creep, but in a good way.

So the start-point will be the kind of non-threatening baby steps Starmer has outlined, followed by incremental moves back towards towards the economic sanity of a customs' union and eventually the single market.

I really hope you are right, and you may well be.

But I'm afraid that whilst I regard Starmer as very bright and essentially a decent bloke, I still also find him massively unconvincing as a leader and I also wonder how prevalent that impression is within the Labour Party.

Although I'm not a Labour supporter (or voter unless he changes his stance on a progressive alliance)  I do hope he becomes the next PM, but only because the alternative is so much worse 😄

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

What will happen, if there is some non-Tory government after the next election, and probably after the election after that, is what in the Vietnam War was called mission creep, but in a good way.

So the start-point will be the kind of non-threatening baby steps Starmer has outlined, followed by incremental moves back towards towards the economic sanity of a customs' union and eventually the single market.

I'm not sure I trust SKS to do that. Even if he was Labour's Brexit minister.

[ricardo 7,345]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Exactly this Purple. One step at a time.

Continued wishful thinking. CU and SM membership won't  happen in any conceivable time frame.