Starmer’s Brexit Reset: A Strategic Shift or a Sacrifice?

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Due to Lawfare. Not a thing wrong with the policy or the reasoning behind it.

 

Starmer cancelled it, and wasted around £700 million.

 

The clueless creature is now running around kissing @rses to try and set up offshore return hubs, costs unknown, but it will be triple figure £ Millions.

 

You really should try engaging brain before engaging keyboard.

 

Here is Starmers 1st humiliation over his offshore hubs

 

 

there will be more to come.

Starmer cancelled the Tories failed Rwanda scam and saved tax payers £millions.

 

 

[The Cyclist]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Starmer cancelled the Tories failed Rwanda scam and saved tax payers £millions.

 

 

 

It never failed, because it never got off the ground due to Labour and Lawfare.

 

Starmer cancelled it and he now owns the waste of taxpayers cash. If he had a brain, he would have run it for 6 months to see what the deterrent effect was.

 

Instead we now have record numbers of Illegal Gimmegrants flocking across the Channel. And chicken brain running about trying to create offshore hubs. And being told to do one.

 

You are like Starmer at PMQ's when given something that you do not have a scripted answer for... A stunned goldfish impression, combined with the gushing of verbal diarrhoea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Cyclist]

3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

What have Labour achieved in the last year 

 

1. Record numbers of Illegal Immigrants

 

2. Unemployment heading up

 

3. National Debt heading up

 

4. Interest on the National Debt heading up.

 

5. increased hatred in the Labour Party.

 

Oops

 

Add inflation up to that list

 

 

[RayC]

An opinion from The i: 

 

https://link.news.inews.co.uk/view/662be3d5948726eba903a187ns9qu.18qk/f3fa25d5

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

An opinion from The i: 

 

https://link.news.inews.co.uk/view/662be3d5948726eba903a187ns9qu.18qk/f3fa25d5

 

A sane and rational article 😀😀

 

Quote

The Brexiters must be defeated. There is no point debating with these people 

 

Quote

They must simply be vanquished

 

Seems like a person you could hold a civil conversation with, for about 2 seconds.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

A sane and rational article 😀😀

 

 

 

Seems like a person you could hold a civil conversation with, for about 2 seconds.

 

The author obviously views further conversation as being pointless for various reasons. His last paragraph is telling:

 

"Why are the Brexiters so upset? ..

It can’t really be about such tiny, inoffensive ideas as a youth mobility scheme or health regulations on agri-foods. It’s something deeper. It’s the manner and existence of the deal itself.

 

This is why they’re so outraged ...

 

There is simply no deal that these people will support. There is no arrangement with Europe, no matter how benign and non-committal, which (they) would not call surrender."

[The Cyclist]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

The author obviously views further conversation as being pointless for various reasons. His last paragraph is telling:

 

It was the 2 quotes that I posted that makes him an idiot

 

Quote

The Brexiters must be defeated. There is no point debating with these people 

 

Quote

They must simply be vanquished

 

I he calling for the genocide of 17 million voters ?
 

Change Brexiters to Illegal Gimmegrants, and he would already have been arrested, tried and jailed.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

It was the 2 quotes that I posted that makes him an idiot

 

 

 

I he calling for the genocide of 17 million voters ?
 

Change Brexiters to Illegal Gimmegrants, and he would already have been arrested, tried and jailed.

 

Ridiculous hyperbole with a dose of self-pity thrown in for good measure.

 

To vanquish means to defeat. It does not imply or infer genocide.

 

If 17 million voters are all singing from the same hymn sheet, then surely there must be one posting on ASEAN who can detail what Brexit should look like? Clearly not the case to date.

 

The truth is that the 17 million voters didn't want the same thing. Many now have 'buyers regret' and would vote differently; many others would welcome more cordial relations with the EU, and do not have a problem with this latest deal. Sadly, there remain (no pun intended) a significant number of Brexiters for whom, as Dunt correctly points out:

 

"There is simply no deal that these people will support. There is no arrangement with Europe, no matter how benign and non-committal, which (they) would not call surrender". These are the people who need to be defeated.

[The Cyclist]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

There is simply no deal that these people will support. There is no arrangement with Europe, no matter how benign and non-committal, which (they) would not call surrender". These are the people who need to be defeated.

 

As we are now back under the control of the ECJ, then the deal is neither benign or non commital.

 

What was that ? The author didn't know this, you didn't know this ?
 

Thats the issue with those highly educated remainers. Some of them don't even know the difference between Europe and the EU, or the ECHR or the ECJ.

[RayC]

23 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

As we are now back under the control of the ECJ, then the deal is neither benign or non commital.

 

What was that ? The author didn't know this, you didn't know this ?
 

Thats the issue with those highly educated remainers. Some of them don't even know the difference between Europe and the EU, or the ECHR or the ECJ.

 

Your comment about the use of 'Europe' and 'EU' is pedantic: Moreover, I have not mentioned either the ECHR or the ECJ until this post, and I know the difference.

 

Food sold in the EU will need to meet EU food regulations. Where there is a dispute about EU law, the ECJ - the Supreme Court of the EU - will adjudicate. Are these shocking revelations? Why would the judiciaries from 3rd-country should be involved?

 

You are sniping around the edges. There is nothing of substance in your objections.