To think Labour should add ‘getting us back in the EU’ to their election manifesto

[bluewanda]

We had the referendum, we gave Brexit a go, and nearly 9 years on, I think it’s plain for most people to see that leaving the EU was a massive mistake. Even people I know who voted for Brexit admit that now they wished they hadn’t, given the shitshow that has unfolded since. So, why not nip it in the bud and get back in the EU ASAP? If Labour would add it to their election manifesto that would speed up the process, as we’d have a mandate by the end of this year. So why don’t they?

I would benefit if we join so it would be nice but Labour would not do this. If they do they know they would loose the elections which is why they are quiet. Labour is not better. Apart from Brexit. Covid, wars, masses of illegal immigration are problems of other Western countries too. Any government in charged is bearing the brunt. I dread the future and yes we have bad it but you have not idea how much worse would get.

I think we’ll end up back in in all but name, and with limited ability to direct decisions. A poor compromise but better than what we have now.

Labour won’t touch if at this election because they have Remainer votes in the bag anyway.

In fact no love lost for Labour here but if they want to come in swinging around ideas of change it won’t help them with the policies they have.

If that makes them under deliver well ok but actually what @BouncingJAS says on prospects is more relevant to me.

BTW KS has some dreadful unelectable people in his cabinet. They are the ones who would do the damage and push KS out.

@CoatRack we have a parliamentary democracy in this country and I believe that elected representatives should make these decisions for good or ill. That's the job we put them in to do. I don't believe we should have had the referendum in the 70s.

I don't believe in referenda at all. They undermine our political system and just pander to short term populism.

I thought by now everyone knew a CU doesn't mean FOM but obv we are all different in knowledge.
A CU in itself doesn't really do much, Turkey has one, with the EU and they can all be very different from each other (Turkey most defo doesn't have FOM)

The obvious route for the UK, should it chose, is EFTA, out of farming and fishing policies, can negotiate own FTA's, yes there is FOM but it can be frozen more easily than the full fat one.

Ticks so many boxes for both leavers and remainers, why a EFTA type agreement wasn't sought is a mystery to me.

UK was a founding member too, going back to our roots!!!

😂 I was thinking how nice this Brexit thread is unlike the usual

And then 😬

Unelectable? which unelected shadow ministers has Starmer got in his cabinet? pretty sure they are all "elected" MPs.

Do you think Reeves is a Stalinist waiting to stab Starmer in the back?

Who have you mind? Wes Streeting perhaps? who wants more privatisation in the NHS & has been going around europe and beyond looking at different models of healthcare....... the bloody communist!!

As a pp said "Project Fear"

It wasn't meant in anyway as a dig at you, i was just a little surprised people didn't know this, talked about at length in the numerous Brexit threads over the years. Sorry.

There have been some decent posts though from others

Interesting

No. I'm tired of Brexit and didn't want it. But, I don't want the country to waste any more political energy on a 'get back in' campaign. Maybe in a generation (15/ 16 years or so), it could resurface? For now, I'd like to get the current situation to work as well as possible with some changes and tweaks. One of those is to get some type of freedom of movement back. Even if it's just country by country.

As someone who voted to remain I would argue that campaigning to rejoin the EU is a non-starter. The referendum was almost eight years ago and the last thing this country needs is another long period of inertia. We need to focus on creating a new relationship with the EU.

rejoining is a lifetime away.

We spent decades, and billions of £££ on the EU. We are still finding our feet. And I am quite sure we have bigger fish to fry.

"still finding our feet"

It was Jacob Rees-Mogg who said it would be 50 years before the UK saw the benefits of Brexit.

Shame neither of us will be able to see whether he was right, because by then both he dnd I will be dead.

What do you mean bigger fish to fry? Where are these fish?

You really can't run a country going back and forth on major decisions like this every time the government changes. And I think most people know this and even if they'd rather it hadn't happened, would not support a reversal now.

In any case, I think it's highly likely the EU ill change form significantly in the next 20 years. Possibly degrade away, possibly become much more centralized. It may turn out that the UK is better off for being out early rather than later.

If the EU could reform, I think more Brits would be interested - like if it went back to a trading block only.

@Bululu who are these people ? 😂 Much to the general frustration of the left wing of the party he’s slowly but surely getting rid of the idiots. On the other hand the tories got rid of all their ‘decent’ MPs under Johnson (ignoring the fact that decent is a relative term when discussing the voting history of these people).

We have to remember that Cameron tried to negotiate a compromise before the referendum. We were told that the EU were having none of it.

Theresa May tried several times to negotiate a "soft" Brexit but none of the options that were acceptable to the EU were acceptable to the UK Parliament.

That's why Boris had to have a GE to give Parliament the voter's authority to have a hard Brexit.

So, we had several years of negotiations with the EU to try to avoid a hard Brexit, so I don't think we're ever going to be able to rejoin with "lesser" requirements than full fat EU membership.

@DdraigGoch Listen to the following if you want to hear from the man himself.

As for policies, as any government in waiting does not give much away as the government hanging on to power will pinch them.

You will hear mycg more on the election campaign

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/keir-starmer/id1454408831?i=1000552160665

Constitutional referenda in other countries often require a double-majority. That means that not only do more than 50% of the electorate of the whole country need to approve of a change, but that there needs to be an individual majority in at least half of the states.

To me that seems fairer than requiring a two-thirds majority or whatever other arbitary requirement some call for. Perhaps a constitutional change might require 50% of eligible voters might need to be mandated - so those who don't turn out are effectively voting for the status quo.

Talking of things that Labour should put forward - Lords reform. I don't think that the 2012 Lib Dem bill was a good idea, the amount of professional experience brought by the upper house is not to be underestimated. I would however limit appointments to prevent the house being stuffed. So there would be a limit on overall numbers, 50% of members to be crossbenchers (including Lords Spiritual etc.) appointed because of their occupation (think top scientists, doctors, senior officers of the armed forces etc., mostly people who are Fellows of professional associations and learned societies). Of the political appointees, new appointments can only be made if it will not bring that party's share of members above their share of the vote at the last election.

Ticks so many boxes for both leavers and remainers, why a EFTA type agreement wasn't sought is a mystery to me.

Many prominent leavers (such as Daniel Hannan) would have supported this. Unfortunately we ended up with Theresa May who was an apparently new convert to leaving and therefore had a more fundamentalist view ("Brexit means Brexit" etc.). Having been Home Secretary she assumed that the vote was entirely about immigration and neglected to consider the other issues people had with our membership.

The EU needs to integrate much more strongly in order to prevent it splitting apart. Much more fiscal integration is particularly necessary.

This is why the promise that "the UK will never be part of an EU superstate" was a complete lie (not only because it is impossible for any politician to bind future parliaments in perpetuity). The EU has to become a superstate in order to succeed, because the only natural consequence of less integration is it splitting apart.

The EU needs members that are committed to the superstate and making it happen. What is doesn't need is members fighting further integration, sniping from the sidelines and resisting further integration with every opportunity (aka "the UK").

The UK needed either to be fully committed to the cause or out. Where we are now is both in our and the EUs best interests.

EFTA didn't want us to join! Too dominant an economy.

Nobody is thinking about the UK's long term economic policy; hopefully Labour will have some idea about promoting growth but I am not optimistic.

I do hope the Labour party has very clever people looking into how governments have succeeded in the past in promoting economic growth and into adapting those methods to the UK as it is today.

You know, the UK's current demographics, labour force (and its health, skillsets and mobility), feasible tax take, borrowing capability, infrastructure, that kind if thing