Yes. Although he is suitably vague about this, hardly surprising.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yes. Although he is suitably vague about this, hardly surprising.
Ant statement like Making Brexit Work is at best dilusional and at worst a complete lie.
In an interestingly global world where many companies are far larger than individual countries, how can it be possible for a relatively small country to think it can separate from the latest trading block in the world and do better on its own.
It can not and will not.
It has to do, because we are outside the EU now, and the next PM, whoever it is, has to 'start from here', because here is where we are.
Starmer is (in my opinion) trying to put things in perspective.
Brexit happened, many did not want it too, many are upset at how it happened, but no amount of 'crying in our beer', will change that, he will attempt what is possible, not what is impossible...turning the clock back!
The future is now indelibly marked by Brexit, the UK has to change and change rapidly. As an example I would say the UK has to have a major national push on the training of all managers, at whatever level they operate at, we still lag behind many of our competitors in these areas. I spent the last twenty years of my working life in assessing and promoting good management practices, for and on behalf of major management institutes and official bodies and whilst we did see some improvement in the mid to late 90' and early 00's, when I retired in 2012, some of that effort was turning away from establishing 'good practice' to simply trying to validate what practice existed, the drive to and for 'continuous improvement' was almost at and end in terms of seeking 'good (bench-marked) management' practice.
That is just one example, there are lots of others; the UK is on the outside and will stay there, because nobody (especially politicians) in their right mind, wants a return to what happened in the lead up to Brexit. A new 'niche' has to be carved whether we like it or not, in the way we are run as a nation and in the way and in the areas that we compete, continuous improvement in all UK management is (IMO) a central plank.
It is likely to be a long hard slog and it would need to be entered with revolutionary zeal, but no politician really wants to announce this, especially before a GE. Misdirection from the Tories with 'illegal immigration' matters in the van, or for Labour, 'kick it into the long grass'...I think Starmer is doing just this.
Last edited:
The most vital starting point for the UK government is to understand what has actually been voted for because it seems quite apparent that very few in the HoC actually do and a lot of the electorate believe what they are told to believe.
Starmer and Sunak both act as if they haven't a clue of how the real world actually works.
Send them on a course for a few years : First lesson : What is a custom's union and how does it work? Second lesson: Which regulations do we have to comply with in order to sell our products to other countries. Have hundreds more to follow.
Seven years from the referendum and nobody seems to have a clue.
Starmer and Sunak both act as if they haven't a clue of how the real world actually works.
Send them on a course for a few years : First lesson : What is a custom's union and how does it work? Second lesson: Which regulations do we have to comply with in order to sell our products to other countries. Have hundreds more to follow.
Seven years from the referendum and nobody seems to have a clue.
Last edited:
Understand that.
But none of this addresses the fundamental reality that the UK is not only outside the EU, it has yet to sign a trade deal with anyone that goes even a tiny way to make up for the massive gap left by leaving the EU.
And it is unlikely that this will happen and time soon.
And that is the point.
Only a half wit would have voted for Brexit to be worse off.
But unless the UK can grow our economy significantly, we will all be worse off. So how are we going to grow the economy without signing significant trade deals, or we try to rebuild our economic relationship with the EU.
As Bill Clinton said....it is the economy stupid.
The way to start from here is to negotiate our readmittance ASAP.
They do understand, hence the approaches the two would be PM's Sunak and Starmer are now taking
Now Boris (who don't forget won the largest majority in recent history has now gone) both the above can shake of the Brexit 'blues' from the HoC, and compete on their own ground.
You are right it won't happen anytime soon. Nobody voted for Brexit to be worse off, but many voted for issues of a different kind, which were many and varied and which is why the small majority was reached. However with all due respect it is no good keep going over old ground, 'the milk has been split' it wont go back in the bottle. Its time to move on (see Boris ref above).
Really, you think that approach would play in the UK, never mind in the EU, its fighting old battles that we came off worst in...I cannot see that happening, certainly not in the present circumstances.
They definitely do not understand. Otherwise they wouldn't be talking the way they are.
Just because they are politicians doesn't mean they understand everything about everything.
When you listen to somebody who talks about a subject, doesn't matter what subject is ,that you know extremely well, you know within a few minutes that they are talking out of their backside.
It doesn't matter why people voted to leave now. That they imagined all sorts of fantasies is pointless. There is only one Brexit and that's the one the UK got. Brexit is being outside the EU , outside the Single Market and outside the Custom's union. There is no Swiss deal, EFTA deal , have one without the idea or pick n mix. All the discussions in the HoC after the referendum was just the UK politicians arguing amongst themselves for no purpose.
You have idiots like Farage saying this isn't the Brexit we voted for. It is the Brexit everyone voted for. If anyone voted for Brexit, they voted for the UK to be worse off. there's no other outcome.
All the Brexiters don't seem happy with Brexit but cannot give a clear explanation of what they actually expected.
It's not going over old ground. It's what is going to happen next.
Starmer cannot renegotiate The Withdrawal agreement - so he can shut up about that.
Any change to the TCA will be very slight and will almost certainly make conditions worse than they are currently because the UK are doing things to pull more away from the EU.
There are no new trade deals to be had. New countries have not been invented. The trade deals that the idiots like Truss, Badenoch, Trevelyan have signed actually made things worse , not better. They did not know what they're doing either.
I keep asking - how the hell is the UK going to get out of this mess? Because the worst is yet to come.
But I am not going over old ground.
I was essentially responding to a post about Starmer 'making Brexit work' statement.
And what I am saying is that it is disengenuous to say that, because, and I agree that people voted to leave for many different reasons, none of those reasons are going to work. The reason is that nothing is going to be as economically beneficial as it was within the EU.
And the rest of the reasons were sheer fantasy.
I would love Britain to prosper.
And I would love the brexiteers to prove me wrong. But that is not going to happen.
@Buster15 \also @Wibble
Exactly, the 'Brexit Enabler' is now politically dead (Boris, in case you wondered), the 'Brexit King' (Farage) is still lurking in the undergrowth, looking to strike at some moment in the future. However, for both Sunak and Starmer it is steering a way into power for Starmer and staying in power for Sunak, to always keep Brexit *(in political terms) at arms length. It's probably true that neither has any plans they can divulge publicly, as the truth often hurts, yet they have to present a future for the UK without the EU, and this may indeed result in the break up of the UK itself.
This imperative for both of them requires looking forward, even if its very uncertain, rather than looking back, for different reasons whilst both will at times refer to Brexit, as a 'sop' or as a 'lets not do that again'; however they first have to figure out what the future holds, that will take time, especially if Labour return and find this time its the Tories who have spent all the money.
Whoever gets into power (or if you prefer cons the majority of the public) they will have to borrow like never before, with a massive debt crisis looming for future generations.
Ten years from now life will be very different in the UK, lets hope its a 'good difference' even if its unrecognisable, at the present. Sunak and Starmer are both hoping they get a 'two term' mandate, this will only happen if one gets a sizable majority this next GE.
The brexiteers mention Brexit non-stop. Everything that doesn't happen to their liking is the remoaners fault.
Boris is going to write for the Daily Mail and brainwash the brainwashed. Farage will continue to spout racist and xenophobic bile for the rest of his life.
But whatever happens to them, the consequences of Brexit will set the future of the UK for decades to come.
It's not a question of having secret plans that they cannot divulge. There's only one Brexit and there's only one way to get out of it. It just depends on how long they want to prolong the time to start getting back again.
Unless the Uk completely cut itself off from the rest of the world, not just the EU, and become totally self-sufficient, Brexit cannot work. Why anyone would want to do that, who knows?
Over seven years of people explaining why it cannot possibly work hardly seems to have made a dent into the brainwashed Brexiters and people still actually believe that's there's some fantasy unicorn in the years ahead. That includes Starmer and Sunak. How do people possibly believe this rubbish?
Now who is talking about 'Unicorns' Paul?
Whatever makes you think any UK government is going to approach the EU about full membership in the foreseeable future, what would be in it for the EU?
It's more likely that; Ukraine will become a permanent member of Nato first; that the pound (sterling) becomes a sort of 'Banana Republic' type currency and that successive Westminster Governments become desperate to join the Euro zone; that there will be a United Ireland, with no British involvement/safeguards for the Unionists, that Scotland ends the 'Union' and seeks separate status within the EU and most importantly the EU will demand a real commitment to 'ever closer political union' from the UK (or what's left of it).
I can see some of these things happening, for differing reasons, but in terms of an application to join the EU, we are talking maybe two decades at least, before some of these issues are settled and allow the UK/British Government to start seeking to rejoin the EU, because it will obviously not be under the former terms and will involve lots of 'touching of forelocks' and 'bowing and scraping' and thereby providing Nigel Farage with his best opportunity yet!
Last edited:
That's not what I'm saying. It will take much more than two decades to even put the application in.
The first thing that the UK needs is to stop the drifting further and further away from the EU.
The UK doesn't need weak politicians like Starmer and Sunak. They do not need liars and charlatans like Johnson and Farage
The next few years will be very telling. Starmer will probably wish he never became PM (if he does).
It's only taken just over two years to realise Brexit was not the wisest decision they ever took, denial for the time being. Five years time will see a much worse opinion from the UK government and the people as a whole. Just trying to save time.
Starmer may appear weak. But I believe that we will only be able to judge whether he is or not when he is in power, assuming that happens.
From the disaster that was the Corbyn leadership, Starmer has galvanized the Labour party and has had to tread a very careful line to get to where they are now.
I actually think he is more astute than people give him credit for.
We will find out.
So far there is nothing he has done that suggests to me that he can't only blow with the wind and seems determined to alienate as many people as possible in order to try to keep Brexiters onside. He doesn't seem to care about the rest of the electorate.
In theory Labour should walk the next election whoever was the leader. But I could see Starmer actually blowing this.
Every single thing he has said about Brexit (from the beginning right up till now) convinces me he is clueless about it. And he can't ignore it if he does get in.
I don't disagree with this, I am betting though, that it will take more than two decades for UK (if it remains UK) to decide (if ever) to put an application into the EU, there are too many other problems need sorting and another ramble through the 'leave or stay, join or don't join the EU' undergrowth will not appeal to any UK government, at least in the foreseeable future
The 'drift' as you call it will stop in some areas, but in others it will only widen, the decision not to reverse all the rules etc established under the EU is a positive in that respect, but politically as well as in some areas of the economy, the drift will continue,and there is really very little either the UK government, or indeed the EU (assuming it wanted to) could do about it. The 'die has been cast' and the 'pattern-makers' are out to a long, long, lunch!
I must admit I had doubts about Starmer, but the way he is shaping up for the next GE gives me confidence in him personally. He needs a realistic majority to be able to do anything meaningful, and that will be the worst of all worlds for him as PM if he has to start 'making deals' after the Election.
Actually, I don't think that point within the country has been 'universally reached, or if it has its been surpassed by 'event's.
Last edited:
Between now and the end of this decade will frame the future. At the moment the Uk is in the real transition period. The next PM will be in charge during that stage.
The UK can remove whichever rules they like but what they remove will affect their relationship not only with the EU but with the rest of the world.
To come in the next few years will be the end of all the grace periods which have let the UK ease into their new situation.
The UK have still got to start making checks on imports from the EU.
Introducing the UKCA - UK standards - which nobody knows what they are and whether anyone will bother to sell to the Uk having to go through new certification processes.
The ETIAS system to be introduced before the GE. + many more
Any agreements the Uk with outside countries will affect any agreement they have with the EU - eg import hormone +meat from Australia = end of exports to the EU. Parts for manufacture, origins etc.
It's not the leave or rejoin argument yet - it's how much worse off the UK will be the more they damage the relationship with the EU. But we've been through all this for 7 years and no Brexiteers take any notice - they keep having to learn the hard way.
The most laughable thing about Starmer's approach is that he thinks he can renegotiate the Withdrawal agreement and the Trade Agreement. That is to so that the UK will be leading GDP growth in the G7. I can't wait for him to turn up with his takeaway menu and say - I want this, this, this and this. "What do you have to offer? "say the EU - Um, nothing, we just want to be more productive than the EU, he says. "You do realise, Mr Starmer, that you are now our competitor through your choice."
He's got less than a year to come up with a credible plan as to how the UK is going to operate economically from the start of his tenure. He can have all the plans for policies within the UK but for the UK to survive economically means earning money from their exports. At present they are doing their best to destroy their export economy and it's going to get much worse. Another point that seems to have escaped Brexiters is that to whichever country they export to, not just the EU, their products have to abide by the laws of the country they are exporting to. So getting rid of EU laws, which are mainly to do with trade makes very little sense. The EU is still easier to export to , even from the outside ,compared to many other countries.
Waiting for the next meltdown when reality strikes. At least the longer the UK go without a deal with the US, the better it will be for the UK.
Takeover thread soon will takeover this thread.
UK delis could be forced to put up prices after new Brexit tax
Plan to charge £43 per consignment could see some small businesses struggle to stay open
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-forced-to-put-up-prices-after-new-brexit-tax
Plan to charge £43 per consignment could see some small businesses struggle to stay open
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-forced-to-put-up-prices-after-new-brexit-tax
I’m sure the majority of Brexit voters will be gutted to hear this news. Where are they going to get their pastrami on rye for a decent price?
What the feck is wrong with that guy?
Shades of the takeover thread here.
Seems like a suffers from being a moron
“nobody in this country will ever suffer from hunger”
He thought Boris Johnson once told the truth.
That has to be satire surely, I mean the TalkTV video.
is that the same twat who said you can grow concrete?
I agree with this first paragraph entirely. That is why both Sunak and Starmer are keen to be in a position to ensure their particular brand of politics will at the next GE hold sway with the UK public. Basically Sunak wants to distance himself and (he hopes) his future government from Boris and the Brexit past, and Starmer wants to be seen to moving away from the 'Corbynista Regime' in terms of 'seemingly being positive' about doing something 'after Brexit'. However for both Politicians any 'actions' they take will only come to the fore when lots of other issues have been dealt with, as best they can.
This will be the key time scale that will either deflate or conflate the new PM's plans and will be affected by lots of other things (some of which Brexit supposedly solved), e.g. a new view to be formed on immigration generally, and Sunak in particular will find this more difficult than Starmer because he has vowed to end the small boats episode first. Starmer has to tie this new found support for immigration in with a proper 'levelling up' plan in all the areas in the UK where expected immigrants are likely to want to settle or, because of labour shortages they will be shuffled off to make up the numbers, wherever. Scotland, as an example, might hold the answer in some areas, as it has a better record than the UK generally in welcoming immigrants, and could be a sort of 'front-runner scheme' but the investment from Westminster will however have to be real and not 'sliced and diced' from existing budgets.
This again I agree with, UK politicians generally want to stay away from anything 'Brexit related' above everything else because the majority of the great British public don't understand any of it, and never did... from the effects of the Maastricht Treat ( and a number of others) to the Referendum itself, the complexities were not appreciated and banner headlines (on sides of buses etc) held sway. What makes you believe it would be any different the next time around...exactly, so they will stay away from it, at least in public. What the new PM and his Government do in private remains to be seen (or guessed at).
I've often thought that had previous UK governments allowed the public to vote on the various EU Treaties that occurred, rather than rubber stamping them through Westminster, before and after Maastricht, as did occur in a few EU countries, (Ireland had two or three goes didn't they) then more might have been learned by the public and Brexit may never have happened at all. However that's water under the bridge now!
Again I agree, well almost entirely, I think there will be a little longer than a year, maybe even two years, depends on Ukraine, what has happened in Scotland in the GE and in particular in NI and has the wheel finally turned and are they heading for a United Ireland now, sooner rather than later. All these things are essentially political but will lie/play heavily on the economy. Starmer has, it seems, already committed himself to a massive borrowing plan, he of course insists its all 'worked out'and not a penny will be wasted; whilst even Sunak has had to give a nod to something similar. Maybe as many people are speculating, there will not be much difference between them come GE day!
I've speculated in previous posts that so much has happened post Brexit, Covid, Ukraine,(Energy costs etc.) and cost of living (some but not all related to Brexit) the failure to stop the blatant/high viz illegally enter via the small boats, etc. and this is beside all the disorientation, caused by partygate, Harry and Megan stepping down as 'Royals' etc. That the new PM just might get two years to plan our future!
I'm thinking more along the lines of what both Tories and Labour are going to come up with for their manifesto and subsequent grilling by the media and the public.
As the GE will take place before the end of 2024, probably in the Autumn, if not earlier, they're both going to have to come up with a bit more than 'Stop the Boats' and 'Make Brexit work' and that will have to be by this time next year.
Details, without hare-brained schemes, will be called for.
I suspect "Borrowing for a Purpose" will be both parties 'keystone' policy, because its needed. However, the differences between what the spending will be on, and how it will be repaid is where the differences (such as they are ) will be found between the two and presumably where the media will concentrate its questions.
Yes, these two slogans could come back to haunt both leaders, because apart from very dire or drastic actions from governments, neither will be solved in the interim.
I have argued previously Labour needs something big, something that ranks alongside the establishment of the NHS and the Education Act, both post WW2. These two immense Acts of Parliament which over the years have affected the lives of millions of ordinary folk, these need either a revamp or something else which will have a similar effect, years from now. I am not sure if back in 1940's these two were thought of as 'hare-brained, I was just being born.
I don't think they were hare-brained. I've just read Starmer's climate mission paper he spoke about today. He still sounds like a clueless brexiteer.
No different twat.
Maybe he knows something we don't
He sounds as if he's never set foot in the real world. Sounds more like a 10 year old schoolkid's homework project. There were some very funny parts, maybe it's a parody.
I suppose anything Starmer or indeed Sunak say about climate change is taken with a pinch of salt, our lives and ways of living will change, but not to a timetable, that needs the whole world involved on the same page and that is never going to happen. With Climate issues all our leaders can indulge their Don Quixote urges to 'tilt at windmills'.
While I was at a bus stop waiting and waiting for a bus to actually arrive, I overheard a conversation between 2 oldish guys.
One was saying that brexit was the main cause of the high inflation in the UK.
And the other said.... well at least we are not now being ruled by those bastards in Brussels.
And that reminded me of how unpopular the EU had become in some peoples minds.
Lots of reasons for that of course.
But one stuck in my mind.
And that was when Margaret Thatcher negotiated the UK Rebate. She cast 'Europe' as something that the UK should fight against as if it was the enemy.
Yes that was a long time ago. But having voted not that long before to at last join the European Economic Community, the Thatcher fight against the EEC to force it to grant the UK the rebate was a significant point in turning 'Europe' into the enemy.
One was saying that brexit was the main cause of the high inflation in the UK.
And the other said.... well at least we are not now being ruled by those bastards in Brussels.
And that reminded me of how unpopular the EU had become in some peoples minds.
Lots of reasons for that of course.
But one stuck in my mind.
And that was when Margaret Thatcher negotiated the UK Rebate. She cast 'Europe' as something that the UK should fight against as if it was the enemy.
Yes that was a long time ago. But having voted not that long before to at last join the European Economic Community, the Thatcher fight against the EEC to force it to grant the UK the rebate was a significant point in turning 'Europe' into the enemy.
Yes, I agree about Maggie, but the history of how the UK had approached joining in the first place needs to be considered, when we had to fight to get into the 'common market' when General DeGaulle kept saying for many years in the late 60's, early 70's, 'Non' to British entry, mainly it seems because Britain (at that time ) was deemed to be the 'sick man of Europe' with wildcat strikes, a economy on the verge of collapse and was (in DeGaulle's terms) too close to the USA. It was assumed that the General thought we would become the USA's 'Trojan Horse'in the EEC.
Then of course when Tony Benn started preaching the "look at the mega companies running Europe as 'rich man's club", an idea originating from the UK's hard left, some people turned off, it was just 'Benn at it again'.Then later there were issues such as the 'straight banana' saga, the ongoing vilification of Jacques Delors in the Daily Mirror; the criminality actually recognised within the EEC itself, that was associated with Edith Cresson's reign; Maggie Thatchers fight for rebate.... and years upon years of 'bad EU press' in the minds of many in the UK built up, and in some cases justifiably so.
However IMO the main reason the anti EU feelings built up to a crescendo was on the passage of a number of Treaties, e.g. Maastricht etc. when although other people in member countries, such as Ireland, Denmark at least, were allowed to vote on these matters, we in the UK were not, but the impression given to the public was it was all the EU's fault. Then there was Tony Blair's attempt to jettison the pound and to take us into the Euro, the so called 'freedom of movement' (deemed by those against) as 'unrestricted', the seeming push for ever closer integration, the EU itself finally becoming a pseudo political power.
The fact that UK overall was benefiting from many aspects of being in the EU, in particular the economy, the SM, etc was lost on the majority of the public in the UK, in particular those living outside the main Cities, where their lot was slowly but surely becoming 'not a happy one', and even back then, many provincial and rural town centres were starting to become 'ghost towns'. Maybe, if there had been a vote on the proposed treaties, then at that time more people in the UK would had perhaps have found out more about the benefits, not just the 'presented' obstacles and who knows it might have had an impact of the actual referendum, if fact there may not have been one at all.
I know many people believe the 'remainer' vote was in fact the majority, because they were all voting for the same thing, to remain inside the EU. Brexit (leave) vote was in fact made up of lots of people with lots of different issues, moans, grouses, etc. who when Cameron gave them the opportunity to concentrate their fire, via the referendum, they did exactly that...and a 'single shot', was all it took to provide the breech for the UK's departure from the EU.
Maybe in another decade some UK (whats left of it) politician/party will make a serious effort to rejoin the EU, but this time there will be no refunds, there will be need to join the Euro, to accept full integration of powers, etc. Can you see, at present, any current Westminster politician, putting forward a manifesto, based on that?
Yes. This is a far more comprehensive history and assessment of the highly negative perception of Europe in general and the EEC and eventually EU in particular than my single point.
And of course it included the total failure of David Cameron to 'extract' any form of reform of the EU; primarily because the EU nations saw no particular need to reform just to placate Cameron.
Anyway. All in the past now and we are where we are.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/22/leave-voters-brexit-success-poll
Only 18% of 2016 leave voters believe Brexit has been a success, according to polling for the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe – but 61% think it will turn out well in the end.
Seven years on from the referendum campaign, the pollsters Public First asked more than 4,000 leavers how they felt now about Brexit. Less than a fifth of them – 18% – said it had gone well, or very well, while 30% said it had gone neither well nor badly, and 26% said it was still too soon to say.
Wonder what the 18% are taking.
More interesting would be how the 61% think 'it will turn out well in the end'.
Explain how on a postcard to starmerandsunakunicorns.com, Sunlit Uplands, GB
Only 18% of 2016 leave voters believe Brexit has been a success, according to polling for the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe – but 61% think it will turn out well in the end.
Seven years on from the referendum campaign, the pollsters Public First asked more than 4,000 leavers how they felt now about Brexit. Less than a fifth of them – 18% – said it had gone well, or very well, while 30% said it had gone neither well nor badly, and 26% said it was still too soon to say.
Wonder what the 18% are taking.
More interesting would be how the 61% think 'it will turn out well in the end'.
Explain how on a postcard to starmerandsunakunicorns.com, Sunlit Uplands, GB