Labour leadership contest revives Brexit row

Re-joining the EU is (IMHO) the right thing to do but there is no way we'll get to go back in on the same terms (Veto rights & Keep Sterling ) so I don't think it will ever happen...

If the UK signs up to having the Euro as its currency then I for 1 will sell everything I own there & fck the country off for once & all.

Does China ever ask it's citizens to vote on trade deals?

Looney toons in the UK.

The UK and the EU nations by culture and history are linked, even if there is some regulation allignment, who cares? There isn't any improvement in UK lives since Brexit. The average Benidormy Brit has not seen anything positive from leaving the EU.

If so tell me what has improved for you.

26 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

Does China ever ask it's citizens to vote on trade deals?

Does China ask its citizens anything?

Vaguely remember the bile and rancour that

Brexit caused.

However the drop in the pound from 51 to

46 baht the next day is seared in my memory !

1 hour ago, SamSpade said:

Re-joining the EU is (IMHO) the right thing to do but there is no way we'll get to go back in on the same terms (Veto rights & Keep Sterling ) so I don't think it will ever happen...

If the UK signs up to having the Euro as its currency then I for 1 will sell everything I own there & fck the country off for once & all.

Labour will be totally gone in 2 years.

It's laughable that this bunch of liars even suggest there's anything they can do in the time they have remaining.

1 hour ago, DonniePeverley said:

Does China ever ask it's citizens to vote on trade deals?

Looney toons in the UK.

The UK and the EU nations by culture and history are linked, even if there is some regulation allignment, who cares? There isn't any improvement in UK lives since Brexit. The average Benidormy Brit has not seen anything positive from leaving the EU.

If so tell me what has improved for you.

That's because the corrupt Tories only did a 'pretend Brexit'

Brexit was to stop immigration and Euro law .......... they kept both!

The Tories will also be gone in the next 2 years.

The outlook for Politics in the UK is confusing - both Labour and the Tories look to be a spent force.

But we have Reform, IMO a 'puff of wind' that won't go the distance and the Greens who have NO chance at all. Farage and Polanski seem deeply flawed.

It's depressing that the ailing Starmer looks to be the best chance of providing some continuing stability.

The worst Labour alternative would be Rayner followed by Milliband, (both quite loony IMO), and Streeting. Burnham looks solid but the media will take him apart as the by-election proceeds and at least, Burnham has shelved his 'rejoin EU' stance for now.

It's depressing. Although leaning to the practical 'Left' myself, I yearn for the days we had Sunak/Hunt in charge!

3 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

The outlook for Politics in the UK is confusing - both Labour and the Tories look to be a spent force.

But we have Reform, IMO a 'puff of wind' that won't go the distance and the Greens who have NO chance at all. Farge and Polanski seem deeply flawed.

It's depressing that the ailing Starmer looks to be the best chance of some continuing stability.

The worst Labour alternative would be Rayner followed by Milliband, (both quite loony IMO), and Streeting. Burnham looks solid but the media will take him apart as the by-election proceeds and at least, Burnham has shelved his 'rejoin EU' stance for now.

It's depressing. Although leaning to the practical 'Left' myself, I yearn for the days we had Sunak/Hunt in charge!

As an observer.......................... only Burnham can give labour a fighting chance..........................He could certainly win back recently lost seats to reform and even tip the scales with disillusioned Tories.......For the uninitiated, like myself, one only has to look and listen to the man, to feel that he might be someone that one might want to vote for. He just has that look and appeal imo and sometimes, just that is enough...........................

The reason that the UK is in this domestic political mess, and has been since the Brexit Referendum, is quite simply that the political establishment has quite simply refused, and continues to refuse, to honour the decision of the electorate expressed in the Referendum and subsequent general elections.

That is why Farage/Reform UK have risen to the fore in UK politics, and that is why they are quite possibly going to end up in government in the relatively near future.

I am far from an uncritical admirer of Farage/Reform UK, and had reservations

at the time of the referendum (although I voted to leave). I still can see some benefits on closer co-operation with the EU; but the refusal to enact properly the decision of the referendum has destroyed public trust in our government and our political system. That has caused damage which can only be repaired by significant reform (note lower case).

The "Great Reform Act" of 1832 dramatically recast our political system, getting rid of Rotten Boroughs, widening the franchise and redistriuting constituencies more fairly. The franchise has continued to widen, until it has reached its current universal state. It introduced the effective two party system which survives (just) to this day; but a brief look at the seat distribution in Parliament, compared with vote percentages demonstrates the anomaly which now exists in our system. I can't see how that can be resolved under the present system.

Perhaps it is now time, nearly two hundred years later, to look at a second Reform Bill which again recast our electoral system - dare I say Proportional Representation to ensure proper representation in Parliament - and not just a system of counting, reviewing and counting the votes over and over again until the LibDems win the seat (mind you, they have gone very quiet on PR of late)!

The Brexit vote was 10 years ago, surely most of those ''yes morons'' are pushing up daisies....

Lets have another vote on it, after all the Scots are wanting anther bash too and this time it should include the English......

1 hour ago, Off Piste said:

49 minutes ago, Pasak110 said:

all the Scots are wanting anther bash too and this time it should include the

As an observer.......................... only Burnham can give labour a fighting chance..........................He could certainly win back recently lost seats to reform and even tip the scales with disillusioned Tories.......For the uninitiated, like myself, one only has to look and listen to the man, to feel that he might be someone that one might want to vote for. He just has that look and appeal imo and sometimes, just that is enough.......................

He's got to win a bi-election first, then win a leadership election which he's lost twice before. Meantime re Brexit we've never fully left. Rejoining will come at a price though.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

He added that Brexit had left the UK “less wealthy, less powerful and less in control” and said Britain should pursue a closer relationship with the EU, potentially including eventual re-entry,

Common sense ❗❗❗👍🙏

2 hours ago, Pasak110 said:

The Brexit vote was 10 years ago, surely most of those ''yes morons'' are pushing up daisies....

Further to my previous (above) post - "yes morons" - this is another reason why so many now follow Farage/Reform!

I wonder how the voters of Manchester feel about choosing Burnham as mayor only to see him eagerly dump them at the first opportunity. Doesn't it say what an opportunist he is?

Living outside the UK, my only knowledge of what passes for "politics" over there comes from PMQ's.

Granted, Prime Minister's Questions are a circus show, but it does at least give some opportunity to form an opinion about whoever is currently running the show (or aspiring to run it).

I have been impressed by only one politician in the last six months or so: Kemi Badenoch.

She seems to have all her marbles together and also seems to actually believe what she is talking about. (However, the recent experience of the Conservatives in voting themselves a woman to be their leader does not inspire confidence.)

(Oh, and she's definitely nicer than Thatcher.)

Leopold I disagree with you. Remember at PMQs she has had hours of preparation with her team. I really don't like Badenoch at all and IMO the Tories would be well rid of her !

PMQ's is just theatre. And don't forget, Badenoch would have joined Trump's illegal war . . . .

30 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I wonder how the voters of Manchester feel about choosing Burnham as mayor only to see him eagerly dump them at the first opportunity. Doesn't it say what an opportunist he is?

Sure...............Perhaps it might be seen as for the greater good, all things labour, from his and voters perspective.....

2 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

He's got to win a bi-election first, then win a leadership election which he's lost twice before.

Understand, but ........but Labour need to be united. and only, imo, Burnham has this innate ability to galvanise people and those that count. It’s a special skill and that’s probably the main reason he is so feared by rivals. He’s also seriously proven in Manchester what can be achieved. Kind of a no brainer picking him really imo…….

7 hours ago, Pasak110 said:

The Brexit vote was 10 years ago, surely most of those ''yes morons'' are pushing up daisies....

Lets have another vote on it, after all the Scots are wanting anther bash too and this time it should include the English......

What a nasty comment.

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

That's because the corrupt Tories only did a 'pretend Brexit'

Brexit was to stop immigration and Euro law .......... they kept both!

The Tories will also be gone in the next 2 years.

The problem the UK has it's a deeply heavy set state, that requires high taxese to fund. The public demand a free NHS (electorial it's suicide to even look at anything else), they demand free education, funded policing, and care for elderly, etc This all costs alot of of money. The country is also in huge debt to the bond markets.

So you have electorial issues, and then also a problem to service debts.

Brexit cannot work in these instances. If you have low public debt, you have very low funded state operations then you create an enviroment where you can take a hit in the short term to create a long term low tax economy to the world.

5 hours ago, Purdey said:

I wonder how the voters of Manchester feel about choosing Burnham as mayor only to see him eagerly dump them at the first opportunity. Doesn't it say what an opportunist he is?

First opportunity? He's been there 10 years.

9 hours ago, JAG said:

The reason that the UK is in this domestic political mess, and has been since the Brexit Referendum, is quite simply that the political establishment has quite simply refused, and continues to refuse, to honour the decision of the electorate expressed in the Referendum and subsequent general elections.

That is why Farage/Reform UK have risen to the fore in UK politics, and that is why they are quite possibly going to end up in government in the relatively near future.

I am far from an uncritical admirer of Farage/Reform UK, and had reservations

at the time of the referendum (although I voted to leave). I still can see some benefits on closer co-operation with the EU; but the refusal to enact properly the decision of the referendum has destroyed public trust in our government and our political system. That has caused damage which can only be repaired by significant reform (note lower case).

The "Great Reform Act" of 1832 dramatically recast our political system, getting rid of Rotten Boroughs, widening the franchise and redistriuting constituencies more fairly. The franchise has continued to widen, until it has reached its current universal state. It introduced the effective two party system which survives (just) to this day; but a brief look at the seat distribution in Parliament, compared with vote percentages demonstrates the anomaly which now exists in our system. I can't see how that can be resolved under the present system.

Perhaps it is now time, nearly two hundred years later, to look at a second Reform Bill which again recast our electoral system - dare I say Proportional Representation to ensure proper representation in Parliament - and not just a system of counting, reviewing and counting the votes over and over again until the LibDems win the seat (mind you, they have gone very quiet on PR of late)!

Tell me what part of Brexit was not inacted properly ?

They have stopped free movement of people, and now the goverment controls who comes in. They could have done this whilst in the EU but chose not.

They have removed themselves from the customs union which is a massive thing for businesses that have to deal with Britians biggest trading partner. This has harmed British business.

We have removed ourselves from the laws, and can now set our own laws.

What is it that was not achieved? CAN YOU PLEASE POINT ME OUT SOME ISSUES THAT WERE NOT INACTED?

Ultimately the glorious highland and utopia promised was nonsense. Utterly absurd.

4 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

Tell me what part of Brexit was not inacted properly ?

They have stopped free movement of people, and now the goverment controls who comes in. They could have done this whilst in the EU but chose not.

They have removed themselves from the customs union which is a massive thing for businesses that have to deal with Britians biggest trading partner. This has harmed British business.

We have removed ourselves from the laws, and can now set our own laws.

What is it that was not achieved? CAN YOU PLEASE POINT ME OUT SOME ISSUES THAT WERE NOT INACTED?

Ultimately the glorious highland and utopia promised was nonsense. Utterly absurd.

Well, and now Britain is a lost little island in stormy weathers of International politics. The only way to survive is join EU again.

4 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Well, and now Britain is a lost little island in stormy weathers of International politics. The only way to survive is join EU again.

Why not? Be at the heart of the EU and inact reforms. Use the power of defence (the UK along with France is the only nuclear power in Europe) to get favourable terms.

Until someone tells me ONE ACTION that has taken place since we left the EU that has been a benefit for them in our lives? The pound has been a disaster for us all travelling to Thailand.

For me personally i have seen companies in the UK really struggle with barriers put up with the customs union to now import into Europe. It's a disgrace.

The UK alone is also at the mercy of major powers like America really hurting them, now they have no group to act together. Had trump hit the UK with harsh tarriffs we could have done nothing. Trump has made similar threats to Spain and France, but is powerless as he would have to put them on the whole EU not individual countries.

The British public voted by a narrow majority for Brexit. Cameron I believe never wanted it and did not expect it. He called for a referendum merely to strengthen his negotiating position vis-à-vis the E.U.

Service-sector London & South East + E.U.-regional-funded Scotland and Ulster voted AGAINST Brexit, industrial-sector and traditional England and Wales voted FOR Brexit.

Boris Johnson stated himself for Brexit for reasons best known to himself. Maybe for the same sort of reason he went to Kiev to torpedo the impending peace talks?

To please U.S. financiers seeking to further their interests by lifting E.U. protections, e.g. against toxic foodstuffs?

Negotiating Brexit was placed in the hands of politicians who had declared themselves opposed to it. Is that not a conflict of interest?

What our rulers did was essentially to leave the E.U. while incorporating E.U. laws and regulations into British law. A mere sleight of hand.

For Brexit to succeed it was not simply a question of leaving the E.U. Nor of opening the gates to offer Britain as a dumping-ground for toxic foreign products. It implies actively developing reciprocal trading relations with global partners on a basis that benefits the populations of both countries.

The decrees of the E.U. Commission in Brussels, rubber-stamped by the E.U. "Parliament" in Strasbourg, is determined more by the political philosophies and economic self-interest of its unelected members and well-funded lobbyists as by the populations of the member countries.

National governments of large nations are not always readily accountable to their citizens (a problem which needs to be addressed), but nonetheless more accessible than the E.U. Commission.

One example of past misuse of E.U. funds paid by British taxpayers has been their use in paying for the transfer of U.K. manufacturing companies to Eastern European countries such as Poland. This is not the same as funding a new industry. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Now, with British manufacturing more and more in the doldrums, perhaps the process should be reversed?

Brexit is necessary so that Britain can decide things for itself, rather than surrendering the decision-making to others. With member-states no longer having a power of veto.

Where decisions are wrong, the blame can be more accurately apportioned to locally elected representatives.

On 5/18/2026 at 6:58 AM, TorquayFan said:

Burnham looks solid but the media will take him apart as the by-election proceeds and at least, Burnham has shelved his 'rejoin EU' stance for now.

"For now".

He's running in a strongly pro brexit area. Of course he is shelving it "for now".

If elected it will be back on the agenda quicker than you can say anti democratic traitor.

11 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

Why not? Be at the heart of the EU and inact reforms. Use the power of defence (the UK along with France is the only nuclear power in Europe) to get favourable terms.

Until someone tells me ONE ACTION that has taken place since we left the EU that has been a benefit for them in our lives? The pound has been a disaster for us all travelling to Thailand.

For me personally i have seen companies in the UK really struggle with barriers put up with the customs union to now import into Europe. It's a disgrace.

The UK alone is also at the mercy of major powers like America really hurting them, now they have no group to act together. Had trump hit the UK with harsh tarriffs we could have done nothing. Trump has made similar threats to Spain and France, but is powerless as he would have to put them on the whole EU not individual countries.

I agree with you 💯

On 5/18/2026 at 4:05 PM, ericbj said:

Negotiating Brexit was placed in the hands of politicians who had declared themselves opposed to it. Is that not a conflict of interest?

What our rulers did was essentially to leave the E.U. while incorporating E.U. laws and regulations into British law. A mere sleight of hand.

For Brexit to succeed it was not simply a question of leaving the E.U. Nor of opening the gates to offer Britain as a dumping-ground for toxic foreign products. It implies actively developing reciprocal trading relations with global partners on a basis that benefits the populations of both countries.

The decrees of the E.U. Commission in Brussels, rubber-stamped by the E.U. "Parliament" in Strasbourg, is determined more by the political philosophies and economic self-interest of its unelected members and well-funded lobbyists as by the populations of the member countries.

National governments of large nations are not always readily accountable to their citizens (a problem which needs to be addressed), but nonetheless more accessible than the E.U. Commission.

One example of past misuse of E.U. funds paid by British taxpayers has been their use in paying for the transfer of U.K. manufacturing companies to Eastern European countries such as Poland. This is not the same as funding a new industry. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Now, with British manufacturing more and more in the doldrums, perhaps the process should be reversed?

Brexit is necessary so that Britain can decide things for itself, rather than surrendering the decision-making to others. With member-states no longer having a power of veto.

Where decisions are wrong, the blame can be more accurately apportioned to locally elected representatives.

Negotiating Brexit was placed in the hands of Teresa May who was elected by the Conservative Party. May herself may have been a reluctant Remainer but she quickly stated that, "Brexit means Brexit' in response to the suggestion that the UK might stay in the Single Market and Customs Union. That doesn't sound like a conflict of interest.

What was the practical alternative to retaining EU legislation in the aftermath of Brexit? The arch-Brexiters such as Jacob Rees-Moog had called for 'a bonfire of EU regulation' with some suggesting that there should be one law to repeal all EU legislation. Not only was this impractical - how would the inevitable gaps and legal inconsistencies be dealt with? - it would also have been counter-productive as there is good deal of legislation which originated in Brussels that is beneficial e.g. many environmental, food safety, animal welfare, consumer protection laws: If the UK had repealed EU legislation en masse opening the UK to toxic products is exactly what would have happened.

If a mass repeal of EU law wasn't to be undertaken then the alternative would be to examine each piece of EU-originated legislation on its own merits. That is a herculean task and would have required an army of civil servants. To all and extents and purposes, it is impractical.

We were assured by the likes of Michael Gove that the development of bi-lateral trading arrangements would be the norm post-Brexit. Partners would be falling over themselves to do deals with us and for our part, acting alone would allow us greater agility and flexibility in deal making compared to when we were a member of the EU. Sadly, none of that has come to pass for the simple reason that acting alone the UK does not have the bargaining clout of the EU and potential partners have bigger fish to fry.

The European Council - not the Commission - defines the general political direction and priorities of the European Union. The Commission develops draft legislation from this direction.

Imo the world would be a better place without the majority of unelected pressure groups and lobbyists, however, their presence is hardly unique to Brussels, and Brexit has done nothing to curb their numbers at Westminster.

The UK Civil Service is no more accessible to the general public than the European Commission. Nevertheless imo the Commission is too powerful and there should be a transfer of power to the European Parliament wherever possible.

The expanse and integration of Poland into the broader European market can hardly be labelled a " ... misuse of E.U. funds paid by British taxpayers ...". Anglo-Polish trade has increased fourfold since the latter's accession to the EU, benefitting both British businesses and consumers.

To suggest that the funding of East European manufacturing has led to the transfer and decline of U.K. manufacturing is frankly ridiculous. British manufacturing has been in decline in the '60s due to a combination of inferior products and uncompetitive working practices. It's effective demise was overseen by Thatcher's government which - rightly or wrongly - pulled the plug on matters and reinvented the UK economy as one based around services.

It is not correct to say that EU member states do not have the power of veto. Any treaty change requires unanimous support and the same is true of many financial transactions e.g. the loan to Ukraine. Unanimity is a double-edged sword. If used correctly, it helps ensure that the smaller members views do not go unheard; on the other hand, it also gives a disproportionate amount of power to 'rogue' states such as Orban's Hungary.

It is true that being a member of the EU involves a certain loss of sovereignty, but what does that amount to in reality? The UK was largely free to enact domestic policy when we were a member of the EU.

As a medium-sized economy, the UK has little influence globally and is largely dependent on the whim of the markets, much more so than when we were a big fish in the EU pond. Diplomatically - as recent events have shown - we are an irrelevance.

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

"For now".

He's running in a strongly pro brexit area. Of course he is shelving it "for now".

If elected it will be back on the agenda quicker than you can say anti democratic traitor.

There's the misuse/ redefinition of words again.

Anyone who doesn't believe in your vision of Britain is labelled a traitor.

5 hours ago, RayC said:

There's the misuse/ redefinition of words again.

Anyone who doesn't believe in your vision of Britain is labelled a traitor.

No anyone who wishes to hand over power and sovereignty to a foreign power is a traitor.

Anyone who tries to overturn a democratic vote via back door deals and shenanigans is anti democratic.

Its quite simple Raymond. My words were accurate.