RayC

AV is a form of PR. No, I don't. His full-time job should be looking after the interests of his constituents. That is what he was elected to do. His role as leader of Reform is secondary. If he has got too much on his plate, then he needs to prioritise. Perhaps, he could start by cutting down on the amount of time that he spends in the US. I doubt that very many of the 4 million Reform voters reside there.

My point was that most of the current UK trade deals have nothing nothing to do with Brexit. The UK doesn't seem to be making much progress on sorting out its' own deals. The UK/ CPTPP deal was meant to be signed in 2022, but has been delayed by a dispute regarding access to the UK agricultural market, a problem which caused talks about a bi-lateral UK-Canada deal to be curtailed. It is by no means certain that the UK/ CPTPP deal will be signed. Moreover, welcome as any deals may be, the estimated financial benefit of joining CPTPP are small compared to the estimated losses of leaving the single market: Modelling suggests joining CPTPP could boost UK GDP by around £13.5 billion every year in the long-run (Source: gov.uk). To put this into context, the Centre for European Research estimated that leaving the Single Market cost the UK £12.9 billion in December 2021 alone (https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-december-2021#:~:text=For%20many%20months%2C%20the%20CER's,the%20month%20(Chart%201). Nevertheless, you are correct any bi-lateral trade deals struck by the UK since Brexit - including CPTPP - would present a stumbling block to rejoining. We would probably face a stark choice i.e. rip up these deals or remain outside of the EU. If it's a purely financial decision, imo the choice seems obvious.

It is a bit disingenuous to focus solely on the 2024 election when highlighting the anomalies caused by FPTP. No government has won more than 50% of the vote since 1935. The current Labour government has as much of a mandate to govern as any other elected under FPTP. Notwithstanding that, I am in total agreement with you about the unfairness of the FPTP system. Unfortunately, the UK electorate did not share our view and rejected PR. I would think that support for PR has increased over the past decade - although I have no empirical evidence to support that claim - but whether those of us who favour PR are now in a majority is unlikely. Imo Farage has been one of the most important political voices in the UK this century. Without him, I doubt that there would have been a Brexit referendum, so his influence is clear. However, if The Guardian article is factually correct, then, to date, Farage has spent a risible proportion of his time since the election in Clacton. If he wishes to voice his support for overseas causes and politicians that is his perojective, but it should not be at the expense of his constituents. Farage is not a minister, so his focus should be the same as any other MP i.e. on the needs of his constituents.

Rinse and repeat: "The topic is about what the Trump presidency might mean for the UK. This naturally leads to a discussion about how the UK might mitigate any potential negative effects. One suggestion is to forge closer ties with our European neighbours, so discussion about EU/UK relations is very much 'on topic'." (Potentially rejoining the EU forms part of a discussion of EU/UK relations so, again, very much 'on topic'). Over to you.

Amongst other things. It is one option and relevant to the discussion.

If that's the case, why then has the UK 'rolled over' all the trade deals struck on its' behalf by the EU?

To state the blindingly obvious, if Russia hadn't invaded sovereign Ukrainian territory then there would be no need to even discuss Ukraine fighting to the last man. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the threat posed to Europe by Putin's actions.

You've lost yourself. I've been on topic all along, apart from allowing myself to be drawn into ridiculous one-liners. You are unable to make a coherent counter argument to the points raised and, therefore resort to emojis and statements which lack any substance such as, "I can stand the pain but not the BS".

The topic is about what the Trump presidency might mean for the UK. This naturally leads to a discussion about how the UK might mitigate any potential negative effects. One suggestion is to forge closer ties with our European neighbours, so discussion about EU/UK relations is very much 'on topic'.

Politicians cannot effect change unless they are in office. Starmer will compromise on his beliefs in to gain (remain in) office. He's no different to almost any other politician in that regard irrespective of the colour of the rosette.

The BS

If Trump decides to visit Clacton then he might need to find his own way there. Apparently, Farage doesn't spend much time in the constituency. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/20/clacton-nigel-farage-first-months-as-mp-reform It remains to be seen whether Trump's win will have any effect on Europe's populist movements.

I doubt that Starmer believes that Brexit was anything but a massive mistake. However, he's a politician and rejoining now would upset too many of his potential voters. Obviously he doesn't want to risk losing their support. Me? I'd rejoin tomorrow unless the terms offered by the EU were prohibitive. We won't get the same deal as we had, but I find it hard to imagine that any deal is worse than being on the outside looking in.

I agree with most of that. However, unfortunately, many of my compatriots are apparently stuck in some Victorian twilight zone where 'Britain ruled the waves' and was able to dictate the course of world events.

And due to the UK's weaker negotiating position now that we are outside of the EU, any such deal will almost certainly be worse than one that the EU could strike with the same partner(s).

Why would he want to do that when everything's going so well since we left?🤦😂

Didn't stop you believing it in 2016.

Another example of the BBC's left-wing bias ... oh, hold on .... Starmer stated in his welcome to Badenoch that " ... he looks forward to working with her in the interests of the British people". Far chance of that happening. As George Osborne said, "Kemi could start an argument in a phone box with herself". And Osborne's one of her friends!!

That would probably be a boost for the EU as the CDU is von der Leyden's party. So not all bad then.

And you're still supporting death in Ukraine with your pro-Russian propaganda.

Anyone thinking that the right-wing conspiracy theorists might disappear as a result of Trump's victory can rest easy. Some posts in this thread show that they are still alive and kicking.

You'll just have to bear the pain. The facts often hurt.

"But the UK really doesn't matter much to the US." Ouch! That hurts. Nevertheless, thank you for posting your opinion, which I imagine is held by a sizeable number of your compatriots and, more importantly, seemingly by a succession of US governments (whatever their colour). The UK has a rich cultural, economic and social history and has much to be proud of, but the belief that by acting on its' own in the 21st century, it has any real influence or power in the world is imo delusional. Europe as a whole is a fading force. Imo it can only slow the inevitable decline, and continue to be important, if it acts and moves as one entity. For that reason alone, Brexit was a disaster for the UK and a sizeable body blow for Europe as a whole.

In what way is the following 'nonsense'? What is factually incorrect about the statement? "The EU has preferential trade agreements with 70 nations, and seeks to extend that number. If Trump is true to his word, all imports to the US, irrespective of their origin, will attract tariffs." And 8 years after the referendum result and approaching 5 years after we formally left the EU, what have we got to show for it? Three new deals - Japan, Australia, NZ (deals on terms where the latter two nations can't believe their luck) - but nothing with the US, India or China and no indication that there is likely to be any deals in the foreseeable future. Instead - if we want to continue exporting to our biggest market (the EU) - we now have to effectively implement new and revised EU regulations without having any input into the development of these laws as we had previously. As an added bonus, exporters to the EU have to deal with 'red tape' that never formally existed. Yes, everything's been peachy since we left.

Absolute tosh as usual. The EU has preferential trade agreements with 70 nations, and seeks to extend that number. If Trump is true to his word, all imports to the US, irrespective of their origin, will attract tariffs. See the difference? Even after leaving, the UK could have remained a member of the Single Market and Customs Union but chose not to. A decision that you supported.