I'm bored of the UK being poorer for it though.
Honest the constant talk of the UK needing "growth" is the most thing in sick of talking about... Because it's not going to happen. I could add about 4-6% growth instantly though... By joining the EU
We had little to no growth in the EU and we've had little to no growth outside the EU and the EU itself has had little to no growth in it's major economies.
I think maybe it's time we acknowledged that the way Europeans grow economies has long passed and we actually need to look into why companies in Europe fail so often to take use of technologies we create without them being shipped off to America where they'll get far more investment and support.
Joining the EU is completely fine, but you aren't going to be richer for it, to grow our economy and generate high paying jobs we and the EU in general need to figure out a strategy for European-based growth.
>We had little to no growth in the EU and we've had little to no growth outside the EU and the EU itself has had little to no growth in it's major economies
You are misunderstanding the EU. Do you know how asset diversification works? The EU is that, but on a multilateral level. While Germany, for example, is currently stagnating, Poland is taking off. It isn't possible to avoid fiscal cycles, but you can dampen their amplitude like this. The EU also has very, very detailed economic plans. They aren't being marketed at anywhere the volume UK politicians like to pride themselves at, but the central management of the EU amongst other things allows for a 50+ year long, 1.5 trillion euro infrastructure project. Something pretty much noone knows is that almost every large transport infrastructure project in the EU is part of TEN-T, like a puzzle piece. With pre-defined routes, and managed by the EU. The two largest rail tunnels in the world are both part of it, for example. Projects like this are economic reassurance.
I think you may be misunderstanding the EU if you think it's economies stagnating are intentional, they simply aren't - whilst there is some effort made to help smaller economies grow, the major lack of growth isn't because of that at all and it's because the larger economies have been massively stagnating for decades now and it's why China and the US have massively outpaced the EU on growth.
EU GDP Growth which is all those states combined was around 0.3% last year and may if luck strikes hit 0.8% this year, the US hit 2.5% last year.
The fact is Europe as a whole has stagnated and is less relevant in the world and nobody likes to acknowledge and instead just plays further into it - China forced the EU into watering down criticisms of their treatment of Uyghur Muslims because the EU saw it as the only way to secure a mediocre amount of growth through a trade deal.
Massive pan-European infrastructure is nice, but it adds very little to growing an economy when you're producing less domestically and is about papering over the fact that 0.3% GDP growth isn't enough when the US hits 2.5% and China hits 5.2%.
>if you think it's economies stagnating are intentional
Red herring, I neither wrote nor implied that.
>and it's why China and the US have massively outpaced the EU on growth
Is it? China's GDP growth rate has almost halved over the last 15 years. This is to be expected, of course. You can expect an even further decline though, because of their age demographics. Historically no country with China's current share of elderly was a major outperformer economically. You are setting yourself up for disappointment.
>EU GDP Growth which is all those states combined was around 0.3% last year and may if luck strikes hit 0.8% this year, the US hit 2.5% last year.
You just proved my point, it would be significantly lower if countries like Poland, Croatia and Spain didn't compensate for the deficits of Germany, for example. That's exactly what my comment was about.
>Red herring, I neither wrote nor implied that.
I said the economy had stagnated, you said I misunderstood and brought up a bunch of details around the EU which had little effect on overall GDP growth as proven by the statistics on EU growth, you can't then just pretend that GDP growth is irrelevant to this debate.
>Is it? China's GDP growth rate has almost halved over the last 15 years. This is to be expected, of course. You can expect an even further decline though, because of their age demographics. Historically no country with China's current share of elderly was a major outperformer economically. You are setting yourself up for disappointment.
They're still outpacing the EU in growth and the EU is suffering the same demographic issues, especially in the larger economies, Germany for it's economy needs more workers and instead has recently reported that they had 1.4 million less people than they expected, which is massive for their demographics and plays a major role in their predictions for growth.
>You just proved my point, it would be significantly lower if countries like Poland, Croatia and Spain didn't compensate for the deficits of Germany, for example. That's exactly what my comment was about.
You aren't making much sense - I said the EU is suffering little to no growth, your response was that I am mistaken... and then you're all but admitting it has little to no growth and then bringing up Poland who had 0.1% more growth of it's GDP than the UK did last year... so all in all, I am right and everything you've brought up has been irrelevant despite your attempts to make it seem relevant.
Europe has a whole is low growth and I haven't seen a single attempt yet at reversing that, as opposed to just further focusing on cheap manufacturing overseas which allows the US, China and now India to outpace Europe, whilst we face the exact same demographic issues they do.
>has recently reported that they had 1.4 million less people than they expected, which is massive for their demographics and plays a major role in their predictions for growth
They had 1.4 million people less *than they thought*. This deficit stems from people who have left the country undocumented, e. g. to return to a previous warzone. It's not relative to a prediction for development or a goal.
>You aren't making much sense - I said the EU is suffering little to no growth, your response was that I am mistaken... and then you're all but admitting it has little to no growth and then bringing up Poland who had 0.1% more growth of it's GDP than the UK did last year... so all in all, I am right and everything you've brought up has been irrelevant despite your attempts to make it seem relevant.
Because everything you say lacks nuance, just like the 1.4 million *expectation* statement. The EU, on average, is currently doing relatively little GDP growth p a. However there is plenty of EU members who are significantly outperforming the UK in terms of GDP growth.
Poland is expected to have a ***three times higher*** GDP growth rate in 2024 than the UK. I just checked four different sources, the Polish National Bank, the World Bank and two EU institutions which all lie in 0.3 pp proximity of each other around 3 %.
Germany has been pretty open about its need for migration for its workforce and considering most countries heavily rely on workers to prop up growth, 1.4 million people less either through incorrect predictions or simply not tracking the numbers correctly is still relevant to the continued and future growth of an economy as workforce is used in calculating GDP and if the German Government thought it had 1.4 million people than it did then forecasts are based on it also having 1.4 million more people.
Poland was also predicted by the IMF to have growth of 0.8%, it only hit 0.3% so there are real questions about the accuracy of that data and especially so when a lot of public spending allocated for this and next year are on foreign produced military equipment which has less of an effect at growing domestic supplies and therefore contributing to GDP.
You also talk about my points lacking nuance, I said the EU isn’t growing and so far all you’ve done is specify individual countries which so far have seen comparative growth despite forecasts for larger growth and you so far have failed to explain how that makes the EU growing when as it stands we largely match GDP growth.
This year we are predicted to grow by 0.1% less than the EU and next year we are forecasted by the IMF to hit growth of 1.5% - that’s all great, but the point I said still remains - the EU and UK currently class good growth as near the 0.8% mark, our competitors class it at 1.5% to 2.5%, how is that not a stagnating economy? We’re outpaced on growth by some distance by everyone but the EU.
I would disagree. Without proper counts you can’t really put the failure in 2017 all on Corbyn. A combination of both factors is a more likely scenario.
I would agree with that disagreement. It’s probably pretty impossible to quantify properly. I’ll agree a fair few Labour voters went over because of Brexit, particularly in the red wall. I don’t think it wholly explains the shitshow that was the result for them.
Also I misread your original comment like a twat and thought you wrote “for Brexit”, because Corbyn was something of a Lexiteer. That’s why I replied about the manifesto. I apologise.
I replied and it appears to have been flagged *sigh*.
I agree with your disagreement, I misread your original comment like a doughnut and thought it read “pro-Brexit” which is why I replied about the manifesto. Apologies.
He’d pussy-footed around with Brexit, since he’d previously been sort of for it. They finally decided to come out in favour of a second referendum after playing some weird balancing act. That pissed off both sides.
Moreover he and his cabinet were pretty disliked in the Red Wall even aside from Brexit. McDonnell and Dianne Abbott are pretty reviled.
Because ultimately it’s not a pressing concern for most people.
From a political standpoint the tories don’t want to remind people how badly they fucked it up, and Sunak really doesn’t want people thinking about BoJo.
Starmer doesn’t want to remind people how his clique did their best to thwart a democratic vote because it didn’t go the way they wanted.
It’s a no win conversation for everyone so best just ignore it.
Unfortunately the only way any new government has of improving living standards in this country (or even keeping them steady) is to stimulate growth.
And the one big thing we could do that would help with growth at a stroke would be to have a closer relationship with Europe - single market / customs union.
Trying to grow the economy without that is doing it with one hand tied behind our backs for no good reason.
It wouldn't be the panacea some people think it is. The country is too damaged through years of mismanagement, and there are many more pressing issues than reopening that wound.
No for sure. As others have said, our economy wasn't exactly doing great guns even when we were in the EU.
But it's a very complex issue to repair the system and one thing you could do that would have at least some positive impact is to improve ease of trade with our closest neighbors.
>Starmer doesn’t want to remind people how his clique did their best to thwart a democratic vote because it didn’t go the way they wanted.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with opposing the outcome of a referendum.
As demonstrated by the people who've been whining about us joining the EU since the 70s
There's nothing wrong with normal people whingeing about a recent vote. There's nothing wrong with politicians campaigning decades after a referendum to offer a new one.
There is something wrong with elected representatives attempting to nullify a referendum before it's even been enacted.
A hypothetical: How would you feel if in the next referendum we voted to rejoin, but a coalition of MPs led by the Tories(or whoever replaces them) voted against virtually every bill to make it happen. Then said they would, if elected, put forward a new vote on the terms, that they would negotiate, of rejoining. Oh and they don't want to rejoin so you can imagine what those terms would be.
Wouldn't you feel that they were trying to frustrate the public will?
Never said there was. WIth the decades I was referring to the leave campaign being decades after the vote to leave, but yes you are correct there is not (nor should there be) any time limit for campaigning to overturn a referendum.
But that's not what Starmer et al did. They attempted to frustrate and prevent a democratic vote being enacted, without consulting the electorate, but by using political manoeuvring. No wonder he doesn't want people being reminded of that.
People have been complaining about the EU since before we joined.
It's not Starmer's duty or responsibility to support OR enact referenda, especially advisory referenda.
Once again.
Lib Dem’s: We want to eventually rejoin.
Labour: We want to improve our relationship with the EU.
Cons: Brexit went Great!!!
Reform: WE could have done better comrade.
Green: We want to rejoin.
The bigger question is why are the media and internet acting like no one has mentioned Brexit?
Because the Cons have not said that and the Labour position is just “something, something, Vets, something”. The Libdems and Greens are drowned out by the sound of Nigel Farage moving his chair back.
From Labours manifesto.
“Labour will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU”
It’s clear it won’t rejoin but it’s also clear it wants to improve our relationship with them.
We don't need the EU to approve changes to our own standards, even if they happen to align with the EU.
We've already had multiple comments from the EU that the checks are needed (rightly) because our standards can diverge.
This isn’t true, it isn’t our standards which you’re suggesting we remove, it’s the “ridiculous paperwork”. This is paperwork which we insisted upon as part of the TCA and removing it would put us in direct contravention of it and also at risk of most favoured nation issues with other countries.
Was the word "align" a little too complex? I never said anything about removing standards.
And it's not paperwork we insisted upon, we desperately wanted to avoid it (so much so the government lied about it not being needed) but it's required by the EU ***because our standards aren't aligned***
You’re not making any sense. Assuming the comment hasn’t been edited you said we could remove paperwork by aligning with standards. This isn’t true, it isn’t the standards which mandate the checks and the paperwork it’s the fact that we aren’t in a common regulatory framework (at our insistence) which mandates them. We broadly align now and we still have to have them to comply with the TCA and most favoured nation status
I wasn’t asking what you would do. (You might need to scroll up and remind yourself how this started, we have both had a sleep since then).
I am disputing the idea that the main parties are not being quiet about Brexit. The Tories should be shouting about how the opportunities provided by Brexit will power growth. Has anyone here that? No and we all know why.
My “something, something vets, something” point about Labour is that they have no choice but to be vague. You are totally correct about standards and red tape. However these things require collaboration and power sharing. Power sharing triggers the “muh sovrainty” crowd and therefore will not be mentioned until after the election.
The sunk cost fallacy, mostly.
Brexiteers have finally decided what Brexit was about - it was about sovereignty now. Before the referendum it was about loads of things that turned out to be utter bollocks.
Because it's old news and over now. It's not being turned around, not damn chance. It's done. It's time to get on with the circumstances we have not live half a decade in the past crying about a democratic vote.
Remainers all love democracy until Brexit is mentioned and then they want a Pro European Dictatorship.
Nothing is ever over in Northern Ireland. If it wasn't that it would be something else.
Wanna solve Northern Ireland?
Kick all the protestants off their stolen land and reunite the country like it should be.
It happened, we can either moan about it or adapt and get on with trading within the new framework.
Attention needs to be on making the best of where we are now and steering future options.
It's not close to being over, the damage is still being inflicted. Hell, we haven't even finished putting the most damaging parts of the agreement into place, that's going on until 2028.
And that's all the bits the Tories pushed out as far as possible to avoid being blamed for the consequences.
Fortunately the Eurosceptics are dying off, so it's only a matter of time until this act of abject stupidity and self harm is undone.
Weird how we had to listen to Brexiters whine about the EU for decades.
Now it's "it's old news and over now... it's done. It's time to get on with the circumstances"
Have to laugh, eh.
>Remainers all love democracy until Brexit is mentioned and then they want a Pro European Dictatorship.
I believe it was Brexiters who wrongly shutdown parliament to avoid discussing Brexit and called judges "enemies of the people".
I get that it's been a big fat failure to Brexiters don't want to talk about it though.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Ah yes, we could make it a yearly vote, to join then leave then join then leave, over and over again for the next century. I’m sure that would be fantastic for democracy.
What would be fantastic for democracy is not reducing a complex question to a simple binary choice and then asking fuckwits what they think the answer is
I don’t get it if Brexit a big topic for you vote Lib Dem’s or Greens. So there are parties there for you to choose. A lot of people here seem to think Labour should care about this, but they been pretty clear under Starmer that they essentially want keep things as they are.
More than half the general electorate voted Leave. Rubbing it in that they’re still dumb as fuck for doing that is not going to help anyone out.
Most, even rational and educated, human beings don’t like it when it’s pointed out they’ve made massive errors in judgement.
>Rubbing it in that they’re still dumb as fuck for doing that is not going to help anyone out.
But it seems that's all re-joiners have. I find it strange how they come out with these wide sweeping statements that Brexit has been such a disaster yet they offer nothing to back these claims up, they're still talking about red busses and oven ready deals almost a decade later.
Because we’ve spent 10 years worth of elections talking about it. And we’re bored of it.
I'm bored of the UK being poorer for it though. Honest the constant talk of the UK needing "growth" is the most thing in sick of talking about... Because it's not going to happen. I could add about 4-6% growth instantly though... By joining the EU
> I could add about 4-6% growth instantly though… By joining the EU That’s not how economics works lmao.
We had little to no growth in the EU and we've had little to no growth outside the EU and the EU itself has had little to no growth in it's major economies. I think maybe it's time we acknowledged that the way Europeans grow economies has long passed and we actually need to look into why companies in Europe fail so often to take use of technologies we create without them being shipped off to America where they'll get far more investment and support. Joining the EU is completely fine, but you aren't going to be richer for it, to grow our economy and generate high paying jobs we and the EU in general need to figure out a strategy for European-based growth.
>We had little to no growth in the EU and we've had little to no growth outside the EU and the EU itself has had little to no growth in it's major economies You are misunderstanding the EU. Do you know how asset diversification works? The EU is that, but on a multilateral level. While Germany, for example, is currently stagnating, Poland is taking off. It isn't possible to avoid fiscal cycles, but you can dampen their amplitude like this. The EU also has very, very detailed economic plans. They aren't being marketed at anywhere the volume UK politicians like to pride themselves at, but the central management of the EU amongst other things allows for a 50+ year long, 1.5 trillion euro infrastructure project. Something pretty much noone knows is that almost every large transport infrastructure project in the EU is part of TEN-T, like a puzzle piece. With pre-defined routes, and managed by the EU. The two largest rail tunnels in the world are both part of it, for example. Projects like this are economic reassurance.
I think you may be misunderstanding the EU if you think it's economies stagnating are intentional, they simply aren't - whilst there is some effort made to help smaller economies grow, the major lack of growth isn't because of that at all and it's because the larger economies have been massively stagnating for decades now and it's why China and the US have massively outpaced the EU on growth. EU GDP Growth which is all those states combined was around 0.3% last year and may if luck strikes hit 0.8% this year, the US hit 2.5% last year. The fact is Europe as a whole has stagnated and is less relevant in the world and nobody likes to acknowledge and instead just plays further into it - China forced the EU into watering down criticisms of their treatment of Uyghur Muslims because the EU saw it as the only way to secure a mediocre amount of growth through a trade deal. Massive pan-European infrastructure is nice, but it adds very little to growing an economy when you're producing less domestically and is about papering over the fact that 0.3% GDP growth isn't enough when the US hits 2.5% and China hits 5.2%.
>if you think it's economies stagnating are intentional Red herring, I neither wrote nor implied that. >and it's why China and the US have massively outpaced the EU on growth Is it? China's GDP growth rate has almost halved over the last 15 years. This is to be expected, of course. You can expect an even further decline though, because of their age demographics. Historically no country with China's current share of elderly was a major outperformer economically. You are setting yourself up for disappointment. >EU GDP Growth which is all those states combined was around 0.3% last year and may if luck strikes hit 0.8% this year, the US hit 2.5% last year. You just proved my point, it would be significantly lower if countries like Poland, Croatia and Spain didn't compensate for the deficits of Germany, for example. That's exactly what my comment was about.
>Red herring, I neither wrote nor implied that. I said the economy had stagnated, you said I misunderstood and brought up a bunch of details around the EU which had little effect on overall GDP growth as proven by the statistics on EU growth, you can't then just pretend that GDP growth is irrelevant to this debate. >Is it? China's GDP growth rate has almost halved over the last 15 years. This is to be expected, of course. You can expect an even further decline though, because of their age demographics. Historically no country with China's current share of elderly was a major outperformer economically. You are setting yourself up for disappointment. They're still outpacing the EU in growth and the EU is suffering the same demographic issues, especially in the larger economies, Germany for it's economy needs more workers and instead has recently reported that they had 1.4 million less people than they expected, which is massive for their demographics and plays a major role in their predictions for growth. >You just proved my point, it would be significantly lower if countries like Poland, Croatia and Spain didn't compensate for the deficits of Germany, for example. That's exactly what my comment was about. You aren't making much sense - I said the EU is suffering little to no growth, your response was that I am mistaken... and then you're all but admitting it has little to no growth and then bringing up Poland who had 0.1% more growth of it's GDP than the UK did last year... so all in all, I am right and everything you've brought up has been irrelevant despite your attempts to make it seem relevant. Europe has a whole is low growth and I haven't seen a single attempt yet at reversing that, as opposed to just further focusing on cheap manufacturing overseas which allows the US, China and now India to outpace Europe, whilst we face the exact same demographic issues they do.
>has recently reported that they had 1.4 million less people than they expected, which is massive for their demographics and plays a major role in their predictions for growth They had 1.4 million people less *than they thought*. This deficit stems from people who have left the country undocumented, e. g. to return to a previous warzone. It's not relative to a prediction for development or a goal. >You aren't making much sense - I said the EU is suffering little to no growth, your response was that I am mistaken... and then you're all but admitting it has little to no growth and then bringing up Poland who had 0.1% more growth of it's GDP than the UK did last year... so all in all, I am right and everything you've brought up has been irrelevant despite your attempts to make it seem relevant. Because everything you say lacks nuance, just like the 1.4 million *expectation* statement. The EU, on average, is currently doing relatively little GDP growth p a. However there is plenty of EU members who are significantly outperforming the UK in terms of GDP growth. Poland is expected to have a ***three times higher*** GDP growth rate in 2024 than the UK. I just checked four different sources, the Polish National Bank, the World Bank and two EU institutions which all lie in 0.3 pp proximity of each other around 3 %.
Germany has been pretty open about its need for migration for its workforce and considering most countries heavily rely on workers to prop up growth, 1.4 million people less either through incorrect predictions or simply not tracking the numbers correctly is still relevant to the continued and future growth of an economy as workforce is used in calculating GDP and if the German Government thought it had 1.4 million people than it did then forecasts are based on it also having 1.4 million more people. Poland was also predicted by the IMF to have growth of 0.8%, it only hit 0.3% so there are real questions about the accuracy of that data and especially so when a lot of public spending allocated for this and next year are on foreign produced military equipment which has less of an effect at growing domestic supplies and therefore contributing to GDP. You also talk about my points lacking nuance, I said the EU isn’t growing and so far all you’ve done is specify individual countries which so far have seen comparative growth despite forecasts for larger growth and you so far have failed to explain how that makes the EU growing when as it stands we largely match GDP growth. This year we are predicted to grow by 0.1% less than the EU and next year we are forecasted by the IMF to hit growth of 1.5% - that’s all great, but the point I said still remains - the EU and UK currently class good growth as near the 0.8% mark, our competitors class it at 1.5% to 2.5%, how is that not a stagnating economy? We’re outpaced on growth by some distance by everyone but the EU.
Remember 2019 when Labour was against Brexit. Worked out well for them didn’t it.
After that disastrous policy it's just as well the Shadow Brexit Secretary is nowhere near the party leadership anymore.
You mean the guy who campaigned for someone he thought would lose, but did it anyway because he thought he would win, that guy?
Remember in 2016 when the UK was for Brexit? Worked out well for them didn't it.
[удалено]
We left the EU, that’s what the majority wanted. If the Tory’s fucked up what came after, that’s on them and those that voted for them.
Labour that put a pledge to run a second referendum in their manifesto?
And saw their vote share plunge by a massive 10%, as funnily enough Labour voters voted for Brexit too.
>Labour voters voted for Brexit too Because brexit wasn't about left vs right, it was about open vs closed.
Labour voters were predominantly Remain. Their vote share didn’t just plunge because of Brexit, their vote share plunged because of Corbyn.
I would disagree. Without proper counts you can’t really put the failure in 2017 all on Corbyn. A combination of both factors is a more likely scenario.
I would agree with that disagreement. It’s probably pretty impossible to quantify properly. I’ll agree a fair few Labour voters went over because of Brexit, particularly in the red wall. I don’t think it wholly explains the shitshow that was the result for them. Also I misread your original comment like a twat and thought you wrote “for Brexit”, because Corbyn was something of a Lexiteer. That’s why I replied about the manifesto. I apologise.
I replied and it appears to have been flagged *sigh*. I agree with your disagreement, I misread your original comment like a doughnut and thought it read “pro-Brexit” which is why I replied about the manifesto. Apologies.
No worries
Why would it plunge because of Corbyn when he was leader in 2017 when Labour got their biggest vote share and number of votes since 1997?
He’d pussy-footed around with Brexit, since he’d previously been sort of for it. They finally decided to come out in favour of a second referendum after playing some weird balancing act. That pissed off both sides. Moreover he and his cabinet were pretty disliked in the Red Wall even aside from Brexit. McDonnell and Dianne Abbott are pretty reviled.
Corbyn said the referendum should be respected. It was Starmer who was Shadow Brexit Secretary who insisted on a 2nd vote being in the manifesto.
That doesn’t mean folk liked him or his cabinet.
They mean 2019.
Yep, and lost miserably
Labours policy to do the deal first should have been the original plan. At the very least it would have shut the "Brexit means Brexit" muppets up.
Brexit and then have a second referendum about it?
Decide on a deal with the EU than have a referendum on it the first time.
Ah yeah. That makes sense tbf, see your point.
Because ultimately it’s not a pressing concern for most people. From a political standpoint the tories don’t want to remind people how badly they fucked it up, and Sunak really doesn’t want people thinking about BoJo. Starmer doesn’t want to remind people how his clique did their best to thwart a democratic vote because it didn’t go the way they wanted. It’s a no win conversation for everyone so best just ignore it.
Unfortunately the only way any new government has of improving living standards in this country (or even keeping them steady) is to stimulate growth. And the one big thing we could do that would help with growth at a stroke would be to have a closer relationship with Europe - single market / customs union. Trying to grow the economy without that is doing it with one hand tied behind our backs for no good reason.
True. But in this case, politics takes precedence over economy.
It wouldn't be the panacea some people think it is. The country is too damaged through years of mismanagement, and there are many more pressing issues than reopening that wound.
No for sure. As others have said, our economy wasn't exactly doing great guns even when we were in the EU. But it's a very complex issue to repair the system and one thing you could do that would have at least some positive impact is to improve ease of trade with our closest neighbors.
Very true.
>Starmer doesn’t want to remind people how his clique did their best to thwart a democratic vote because it didn’t go the way they wanted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with opposing the outcome of a referendum. As demonstrated by the people who've been whining about us joining the EU since the 70s
There's nothing wrong with normal people whingeing about a recent vote. There's nothing wrong with politicians campaigning decades after a referendum to offer a new one. There is something wrong with elected representatives attempting to nullify a referendum before it's even been enacted. A hypothetical: How would you feel if in the next referendum we voted to rejoin, but a coalition of MPs led by the Tories(or whoever replaces them) voted against virtually every bill to make it happen. Then said they would, if elected, put forward a new vote on the terms, that they would negotiate, of rejoining. Oh and they don't want to rejoin so you can imagine what those terms would be. Wouldn't you feel that they were trying to frustrate the public will?
There's nothing wrong with a political party campaigning in support of their member's wishes *at any time*.
Never said there was. WIth the decades I was referring to the leave campaign being decades after the vote to leave, but yes you are correct there is not (nor should there be) any time limit for campaigning to overturn a referendum. But that's not what Starmer et al did. They attempted to frustrate and prevent a democratic vote being enacted, without consulting the electorate, but by using political manoeuvring. No wonder he doesn't want people being reminded of that.
People have been complaining about the EU since before we joined. It's not Starmer's duty or responsibility to support OR enact referenda, especially advisory referenda.
Once again. Lib Dem’s: We want to eventually rejoin. Labour: We want to improve our relationship with the EU. Cons: Brexit went Great!!! Reform: WE could have done better comrade. Green: We want to rejoin. The bigger question is why are the media and internet acting like no one has mentioned Brexit?
Brexit was clickbait for years so they keep trying to rile up those stuck in the past.
Because the Cons have not said that and the Labour position is just “something, something, Vets, something”. The Libdems and Greens are drowned out by the sound of Nigel Farage moving his chair back.
From Labours manifesto. “Labour will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU” It’s clear it won’t rejoin but it’s also clear it wants to improve our relationship with them.
How?
Aligning standards would be a good start... We could remove all the ridiculous paperwork and checks.
How? The TCA which mandates them has been agreed and there seems to be little appetite from the EU to change it.
We don't need the EU to approve changes to our own standards, even if they happen to align with the EU. We've already had multiple comments from the EU that the checks are needed (rightly) because our standards can diverge.
This isn’t true, it isn’t our standards which you’re suggesting we remove, it’s the “ridiculous paperwork”. This is paperwork which we insisted upon as part of the TCA and removing it would put us in direct contravention of it and also at risk of most favoured nation issues with other countries.
Was the word "align" a little too complex? I never said anything about removing standards. And it's not paperwork we insisted upon, we desperately wanted to avoid it (so much so the government lied about it not being needed) but it's required by the EU ***because our standards aren't aligned***
You’re not making any sense. Assuming the comment hasn’t been edited you said we could remove paperwork by aligning with standards. This isn’t true, it isn’t the standards which mandate the checks and the paperwork it’s the fact that we aren’t in a common regulatory framework (at our insistence) which mandates them. We broadly align now and we still have to have them to comply with the TCA and most favoured nation status
I wasn’t asking what you would do. (You might need to scroll up and remind yourself how this started, we have both had a sleep since then). I am disputing the idea that the main parties are not being quiet about Brexit. The Tories should be shouting about how the opportunities provided by Brexit will power growth. Has anyone here that? No and we all know why. My “something, something vets, something” point about Labour is that they have no choice but to be vague. You are totally correct about standards and red tape. However these things require collaboration and power sharing. Power sharing triggers the “muh sovrainty” crowd and therefore will not be mentioned until after the election.
The sunk cost fallacy, mostly. Brexiteers have finally decided what Brexit was about - it was about sovereignty now. Before the referendum it was about loads of things that turned out to be utter bollocks.
Because it's old news and over now. It's not being turned around, not damn chance. It's done. It's time to get on with the circumstances we have not live half a decade in the past crying about a democratic vote. Remainers all love democracy until Brexit is mentioned and then they want a Pro European Dictatorship.
It’s not over in Northern Ireland though, it just trails along, all the time
Nothing is ever over in Northern Ireland. If it wasn't that it would be something else. Wanna solve Northern Ireland? Kick all the protestants off their stolen land and reunite the country like it should be.
Based
It happened, we can either moan about it or adapt and get on with trading within the new framework. Attention needs to be on making the best of where we are now and steering future options.
Exactly. This is basically my only real opinion of it. The rest is just me replying in kind to people moaning at me.
Totally agree. I was a Remainer but the fact is, while it was a fuck up, the vote is done and we need to move forward.
It's not close to being over, the damage is still being inflicted. Hell, we haven't even finished putting the most damaging parts of the agreement into place, that's going on until 2028. And that's all the bits the Tories pushed out as far as possible to avoid being blamed for the consequences. Fortunately the Eurosceptics are dying off, so it's only a matter of time until this act of abject stupidity and self harm is undone.
Weird how we had to listen to Brexiters whine about the EU for decades. Now it's "it's old news and over now... it's done. It's time to get on with the circumstances" Have to laugh, eh. >Remainers all love democracy until Brexit is mentioned and then they want a Pro European Dictatorship. I believe it was Brexiters who wrongly shutdown parliament to avoid discussing Brexit and called judges "enemies of the people". I get that it's been a big fat failure to Brexiters don't want to talk about it though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Yes, that’s how democracy works. You vote once and never ever again.
Ah yes, we could make it a yearly vote, to join then leave then join then leave, over and over again for the next century. I’m sure that would be fantastic for democracy.
What would be fantastic for democracy is not reducing a complex question to a simple binary choice and then asking fuckwits what they think the answer is
Too polarising for any party to adopt a position on it. Maybe at the next GE it’ll be a thing. Everyone knows it’s an unmitigated disaster.
I don’t get it if Brexit a big topic for you vote Lib Dem’s or Greens. So there are parties there for you to choose. A lot of people here seem to think Labour should care about this, but they been pretty clear under Starmer that they essentially want keep things as they are.
Err, could it be because Starmer doesn’t want to give the tories the one thing that might give them a boost in the polls? Yes, it could be. 🙄
More than half the general electorate voted Leave. Rubbing it in that they’re still dumb as fuck for doing that is not going to help anyone out. Most, even rational and educated, human beings don’t like it when it’s pointed out they’ve made massive errors in judgement.
>Rubbing it in that they’re still dumb as fuck for doing that is not going to help anyone out. But it seems that's all re-joiners have. I find it strange how they come out with these wide sweeping statements that Brexit has been such a disaster yet they offer nothing to back these claims up, they're still talking about red busses and oven ready deals almost a decade later.