Sir Keir Starmer has said he will seek a "much better" Brexit deal with the EU if Labour wins the next general election.
I mean, he can seek it, but I don't see any reason for the EU to accept any changes on their end.
The EU would be happy if the UK signed something like Norway and Switzerland have. Of course that's pretty much what the UK had before Brexit but without the right to vote on the rules, but that's the UK's problem.
Even worse: I see no reason for the EU to even think about starting a re-negotiation. It makes no sense for them.
Why is Labour not even presenting the option to rejoin? As a foreigner, it just sounds like they’re taking a Conservative-lite position, “We’re for the same things they’re for, but we’ll do them better!” Or is rejoining the EU just political suicide at the moment, what’s done is done?
it just sounds like they’re taking a Conservative-lite position,
Nail on head. Labour care more about courting shy Tories than they do about the left wing electorate. I understand statistically why they have to do that but it doesn't make it suck any less to be a fan of left wing politics in the UK and have your two choices be Tory or Tory-lite.
Why is Labour not even presenting the option to rejoin?
I'm a remainer, I marched. The answer is that to do so, would be to present the Tories with the one slim chance they have of winning.I might not like it, you migt not like it, but it's true.
Yep, the vast majority of press in the UK are unequivocally still for Brexit for various reasons, and pro Tory. Starmer is playing the "give them nothing to get hold of" game.
Doubt it will work when they managed to turn eating a bacon sarnie into a drama, they'll make something up.
Because the Tories have upset everyone internationally, so it isn't really an option. If you've been paying attention the EU has been playing a bunch of jobsworth type games with the UK.
Notice how he will do this in 2025, when the current agreement is up for renewel rather than immediately.
You also have the fact rejoin isn't winding the clock back to 2016, firstly we would loose all of our opt outs, things like the rebate, the euro, etc.. I don't think the reality would actually be popular.
Secondly the UK blocked a number of things like the EU Army (personally I think its a terrible idea, countries that don't spend enough looking to combine to "save" money) so it isn't the same EU.
Lastly see above mentioned jobsworth behaviour, I would not be surprised if the EU demanded the UK to complete all the paperwork of a new joiner and drag the process out as long as possible (it takes ~10 years for most countries).
Far better to put the UK on a stable footing and then ask if EU membership is something the UK still wants. It took the 13 years to get to this point, so its unlikely everything will be fixed during the next government. So why bring something like rejoining up?
The UK joining the Common Market was a Thatcher thing. Old school lefties opposed it at the time because it put limits on state aid, and weakened the positions of the unions.
What Labour supporters in the South and guardian readers don't like to admit it's that theres are Labour voters in the North that voted passionately for Brexit. Not going full send on Brexit gifts the Tories a majority in any election as Corbyn proved whilst he was beaten by a literal children's entertainer Boris Johnson.
Starmer wants to win the next election, and so he should. But he can't afford to even be seen as trying to rejoin. Because Labour voters in the (predominately) North will vote Tory again. If he wants to win... and win big.... he's calculated that he needs to appeal to Tony Blair loving Labour voters in the South and Brexitier Labour voters in the North.
Or is rejoining the EU just political suicide at the moment
Yeah pretty much. Plus no-one is going to vote Lib Dems that might offer a rejoin choice because we're to upset at them about tuition fees apparently 🤷.
Fuck you Keir. Fuckin grow a set. Support the workers. Rejoin the EU full-throatedly. Expose the shitstains that organised and made money from Brexit.
Rejoin the EU full-throatedly.
He has to - you know, get elected first.
He has to come out with some strong policies and I would argue that being totally and brutally pro-Europe is the way to go. No wishy-washy nonsense.
Sure, if you want to make sure the Red Wall constituents the party lost last time never return
Rejoin the EU full-throatedly.
🤣 never heard that before. Are you suggesting he gets down on his knees and.... gags for our membership back?
No I mean ROARING for all the Brexiteers to STFU and do all he can to rejoin.
Gosh, but Jeremy Corbyn said the EU were the bad guys and we should leave asap to improve things for British workers.
And take a huge risk of not winning the General Election.
Wow, Starmer actually managed to decide on a manifesto pledge? I was starting to think that indecisive git was incapable of actually standing behind a statement. At this rate, we might know where Labour stand on a whole three issues by the time the general election is called.
Don't hold your breath. He didn't actually say anything about his rewrite other than "better".
AAAAAaaaaaaAAAaaaaaaaaargh
- Greetings from Germany
Vehement agreement from the UK
Are these the people that promised to have a better deal or leave then proceed to leave because the EU laughed them out of the room?
Nah, that was the blue team - this is the red team 😅
Nah, this is a little less blue team. The guy who won't support striking workers is not a red.
Pragmatism ≠ sellout.
Papa Smurf never compromised on his ideals, and never got anywhere near the position to put them into practice. Blair delivered a lot for the working class from the back seat of a limo.
He also allowed the overton window to move to the point the left no longer exists.
One of the things companies like Cambridge Analytica do, is target voters unlikely to change who they vote for, and convince them to not bother voting at all by convincing them that 'both sides' are just as bad as each other.
Agreed. But that in no way changes the facts. I unlike many did not claim there is no difference. Only that the move to the right allowed the opposition to move even further to the right.
As I say. I am old enough to remember thatcher run for PM. (Was young). She had to present privatisation of national resources with care. Starting with one that allowed more competition with privatisation. IE the most logical. And still it was a fight for the party to make it seem practical.
But in corbyns time ( he was not perfect not claiming he was. Pointing out the change in attitude)
The idea of nationalising anything takes that same fight, and care. Society has spent 40+ years with no party arguing the value of left of center ideas. Just less right of center. So we are now faced with an overton window where voters consider anything left to be extream.
Of course it is also fair to say the post WW2 Labour Party moved the window drematically left. But it is hard to argue that society did not inproove for many from that move. (Of course I'm not that old so can only compare the history data generated post that move)
It is very hard to argue that most of society. And definatly younger parts of society. Have an improved life now it has returned towards the right. Only the top 10% or so gained from this move long term.
Corbyn hated the EU, and demanded Article 50 be invoked the day after the referendum. Let's not forget that.
https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
Blair delivered a lot for the working class from the back seat of a limo.
Papa Smurf? As in: entirely blue with a red hat?
https://jacobin.com/2021/04/tony-blair-working-class-new-labour-inequality
This article tells a slightly different story.
Does it? This article starts with several examples admitting that
Blair delivered a lot for the working class from the back seat of a limo.
Maybe read the whole article.
My assertion was that not everything Blair did was wrong. You posted a link saying this article disagrees, but the article literally starts with saying not everything Blair did was wrong.
And this is the next to last paragraph from the article:
In spite of the nigh-on dictatorial demeanor of Blair himself, perhaps the defining characteristic of Blairism in the final analysis is therefore just how extravagantly cowardly and work-shy it was when it came to changing the course of British social and political history. In this literal sense, as well as the more general one, Blairism hardly worked at all. It understood government largely in terms of short-term presentation, and saw money as a pure social good instead of a means of reorganizing society in ways that would last.
You can downvote all you want, it only shows you didn't read the whole article. I would argue lying to British public that Iraq has WMDs and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis pretty much outweighs anything good he has done. But whatever.
I did, I just wish a hadn't. I've read my fair share of this type of moral absolutist drivel in my time but I went through this one anyway despite the conclusion being clear from the get go.
What are you talking about? If he's reign as a PM was so successful for average people the massacres of 2010 and 2015 would not have happened. The guy was a neoliberal and a war criminal. My original point was Starmer is not a red, he's a slightly less blue than Tories. That's a fact. Labour party should support workers, he's supporting Blairism.
More cherry picking, this time red flavoured.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It remains unclear, however, if Brussels would be open to making major changes to the agreement, which was agreed by former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021.
Sir Keir has repeatedly said he would not seek to rejoin the EU if his party comes to power, promising to "make Brexit work".
His party has consistently held double-digit leads in the political opinion polls, with a general election expected to take place some time in 2024.
That's not a question of going back in, but I refuse to accept that we can't make it work," he said, adding that he was thinking about "future generations".
He also travelled to the Hague, the Netherlands, last week to meet with the EU's law enforcement agency Europol, seeking a deal to try and stop smuggling gangs bringing people across the channel in small boats.
That led to accusations by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman that his party was planning to let the UK become a "dumping ground" for 100,000 migrants from the continent each year, claims he said were "complete garbage".
The original article contains 440 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
That ship sailed years ago.
The TCA has a review clause in it for 2026, so it may have sailed but there is an opportunity to improve on it if it's a win win for both sides
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-might-the-review-of-the-trade-and-cooperation-agreement-actually-be-like/
Jesus Christ, has it been seven years?
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.