Honestly, Starmer finally leaning into the EU stuff is just him being a realist. The economy has been in a tailspin and trying to fix the trade relationship is really the only move that makes sense right now. It isn't some big betrayal, it's just common sense to stop the bickering and give businesses some actual breathing room. If he can get everyone back on the same page with standards and security, it might finally stop the bleeding. The hardliners are obviously going to lose their minds, but you can't fix the country while you're totally isolated. It's the first time he is actually acting like he has a solid plan to get things moving again.
210
dgkimpton2 days ago
+102
Most importantly he's too late. He got to power on a platform that would have easily supported this but then ignored it for so long those who want it have moved on to other parties and those that don't will now feel betrayed. It's amazing how few politicians are capable of striking whilst the iron is hot.
102
NeoThermic2 days ago
+95
His party was elected, in a huge part, in the mentality of "not the conservatives, not the right". They then decided to be Conservative-lite.
Reading the room was not a skill in this government.
95
StinkiePhish2 days ago
+67
And now the electorate are saying we want a more extreme and rebranded version of the Conservatives. Sigh.
67
ColdSteveStoneAustin2 days ago
+38
Just once I'd like the answer of "this is too right wing" to be left wing.
But no. People are stupid. And a lot of you support it with rhetoric.
38
artfuldodger12122 days ago
+12
This is the issue with having a whole political system that rewards to the point of requiring a pathological level of narcissism. Kier is making the exact same mistakes as Biden did in America for the exact same reasons.
Both these men saw their victories as enthusiastic endorsements of the public of them personally rather than repudiations of the alternatives. I firmly believe these two men (and the vast majority of politicians in complicated democracies) are physiologically incapable of understanding much less acknowledging that any successful election they were involved in could be attributed to anything else besides their strengths as a leader and the public’s enthusiasm for them personally.
This is super obvious to everyone looking in front of the outside but the reason it is so obvious to us is the very reason they will never be able to see it. Their egos would literally expel any such notion from their brains and they would immediately sack any strategist or adviser telling them this. People like Truss and Trump are even more extreme examples of this kind of narcissism.
Our political system basically requires a level of ego and narcissism in our leaders which makes genuine reflection and critical assessment very difficult for them.
12
[deleted]2 days ago
+4
[deleted]
4
chaos0xomega2 days ago
+3
Your mistake is looking at it in a left/right dichotomy, most people - like average everyday people that dont spend their lives on facebook amd listnook - dont see the world that way or understand politics through a left/right lens.
People shifting to reform are doing so because they want change, and reform is offering them that - moreso than say the greens because the greens have been around for a while whereas reform has new shininess going for it. If you actually read reforms platform, they are also promoting ideas which certainly have appeal to the left , and overall their platform is a mix of left/right ideas in a way that appeals to peoples sensibilities when they dont care much for labels.
3
dgkimpton2 days ago
+5
Exactly this. Labour was voted in because people wanted change. Change didn't happen. So now they are looking elsewhere. This is not surprising to anyone except Labour leadership.
They aren't wrong that the best long term strategy is small incremental changes, but that doesn't (and probably never will) play well with people desperate to see something change. At the very least they needed to pick a couple of popular things and make radical changes (e.g. double the NHS budget, announce Brentry, huge infrastructure push to redo the broken roads, free trains, higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, etc etc, doesn't really matter as long as it is highly visible). What's sad is even Hitler understood the power of big visible projects so it's not like the idea is new.
5
DirtyBastareaud2 days ago
+3
I think the greens had a pretty strong showing at the most recent elections right?
3
TerryNomNoms2 days ago
+2
What are they doing that is conservative lite?
2
SunnySanFran1 day ago
+2
Weird, are we talking about the UK right now or Australia?
2
The0zymandias2 days ago
+5
what stuff has come across to you as conservative- lite
5
Desertcow2 days ago
+25
He's kept largely the same stances on immigration, culture war issues, mass surveillance, and austerity measures. There's been some minor wins, but he's been too cautious with the economy and tried too hard to appeal to conservatives that he's lost everyone
25
R3tardedmonkey2 days ago
+39
The culture war bullshit along with stuff like age verification has really pissed off a lot of people who hoped that labour would be at least centrist. Getting pulled into the same old bullshit PR battles
39
DragoxDrago2 days ago
+18
It doesn't help that the media plays up the culture war bullshit and amplifies the fringe cases acting like it's going to be the new normal. Media also reports half truths or dumbasses go to the media not telling the full story and then the full story never gets as much cover as the half-truth. Politics is legitimately just a PR and optics battle at this point anyway.
18
Formal-Equivalent5802 days ago
+9
media is mostly owned by Millionsires who support Conservatism. They are never going to report positively about Labour
9
R3tardedmonkey2 days ago
+6
But as a politician let alone PM he should be aware that the media is blowing up these things but they're non-issues and that there are more important things to worry about like the economy. He's playing straight into the right wing media's hands by addressing them
6
DragoxDrago2 days ago
+1
Well yes, but the issue is the far right will never change their votes and will continue voting right so they dont need to address it sometimes. The far left won't vote if they feel like things are being addressed so you need to appease them at some point. The only issue is they've gone too far and pissed off those center/left leaning.
1
FantasticTangtastic2 days ago
Like in the US, people on the left look everywhere else besides themselves for the issues in their country.
Most people on the left aren't radical, just like most people on the right aren't radical. But people are voting Reform (unfortunately) because most every day people are fed being told they're scum by the loud, vocal minority on the far left and feel the current labour government have been too influenced by those individuals.
0
Snickims2 days ago
+5
How convinent that the minute people stop voting for centerists its the lefts fault. I'd note, while reform is the big w***** in the recent UK election, Greens, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Clymu all also where big winners, with the SNP and Plaid Clymu dominating in their respective nations.
Seems to me less people being shoved to the right, and more everyone agreeing the two centerist parties don't know what they are doing, and turning to more extreme options.
5
drivingagermanwhip2 days ago
his party were elected because no one voted for anyone else
0
Nonimouses1 day ago
-1
I'll likely vote further left in future I don't want another Tory-lite government, I like what the greens are doing of late
-1
Worth-Lead-59442 days ago
+3
Eh, the UK voting public are, unfortunately, very right wing. Starmer got to power through a split vote between the right and the far right. It was a solid majority but the win has to be contextualized.
3
Richmondez2 days ago
+1
This has only recently become true. Generally the popular vote has supported left wing parties, there are just more shades of left which has fragmented the vote in a voting system that favours a unified voting block the generally the right wing has.
1
Musicman19722 days ago
+7
Great politicians move the needle. Too many of ours see which way it's going and hang on for dear life.
7
AvidCyclist2502 days ago
+2
Too late for a rallying speech on the TV?
2
The0zymandias2 days ago
+6
idk about too late, barely 2 years in a task he was given 5 years for, to you it seems oh why can’t they strike whilst the iron is hot but in reality it’s much more complicated
6
allout762 days ago
+4
He's been leaning into the EU quietly for a long time. Rapid negotiations between Europe and the UK have been ongoing since Labour have been elected. Shouting about it now must means he feels confident that change can soon be discussed openly, as well as further integration than previously planned.
4
Caveman-Dave7222 days ago
+3
The economy has grown faster than eu members of comparable size though France and Germany.
Is that despite Brexit or because of it.
I doubt anyone can prove that, Starmer is now just playing to a democratic in his party or on the edge of leaving. Nothing wrong with that but it’s about those individuals not growth.
Companies spent years changing for Brexit to spend more time reversing that seems typical of the issues the country faces
3
ogaat2 days ago
+6
There is one more unexplored scenario - What was the trajectory of the three economies pre and post Brexit?
post, even if UK did better than France and Germany (Did same as France and better than Germany), almost all economists agree that the three countries together performed worse than the pre-Brexit days.
6
RashmaDu2 days ago
+3
That is not the relevant question to ask when evaluating the effects of Brexit, it’s “How would the UK have grown relative to those countries had Brexit not happened?”
And there, economists have excellent evidence that Brexit had **huge** negative effects, somewhere around [6% of GDP](https://www.nber.org/papers/w34459), which is also the number people were saying beforehand. And yes, more uncertainty would be bad, but I don’t see anyone serious claiming it wouldn’t be worth it.
3
The_Parsee_Man1 day ago
-1
So Britain's GDP grew 1.4% in 2025. By their prediction it would have grown 7.4% without Brexit. That just doesn't seem realistic.
France only grew by 0.8% and Germany only grew by by 0.2%. Ireland is the only one that exceeded 7.4% and all others are well below that. If EU membership provided such dividends we'd see more examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#Economies_of_member_states
-1
RashmaDu1 day ago
+1
No, that is not the claim. You are confusing GDP levels and growth, and adding on to that confusion about timing.
They essentially claim British GDP by 2025 was around 6% lower than it would have been without Brexit. In growth rates, that's **around 1pp less growth a year**, which seems entirely realistic - it means the UK would have grown around 2x as quickly as France over this period absent Brexit.
1
The_Parsee_Man1 day ago
-2
Well your post wasn't clear on that point. So the actual claim is 6% spread over 6 years.
That's still a pretty big claim to justify. And it still leaves the question as to where these gains are for countries in the EU. When France and Germany aren't even making 1%, it's hard to believe being in the EU would add a compounded 1% each year over 6 years since Brexit.
The problem with economists is they tend to claim anything that supports their preferred politics. And as far as prognosticating goes they aren't very reliable. But we have hard numbers on Britain's growth that don't need any theorizing. And the uncontestable fact is that Britain is growing significantly faster than comparable EU countries.
-2
RashmaDu1 day ago
+4
> Well your post wasn't clear on that point.
You didn't bother reading the source and assumed that me mentioning GDP (a **stock**) referred to GDP **growth**.
> When France and Germany aren't even making 1%, it's hard to believe being in the EU would add a compounded 1% each year over 6 years since Brexit.
> The problem with economists is they tend to claim anything that supports their preferred politics.
You are claiming without basis that their politics is getting in the way of their economic analysis. You have given no evidence for that claim. Please, feel free to come up with actual criticism of their methodology beyond "eCoNoMiSTs are PoLiTiCaLLy MoTiVAtEd!!", then your comment is unscientific and not productive for thic conversation.
---
> And as far as prognosticating goes they aren't very reliable.
Well, in this specific case, the very same authors were pretty bang on. Here they are [in 2019](https://www.nber.org/digest/oct19/brexit-uncertainty-taking-toll-british-economy?page=1&perPage=50):
> the three-year lead-up to the scheduled withdrawal of Britain **has reduced investment by British firms by about 11 percent, and lowered productivity by between 2 to 5 percent**
Again, truly staggering effect. But hey, that was in 2019, who could have seen this coming *before the vote*? Hm, let's [see what people were saying before the vote in 2016](https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_NEW/PUBLICATIONS/abstract.asp?index=5104):
> In an *‘optimistic’ scenario*, the UK (like Norway) obtains full access to the EU single market. We calculate this results in a **1.3% fall in average UK incomes** (or £850 per household). In a *‘pessimistic’ scenario* with larger increases in trade costs, **Brexit lowers income by 2.6%** (£1,700 per household)
> Brexit would reduce long-run UK GDP by **6.2% in the Treasury’s central case** of a Canadian-style negotiated bilateral trade deal is broadly consistent with CEP’s previous work and many other independent estimates.
So, serious economists, independently in both academia and the Treasury predicted somewhere around 6% hit to GDP. And now ex post we find roughly 6% hit to GDP. Pretty good!
And, finally, emphasis on this from someone eminently more credible than me:
> **All serious economic analysis finds that Brexit would have a negative impact on UK GDP per capita**
---
> But we have hard numbers on Britain's growth that don't need any theorizing. And the uncontestable fact is that Britain is growing significantly faster than comparable EU countries.
**This is not how you analyse the CAUSAL effects of an event**. This is genuinely fundamental,[ first-year undergraduate scientific method/econometrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_analysis#Causality_construed_from_counterfactual_states). By stating that, you are doing the equivalent of saying: *"I know a smoker that lived to 75 and outlived several friends who died in an accident. Clearly, this means smoking is harmless!"*
**No**. Because the relevant *counterfactual*/comparison group is **not** France and Germany, it's the **Britain that never did Brexit**. And that's exactly the object that studies such as the one linked try to estimate.
Now, estimating that is complicated, and economists struggle a lot with it (and trust me, we tear each other to shreds over it). But the people who did this are some of the most well-respected economists out there - unless you have a genuine, specific criticism of their method, **then your comment holds no water whatsoever**.
4
V8O1 day ago
Yes, because the entire bloc, not just Britain, lost with Britain's exit. That is how trade blocks work.
The "hard numbers" you have are not a better indication as to what would have *otherwise* happened, when compared to expert analysis into what would have otherwise happened.
When doctors get paid to tell you to take paracetamol instead of drinking bleach, it's not because they have vested interests in helping big pharma make more money - it is because they are doctors.
If you're taking your advice from politicians, then yes that may often be at odds with the experts' consensus. But you shouldn't be listening to politicians over experts, and if you do then you sure as shit can't then blame the science for whatever wrongs follow.
That's how you got brexit in the first place - not a single reputable, independently-funded economist has ever conjured up any mathematical model which suggested brexit would be a good idea... but people voted with their gut feelings or trusted what a politician was saying instead. So now don't come blaming economists for it - we all told you it was a shit idea, but you did it anyway.
0
Lord_Alamo2 days ago
Not true
0
The_Parsee_Man1 day ago
+2
In 2025 Britain's GDP grew 1.4%, France grew 0.8%, Germany grew 0.2%.
The numbers seem to back up his statement.
2
enteringtheechochamb2 days ago
-4
This is to do with appeasing his party, which is fanatically pro EU. Joining the EU isn't going to have the miraculous growth Listnook thinks it will. It's delusional. The EU is just as disappointing if not more.
He has no ideas and the EU is just a cop out.
-4
RashmaDu2 days ago
+2
I don’t think anyone serious is saying that rejoining the EU will miraculously explode UK growth, but Brexit was a \*huge\* cost, something like [6% of GDP](https://www.nber.org/papers/w34459). It’s difficult to understate how large this is, and how obviously stupid Brexit was both in retrospect and at the time. Rejoining the EU won’t be a panacea, but is just objectively a good idea, I don’t know why you’re giving him shit for this
2
nonoanddefinitelyno2 days ago
+45
Finally calling out Farage for the corrupt scum he is.
I mean, two years too late, but what can you do?
45
[deleted]2 days ago
+106
[deleted]
106
kristamine142 days ago
+57
Brexit and MAGA are the same movement engineered by the same people
57
totallyRebb2 days ago
+27
*Russian giggling noises in the background*
27
Mindless-Peak-16872 days ago
+54
was never about patriotism, only nationalism.
54
Dry_Departure_78132 days ago
+12
The architects of it were disaster capitalists not well intentioned people, they made a killing the day the pound fell through the floor.
12
dgkimpton2 days ago
+9
Watch the UK double down, and then when it goes as we expect (badly) double down again.
9
sleepytoday2 days ago
+15
The bookies’ favourites to win the next election are the same people who championed and orchestrated Brexit.
Sadly, we are already doubling down.
15
remer_1z1012 days ago
Brexit made sense if it were colonial times /s
0
ColdSteveStoneAustin2 days ago
+3
Actually a funny joke. Well done.
3
bngrxd2 days ago
+19
Why is British politics so unstable? He's fighting for his job at the moment.
19
Alt_Chloe2 days ago
+6
The public and personal integrity of the political class has been slowly eroded since Brown to the point that noone in any party really likes or even *agrees* with each other. They're just working together to get their party into power, and the moment any weakness is shown they're rallying for enough change to see them through to the end of their terms, but not enough change to the point they all get sacked in a cabinet reshuffle. See all the Conservatives piling over each other for the PM position after Johnson resigned, or all the Reform members slinging shit at each other, leading to Restore Britain now being a thing.
Add on to that a major housing crisis, a looming economic crisis, an insular media pushing for right-wing accelerationism on orders from Rupert Murdoch, and a now pissed off working class with zero trust in anyone who can afford a suit and tie.
Nobody *trusts* anyone anymore, and everyone's just tired.
6
Shinyandsmooth82 days ago
+23
Our right wing media have been non stop from the day he became PM. A lot of people see through it though. He’s really not all that bad and has actually achieved a lot
23
Waste-Gene-77931 day ago
+4
“A lot” being governing like an anti-lgbtq, anti-sex, anti-privacy Tory and alienating unions?
4
Mobile_Antelope10481 day ago
+1
Sound like a US vassal alright
1
CasePsychological4562 days ago
+18
Its all seems to strange to me him doing this when he's basically getting beat in the polls by an anti-EU Party (Reform UK). Is this not the case that it will further alienate his parties former core voters, you know the one's who voted for Reform in their droves last week. As far as I can see he's just trying to please the centre of his own party to keep his job. Nigel Farage will be over the moon because under the UK's First Past the Post voting system he's going to sweep up all those former Labour, and a fair few Conservative seats as well.
I give him credit for finally 'being himself' but it's a fact that this is not going to go down well with the voting majority outside London and Scotland. All those working class former industrial seats will go to Reform. It's too late.
18
Wattsit2 days ago
+22
The latest poll has 75% of the respondants not wanting Reform. Why does he need to cater to a tiny part of the voting base?
22
CasePsychological4562 days ago
+12
It really doesn't matter how little people in a poll taken support Reform or not what does count in our voting system (in UK General Elections) is who comes first. That's why it's called first past the post. In a seat Reform only needs to come on top so even if they get say only 35% of the vote and Labour gets 30% then Reform will still take that seat. The fact that over 60% of those who voted are pro-EU means nothing. The only way they can beat reform would be to persuade all the other pro EU parties to rally around one candidate, and that is not going to happen. The more divided the electorate the better chance for Reform to take a seat.
12
2maa22 days ago
+1
Personally I think a lot of reform voters are way too ingrained in hating him at this point. He’d have way more success in appealing to the other end. Getting closer to Europe is the also right move irrespective of votes.
1
britbongTheGreat2 days ago
+8
OK, so what do you make of the recent council elections where Reform clearly came out the winners? Why do you trust the results of an opinion poll over the results of council elections?
8
Richmondez2 days ago
+4
Voting system is first past the post, if there are 5 parties running then in theory you can scrape by with just over 20% of the vote even if the voters for the other 4 parties hated you and your policies. UK has an almost constant tyranny of the minority.
4
andoooooo2 days ago
+10
The latest poll was the local elections which Reform overwhelmingly won
10
Boop0p2 days ago
+6
First past the post. Labour members voted to change it but Labour leadership is too pigheaded to listen. Labour would always get my 2nd/3rd vote if we had a more modern voting system.
6
bahumat422 days ago
-1
Because fptp is kind of broken and even if reform don't win the general they will likely gain a large foothold.
-1
VogonSoup2 days ago
+7
100%
Farage would absolutely love to turn the next GE into an EU referendum.
It’s so easy now to list a long list of negatives from his point of view. As with 2016, pro-EU side are really poor at listing enough positives.
7
ACertainUser1232 days ago
+8
What are the negatives to closer EU ties currently? Cauuse it's much easier to see the negatives of brexit right now than it was on 2016 and thus easier to see the positives to closer EU ties.
8
VogonSoup2 days ago
+11
This will be in the Reform election literature about rejoining the EU:
* Cost of membership
* Cost to businesses
* Bureaucracy
* Unaccountable and unelected leaders
* Open borders
* More immigration
* Handing over control of our laws
* Adopting the Euro
* Being controlled by Germany & France
* Forced into paying for a Euro Army
* UK growth just as strong outside of the EU
It’s such an own-goal for Labour to keep pushing this.
11
ACertainUser1232 days ago
+3
Do you have a source for any of that? As it's reduced GDP by [6-8% paper](https://www.nber.org/papers/w34459), immigration has stayed roughly the same pre and post [Brexit](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) (note the rise in immigration in 2023/24 is likely due to the decrease after COVID and the backlog it caused).
Also which leader was it that wanted us to join in on the Iran war? Hint it wasn't Kier Starmer
3
VogonSoup2 days ago
+9
Source? Of course not.
I’ve just typed out a list off the top of my head of the kind of thing every household will see in Reform’s literature at the next general election.
9
RashmaDu2 days ago
-4
They provided sources for both claims…
-4
VogonSoup2 days ago
+6
I’m not claiming anything - I literally said these are the kinds of things Farage will say.
6
drae-2 days ago
+5
Listnook really struggles with telling the difference between having something explained, and someone arguing a point they believe in.
5
Dinosawrrbeans2 days ago
+1
The 8% drop is probably not true. If it was then the UK would have massively outperformed all other EU countries.
1
RashmaDu2 days ago
-1
This is just wrong, this is not how causal analysis works! The relevant question is “If Brexit **had not happened**, would the UK have outperformed other EU countries **more**?”
To which the answer,a ccording to any serious economist, is a resounding yes.
-1
The_Parsee_Man1 day ago
+1
And how do we know that economist is right? The growth without Brexit he's theorizing seems pretty unrealistic. The UK doing 7.4% GDP growth in 2025 when France and Germany aren't even close to matching Britain's actual 1.4% doesn't seem likely.
1
RashmaDu1 day ago
+1
That isn't how it works. It's 6% loss of GDP *by 2025*, not growth *in 2025-26*, which if you annualise it is around 1pp extra growth on average for the 5 years since Brexit. That seems entirely realistic to me.
> And how do we know that economist is right?
We don't. But unless you have a specific reason to believe they are wrong, and unless you have a better way of analysing it, then you don't have a good reason to believe they are wrong.
1
AssassinAragorn2 days ago
+1
There's a fairly easy counterargument though, which is asking people if they feel they're better off now versus pre Brexit. It's a bit of a dishonest question considering the pandemic was just a few years after Brexit and there were globally economic troubles, but it forces Reform to try argue defensively for once
1
ColdSteveStoneAustin2 days ago
-7
Unless you're a fasc, you should be telling people why to vote left.
-7
drae-2 days ago
+6
He's not telling anyone to vote either way. Not advocating.
He's explaining, what very obviously, will happen if the next parliamentary election becomes a referendum on rejoining the EU.
Someone can explain what a party will do, without supporting them.
Like, yikes.
6
ColdSteveStoneAustin2 days ago
+1
It was easy in 2016 as well.
Extremists are liars.
1
g17gud2 days ago
+3
Sure wish he provided a very clear plan of what that really means by that...
Rejoining seems to be a no-go due to their manifesto. I was hoping to hear some excuse along the lines that Iran situation changed everything and now we need to revisit some points, but that seems unlikely.
Doing a few small changes here and there "to move closer" seems like a nothing burger, as it won't do much to sway voters.
On top of that if (when?) they lose the next general election, Reform will easily backtrack. I also presume the EU anticipate this, so unless they see clear definitive steps towards rejoining, they will be quite reluctant to accept vague deals.
3
Santos_L_Halper_II2 days ago
+8
Granted I know nothing about British politics, but why are there calls for him to be ousted already? Is this the "the left didn't immediately fix all the major fuckups their right-wing predecessors caused so we're going to vote in more right-wing dipshits as soon as we can" bullshit we constantly deal with in America?
8
GreyScope2 days ago
+8
Because there is an agenda from some for disruption (Russia , right wing media and business scum types) and also perception trumps facts .
8
bowak1 day ago
+1
I was happy for him to get in but he (and/or his team) is bloody terrible at optics and basic comms.
There's quite a bit of good long term change type stuff ticking away, but the trouble is that the benefits of those won't start to become noticeable until after the next general election in 2029.
Now, in theory that's all good as if it goes to plan everything ends up as good as it could be 10 years in. But if people feel no difference 2 years in, it's very hard to make a case for the direction of travel being a success. He really should have picked a couple of big impact areas where a success could be loudly and visibly be happening by now, even if it means the overall plan takes 12 years instead of 10 years to implement. Because there's no point having a 'better overall' plan if you can't stay in office long enough to actually implement it.
The real problem of course is that Starmer was never meant to be PM. He was meant to be the buffer between Corbyn and whoever could sweep in to power in 2029 after 10 years of Boris. However no one could have predicted Covid AND Truss. So the caretaker became the headmaster and turns out he wasn't as suited to the job as we hoped.
1
Notre-Dame-Gremlin2 days ago
+11
Brexit was an idiotic move and it is quite obvious that it will be reversed (in fact if not in law, at least at first).
That Starmer is doing it in hopes of saving his skin is fun but kinda irrelevant. Getting back into Europe is the only way.
11
tweeglitch2 days ago
+4
Fortunately (speaking as an EU citizen), the UK isn't the only one with a say on Brexit reversal (i.e. the UK rejoining); there are 27 member states, each with a veto. Orban's Hungary was bad enough. So a potential Reform-led UK won't be welcomed with open arms.
4
MyLifeIsFullOfDreams2 days ago
+1
A reform led uk wouldn’t ask to come back, but a Starmer led UK might. Seeing as the UK and EU are currently desperately trying to create a functional nonUS NATO, I suspect Europe will want us back because of our Nuclear capability, and because our military forces are still considered top level.
1
tweeglitch2 days ago
A Reform-led UK wouldn't (obviously), but a potential Reform-led UK (as I wrote) might. I.e., one not led by Reform, but that could potentially become so after the start of the accession process. Alignment with product standards and their shared enforcement isn't necessary to combine the UK and EU member-state armed forces. I don't know of any nuclear weapon-specific rule in the Acquis communautaire. They may be non-compliant with health and safety regulations. But this could be done with the UK as a non-member state. Also, how US-independent is the UK's nuclear defence? The French, from the get-go (they left NATO's integrated command in '66), have made sure their defence is in French hands. And they are keen to extend that umbrella over the rest of Europe. How enthusiastic would the UK be to do the same? A vote w*****? The UK's relationship with the EU will forever be a political football in the UK. And that makes them an unreliable partner for the EU, in trade and defence.
0
VogonSoup2 days ago
+4
Or he could read the room, see the huge swing towards the anti-immigration and anti-EU party and not mention closer ties at the first opportunity.
But Labour putting the country first (by keeping it out of the grip of a Tory/Reform coalition) would require some political pragmatism.
4
AssassinAragorn2 days ago
+3
As a counterpoint, look at the 2024 US Election. Trying to play to the middle and grab moderate Republicans was a significant part of Kamala's strategy and it completely failed.
Swinging to concurrent moderate/right wing trends ultimately may not be beneficial. Recent US political history suggests that has been a losing tactic. It may be better to differentiate yourself and shore up your base (which I'm loathe to admit, but Trump did successfully), while asking voters to think if things were better pre or post Brexit.
3
VogonSoup2 days ago
+3
Reform is a third party and it has pretty much split the left and right wing vote. Both Labour and Tories suffered losses in last week’s elections.
Shots across the boughs have already been fired.
I don’t think there’s any comparison with the US tbh.
3
Notre-Dame-Gremlin2 days ago
+10
Immigration (especially clandestine) has only shot up since Brexit.
Following the sheep is not what leaders do.
People who vote for anti immigration parties are sending a message.
But ultimately all the culture war stuff is bullshit.
It’s actually a cry for help, for economic help, for better wages, better safety net.
10
VogonSoup2 days ago
+6
I don’t disagree, but Labour will lose the next election if they focus on the EU.
6
britbongTheGreat2 days ago
+10
A lot of people here don't like to hear this but the recent council election results speak loudly and clearly. Do people really think so many people voted for Reform because they want closer EU ties? There's such a disconnect between Listnook and reality.
10
VogonSoup2 days ago
+9
I agree.
It’s as if someone at Labour HQ suggested they can wrest a couple of pro-EU percentage points from the Greens and Lib Dems.
They should be focusing on (re)attracting disillusioned, EU-ambivalent voters from Reform.
A year ago I was dismissing Farage out of hand. Now the likelihood of a Tory/Reform coalition with him as PM or Deputy PM is really worrying.
9
MyLifeIsFullOfDreams2 days ago
-4
But there’s also massive disconnect between the media and reality. The majority of people in this country do not support reform. It’s about 25%… and the more that America falls apart the more the support for reform will weaken. And I think people have been sucked into it because they’re so angry at the government general for 20 years of shit that, like Brexit, it represents a vote against the status quo.
If Starmer can actually provide a positive focal point, promise to take some actual action that will make a real difference, rather than deck chair rearranging, I think the dynamics in the country will change. A general election is a long way away….
-4
VogonSoup2 days ago
+5
It’s the percentage required per constituency that’s worrying though.
If 5 parties each field a candidate, 25% support for Reform wins.
5
MyLifeIsFullOfDreams2 days ago
-2
I disagree. At the latest poll, 55% want to rejoin the EU. And there’s been no one to represent them in parliament on any level in the last 10 years. I think the fact that he’s finally stuck his head above the parapet and said that that’s what he’s going to aim for, a closer relationship with EU on defence and trade is going to provide a focal point for all the people who have felt lost ever since Brexit happened. Reform et cetera have been making such gains because they provided a stand for people to get behind who have grievances against the state of their lives. In the face of a government that appears not to be listening. I think this will provide the opposite position and rallying point that has been desperately needed for those who are against the right wing to coalesce around.
-2
VogonSoup2 days ago
+3
55% split across 3 political parties will make no difference if Reform only need 30% of votes in any constituency to win.
3
Tesl2 days ago
+1
Shame Farage will probably win the next election and then seek to further poison the relationship with the EU. I can't imagine the EU can hope for much right now even if Starmer is keen given what's waiting for us around the corner.
1
heytherepartner50502 days ago
+2
Nice idea but he can’t do it with the anti-refugee, anti-trans & anti-disabled stuff, as currently the U.K. is in breach of 3 separate ECHR Articles & the EU will demand that shit is reversed if the U.K. wants closer ties to the EU. If you want to be closer to the EU, you’re gonna have to ban conversion therapy as well, which is what the U.K. has now replaced trans healthcare with & assert that trans men are men, trans women are women, something Starmer himself said he ‘doesn’t believe in’ & ‘actively opposes’ almost immediately after the GE.
He’s saying things that will make the gullible in the party support him again, but he’s never actually going to do it. When he doesn’t, they’ll replace him with Streeting & pretend for a few months that he isn’t doing all the exact same policies & fake promises as Starmer, then we’ll be back where we started.
2
NeoThermic2 days ago
+11
We're still in the ECHR. Brexit didn't change that, because our ECHR membership is distinct from our EU membership.
This is why it's VERY dangerous when people tie these as the same thing and campaign on leaving ECHR too. Most of your well-fought-for human rights are backed up by adherence to ECHR.
11
heytherepartner50502 days ago
-7
Currently my rights in the U.K. are in contravention of 3 ECHR Articles as a trans person, so where are my ‘hard backed’ rights as I lose them in the present day? This is what I mean, while it is technically separate, compliance with the ECHR Articles will be the stumbling block for this entire thing, as the Labour Right want to throw trans people to the wolves to slake their donors & lobbyists, but closer ties to the EU will put a kibosh on that.
As an aside, big fan of the ECHR, very concerned that Labour are talking about tweaking Article 8, as that applies to the forced outing of trans people & will put us even further out of step with Europe. It’s just a non-starter unless Labour want to disavow their far-right lurch & eat humble pie (plus lose most the cabinet for being far-right), something I could picture Ed Milliband doing (probably due to the classic bacon butty photo, gosh that was a long time ago now), but not any member of Starmers cabinet nor Starmer
-7
NeoThermic2 days ago
-1
When the government violates ECHR then it takes a bit of time to get ECHR rulings to help out. The law is slow in this regard, but it's why their guidelines about trans bathroom usage got eventually pulled, the lawyers were informed that legal proceedings had begun against them and that they were not going to win the case.
Labour, though, are throwing us under the bus in their attempt to appeal to the right. I'm not the most rosy person about the situation, so my advice really is to build up skills and money to consider leaving the UK if possible. [Transrescue](https://transrescue.org/the-uk-is-descending-into-transphobia-how-to-get-out) has a small article from Feb about how to plan for getting out. There's still time to plan, there's still time for the legal situation to get better, but honestly, Plan B of leaving the UK is sadly a requirement.
When the conservatives were in power, I had a gobag in my closet. If shit hit specific criteria, I was going to leave with the gobag and then sort out the rest from abroad. I unpacked the bag after the GE last year, but the moment the transphobes won their shitty court case, I packed it again. As I said before, I'm not rosy about this, leaving the UK might have to be the answer for safety. Plan now.
-1
Formal-Equivalent5802 days ago
-2
Well Farage wants out of that.
-2
NeoThermic2 days ago
+3
And for any sane person, that should be a fully disqualifying thing to platform on. Alas.
3
enteringtheechochamb2 days ago
+2
Yeah this will win him those Reform seats back.
2
scrapy_the_scrap2 days ago
+2
Brenter here we come
2
TurbulentLifeguard112 days ago
+3
He should have just stepped out there are said "You know what? I'll give you all a referendum on rejoining the EU.", dropped his microphone, and walked out past the rabid Reform voting media screaming at him.
3
RoleTall20251 day ago
+1
the man is failing about, fighting for his life as he is being flushed down the drain.
1
Apwnalypse2 days ago
+1
But not customs unions, single market, or anything actually meaningful. Non-announcement
1
LindemannO2 days ago
+11
A journalist asked about SM and Customs Union. Starmer responded saying, what they are doing and planning to do right now sets the “platform” for something bigger in the future. I imagine thats a hint toward a 2029 manifesto pledge including both. He further went on to say that we should turn our backs on the “arguments of the past”.
11
Bleakwind2 days ago
Kier needs to know that he lost more votes to leftist movement that he did for the right.
Let the tories fight for those conservatives and far right people.
Turn left fast. You only got 2 years mate
0
brakiri2 days ago
Bre-entry!
0
Jackh_722 days ago
-6
Well GB, you had your chance, now deal with the consequences.
Maybe apply for re-entry in a couple of years or so, until then, get your shit together.
/e: typo
-6
MyLifeIsFullOfDreams2 days ago
+2
I think that’s his plan.
2
Subject-Dealer63502 days ago
The UK divorced us and left the house ranting on how being alone is better than staying in this marriage. Stop complaining, you bought into the populism and got popped.
0
Gibby_Jabby1 day ago
Brenter
0
mark1966a1 day ago
Labour and this traitorous prick are toast
0
Feisty_System_47512 days ago
-3
Starmer had almost 2 years to fix the UK, that's a century in PM years. The British are getting sloppy.
But I'm sure going full conservative again will fix everything.
-3
[deleted]2 days ago
-17
[deleted]
-17
highlandviper2 days ago
+5
Why? Not being antagonistic anything. Genuine question to understand your point of view.
5
rock-my-socks2 days ago
+3
He's not perfect, but every other leader since at least Cameron has been worse.
3
The0zymandias2 days ago
+1
he’s not perfect, but i won’t say he hasn’t been acting an adult, compared to the past few leaders we’ve had, he hasn’t started some bs like a rwanda deportation plan, the mandelson thing wasn’t great though i can see the thought process, tho the recent renters right bill was good
1
The0zymandias2 days ago
+1
he needs to is more emotionally loaded than logically, a lot of ppl hate the guy when he hasn’t really earned that title
1
DDoubleDDog2 days ago
-9
Both Labour and the Tories are finished if they don't take the problem of Islamic extremism seriously. This is the single biggest reason why Reform is becoming so popular. Labour and the Tories have ignored this problem for too long and the people are terrified. The people are looking for someone to protect the country. The far right in every country is being enabled by the rise of Islamic extremism and the negligence of other parties who continue to do nothing about it. I predict more far right parties will emerge victorious in Europe as liberal and conservative parties continue to ignore the huge problem of Islamic extremism. This will be bad for everyone. It's time for liberals and conservatives to take this problem seriously before the far right takes full control.
-9
Richmondez2 days ago
+3
You mean take the fear of the problem of Islamic extremism seriously because in reality the fastest growing demographic in the British census was none religious. Islamic extremism is probably less of a problem than white supremecism is in the uk, I didn't see any Islamic extemists get appointed to council positions recently.
3
DDoubleDDog2 days ago
Both white supremacists and Islamic extremists are a problem. They are both dangerous far right ideologies. They should both be taken seriously or the far right will end up winning.
0
Farewell-Farewell2 days ago
-7
What does "closer to the EU" mean? How much sovereignty will Starmer give away without a democratic mandate?
Outside of the echo chamber, the world has moved on, and Brexit is no longer a thing. There needs to be a focus on economic growth, and the growth is not in the EU, where growth is worse than, or equal to, the UK. Labour needs a broad plan, rather than one that constrains future economic opportunities.
This is just a political ploy to set up clear water between Labour and Reform UK.
And I am pro-EU, but just cynical about the motivations here and cautious about the EU's propensity to insinuate control through sovereignty loss. Look at fisheries as a case in point.
-7
Richmondez2 days ago
+6
He has a democratic mandate to act on behalf of the British people as he sees fit as per how representative democracy works.
131 Comments