Starmer's Brexit U-Turn: Eyes £130bn EU Deal

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It means distancing ourselves from the failing, corrupt federalist project.

Not cozying up to them for a job in Davos.

Don't worry, Farage will undo Starmer's pathetic act of treachery.

What will Farage do? Can you explain his policies for the UK going forward?

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It means distancing ourselves from the failing, corrupt federalist project.

Not cozying up to them for a job in Davos.

Don't worry, Farage will undo Starmer's pathetic act of treachery.

Really?!

Keep telling yourself he has the best interests of ordinary working people at heart:

“Nigel Farage’s trip to Davos this week was hosted and paid for by the $10bn family trust of an Iranian-born billionaire”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/23/nigel-farages-trip-to-davos-hosted-and-paid-for-by-family-trust-of-billionaire

13 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

What will Farage do? Can you explain his policies for the UK going forward?

Next time you have a stupid question ask your secretary to do it.

https://www.reformparty.uk/

And welcome back to the forum (again)...

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Really?!

Keep telling yourself he has the best interests of ordinary working people at heart:

“Nigel Farage’s trip to Davos this week was hosted and paid for by the $10bn family trust of an Iranian-born billionaire”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/23/nigel-farages-trip-to-davos-hosted-and-paid-for-by-family-trust-of-billionaire

And Labour is financed by a gay Muslim lord (he's actually a really nice guy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli

So are you suggesting we all vote Conservative or Green next time?

38 minutes ago, RayC said:

What exactly is this 'spirit of Brexit' in practical terms? A complete severing of all links with the EU? Is that what all Brexiters voted for?

No, no more than all who voted to remain wished for the UK to be completely subsumed, to become merely a province of a European State.

There were, as ever, a multitude of reasons for both voting to remain or leave.

I voted to leave, because I did not wish to further reduce the UK being limited, particularly in the fields of judicial independence and foreign policy by a fundamentally undemocratic putative European State. At the time, and for several years prior to that, I had discerned concerted attempts by European bodies to extend their powers into those areas. I refer to it as a "fundamentally undemocratic putative European State" largely because of the way in which, the proposed constitution having been rejected, it was repackaged and pushed through as "The Lisbon Treaty."

At the time I did not foresee the rise of potential Russian aggression, a realistic attempt to re-establish Soviet Russia's Eastern European empire, and the now occurring collapse of the Atlantic Alliance triggered by the massive changes in the USA. The USA may reverse course, but I don't think it can be trusted for quite some time, and we don't have time - I rather expect that Russion pressure on the Suwalki Gap, to link with Kaliningrad and isolated the Baltic States will come before that.

I also had credited succeeding (Tory) administrations with the basic competence to manage Brexit. I got that wrong.

So things have changed, and with those changes have changed some (but not all) of my views. Knowing what is now evident, but was in 2015 seemed unlikely, then I would not have voted to leave.

That said the EU has become far more focused on these threats, and less institutionally hostile to member countries asserting their sovereignty.

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And Labour is financed by a gay Muslim lord (he's actually a really nice guy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli

So are you suggesting we all vote Conservative or Green next time?

Labour have multiple sources of income, all declared and above board.

Not so Farage.

A man who ranted against DAVOS because that’s what his rubes wanted to hear, then promptly attended when paid to do by a billionaire.

I would not presume to tell you who to vote for, if you do indeed vote, but surely a vote for Reform has become a vote for Tory defects?!

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I would not presume to tell you who to vote for, if you do indeed vote, but surely a vote for Reform has become a vote for Tory defects?!

I'm a Marxist, nobody has represented my views since Arthur Scargills Socialist Labour Party gave up the ghost. So I haven't voted since then, except for voting for myself.

And I totally agree with you, Farage is scum, allowing Conservatives to jump ship to his party, when we all wanted those corrupt MPs gone.

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

And Labour is financed by a gay Muslim lord (he's actually a really nice guy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli

So are you suggesting we all vote Conservative or Green next time?

Why would you want to vote?

If I understand from prior posts, you have renounced all things Brit, including ex-wifes & your children?🙃🙃

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Keep telling yourself he has the best interests of ordinary working people at heart:

I only care what he does, not why he does it.

If you're looking for a pure hearted soul, politics might not be the best place to start Chomps.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

If Farage were to promise that then he would be an idiot (which I don't think he is). It would be the height of stupidity to promise to reverse legislation irrespective of whether it was beneficial or not.

Your suggestion reminds me of the equally idiotic promise made by certain Brexiters prior to the referendum to have a 'bonfire of EU regulation'. Again, only fools would make such promises without analysing whether the individual legislation was beneficial.

Your position does not support the conclusion that it would be the height of stupidity. On the contrary, it would be an indication of honesty and transparency. Labour and Starmer were not given a mandate to renegotiate Brexit. Just as Starmer can make changes, so too can any successive government. One gets the impression that Labour is trying to weaken the UK and to initiate a revolution. It has been the champion of allowing migrants to invade the UK, to overtax the primary taxpayer segment, to drive off entrepreneurs, and to allow violent and petty criminals to run amuck.

36 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It means distancing ourselves from the failing, corrupt federalist project.

Not cozying up to them for a job in Davos.

Don't worry, Farage will undo Starmer's pathetic act of treachery.

Again, what does that actually mean?

The EU is failing: On a number of levels it is. Europe as a whole (including the UK) is a fading power. Growth is slower than other countries. Welfare provision is under pressure. Europe's importance in the world is being eroded. The list goes on. The question remains how will separating ourselves from Europe improve the UK's prospects? What policies need to be enacted to slow the decline?

The EU is corrupt: In what way? Unfortunately there are corrupt individuals working in the EU institutions just as there are in the UK's political and civil institutions. If you are implying that the EU is institutionally corrupt then you need offer more evidence.

The EU is a federalist project: Undoubtedly there are those who do see it this way but the governments of most EU member states do not support federalism. Until that changes there will not be a European federal state.

The nonsense about jobs in Davos and Starmer's treachery is just utter drivel.

44 minutes ago, JAG said:

No, no more than all who voted to remain wished for the UK to be completely subsumed, to become merely a province of a European State.

There were, as ever, a multitude of reasons for both voting to remain or leave.

I voted to leave, because I did not wish to further reduce the UK being limited, particularly in the fields of judicial independence and foreign policy by a fundamentally undemocratic putative European State. At the time, and for several years prior to that, I had discerned concerted attempts by European bodies to extend their powers into those areas. I refer to it as a "fundamentally undemocratic putative European State" largely because of the way in which, the proposed constitution having been rejected, it was repackaged and pushed through as "The Lisbon Treaty."

At the time I did not foresee the rise of potential Russian aggression, a realistic attempt to re-establish Soviet Russia's Eastern European empire, and the now occurring collapse of the Atlantic Alliance triggered by the massive changes in the USA. The USA may reverse course, but I don't think it can be trusted for quite some time, and we don't have time - I rather expect that Russion pressure on the Sawalki Gap, to link with Kaliningrad and isolated the Baltic States will come before that.

So things have changed, and with those changes have changed some (but not all) of my views. Knowing what is now evident, but was in 2015 seemed unlikely, then I would not have voted to leave.

That said the EU has become far more focused on these threats, and less institutionally hostile to member countries asserting their sovereignty.

I would obviously have voted 'Remain' if given the chance and there are some statements where I disagree with you e.g. that the EU is (was?) a" fundamentally undemocratic putative European State". However that said, your reply is a refreshingly balanced and well-reasoned response.

I agree entirely with your first paragraph. My question asking whether all Brexiters wanted to sever all ties with the EU was rhetorical (although I accept that it might not read that way). As you infer, the answer is, of course, 'No'.

At the risk of misinterpreting your position, your vision of what Brexit might constitute e.g. constructive engagement with the EU, seems a long way from 'The spirit of Brexit' espoused by @JonnyF and I'm still no closer to understanding what that is meant to be.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Next time you have a stupid question ask your secretary to do it.

https://www.reformparty.uk/

And welcome back to the forum (again)...

Good to see that Reform have (finally) come up with a wishlist of policies.

At first glance, it seems like it would be possible to enact all those policies - with the exception of the one relating to immigration - from within the EU. Given that 'The Single Market' did a pretty good job of regulating Labour market demand and supply, perhaps there would be no need for that particular policy? Ah well?

42 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Your position does not support the conclusion that it would be the height of stupidity. On the contrary, it would be an indication of honesty and transparency. Labour and Starmer were not given a mandate to renegotiate Brexit. Just as Starmer can make changes, so too can any successive government. One gets the impression that Labour is trying to weaken the UK and to initiate a revolution. It has been the champion of allowing migrants to invade the UK, to overtax the primary taxpayer segment, to drive off entrepreneurs, and to allow violent and petty criminals to run amuck.

So an initiative/ piece of legislation which proves beneficial to the UK should be curtailed/ retracted on purely philosophical grounds I.e. because it is inconsistent with Brexit?

Notwithstanding the fact - as posts in this thread have illustrated - that there is no one single vision of Brexit, that still strikes me as the height of stupidity.

The European Union is “open-minded” about Britain joining a possible customs union, the bloc’s finance commissioner has said, amid growing pressure on the government to consider such a move.

In the strongest comments yet from the EU on the issue, Valdis Dombrovskis said the bloc was “ready to engage” if the UK wanted to explore a customs union.

Speaking after high-level talks with ministers, Mr Dombrovskis also said the UK and EU could remove most food checks between the UK and the bloc.

EU ‘open-minded’ about UK rejoining customs union, finance chief says

12 hours ago, ASEAN NOW News said:

He recalled Farage’s NHS funding claims and reduced EU trading red tape, highlighting their failures.

It was all based on lies. Nothing that Brexiters promised has come to pass. The EU is Britain's largest market.

The UK must work closer with EU countries on defence. It would be stupid not to do so with the threat Russia poses. The details and money/costs can be debated, and they don't need to reinvent the wheel - NATO is there, just build on that as a base with an added EU/UK reinforcement/collaboration.

9 minutes ago, Purdey said:

It was all based on lies. Nothing that Brexiters promised has come to pass. The EU is Britain's largest market.

They'd love to differ - over a pint - if they could find a scruffy UK pub still open in the villages they promised Brexit would save.

Post brexit has shown it wasn’t what the great alternative to remaining in the EU as suggested by the clown of British politics, Bojo. He had no idea about what to expect so just lied and spewed out BS, something he’s relied on to hide his complete ineptitude all his life, including whilst as pm. And sure enough it was a total clusterphuk.

Now we’re in a situation where a crazy man believes he’s the king of the world and his approval is required for all trade deals, failing to do so ensures his wrath and tariffs drawn up as retribution. He fails to grasp that foreign leaders are more intelligent than him, and understand the threat to world order, NATO and manufacturing in their own countries. Therefore new trade deals made with alternative countries are now worthy of consideration. The EU is a larger force in global trading overall than the US so Starmer considering strengthening his ties with the EU is the logical thing to do under the circumstances and will be beneficial for all involved and in dealing with a man whose erratic behaviour, bullying and delusional view of how the world operates, can’t be trusted to do anything he say’s he will because he’s easily coerced by individuals like Putin and Netanyahu and his greed for increasing his own personal wealth.

Hopefully he’ll live long enough to witness the damage his insanity is inflicting in his country and it’s drop in status as the world turns away from dealing with the US as it implodes and it’s people realise the damage he’s causing and seek retribution.

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

After that he and Labour will be gone forever.

That's a nice piece of wishful thinking.

fantastic news.

I challenge one racist Brexiteer to tell me one single benefit of Brexit? These racists have left the UK on their own in a world where super powers are taking full advantage of them.

Sick of the entitled racists. Most of them voted Brexit didn't have to suffer the consequences either ... their benefits and pensions kept coming.

17 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Next time you have a stupid question ask your secretary to do it.

https://www.reformparty.uk/

And welcome back to the forum (again)...

So you don't know... If you don't know, just say you don't know. No one imagined that you would be able to explain their policies.

16 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

One gets the impression that Labour is trying to weaken the UK and to initiate a revolution. It has been the champion of allowing migrants to invade the UK, to overtax the primary taxpayer segment, to drive off entrepreneurs, and to allow violent and petty criminals to run amuck.

Can you back your statement up with facts and figures? As I recall, more migrants arrived under Conservative government. They were in power since 2010. In 2022, around 45,000 made the crossing.

Labour have only been in power since mid 2024.

So on what basis do you consider it a Labour issue?

17 hours ago, RayC said:

At the risk of misinterpreting your position, your vision of what Brexit might constitute e.g. constructive engagement with the EU, seems a long way from 'The spirit of Brexit' espoused by @JonnyF and I'm still no closer to understanding what that is meant to be.

I doubt that he could explain what he means - it is the product of a frothy mouth with no discernable underlying phillosophy except hatred.

I am a liberal conservative, or perhaps a conservative liberal (note the lower case - I doubt either party would have me and I am not sure that I want a political home in the sense of belonging to any party). That said I try to appreciate and understand if not agree with a wide range of views; he defeats me! Perhaps John Major got it right when he talked about hearing the flapping of white coats!

2 hours ago, IsmeUno said:

So you don't know... If you don't know, just say you don't know. No one imagined that you would be able to explain their policies.

It's not my job to explain things to the hard of understanding.

The person I was replying to had no issue reading it. Perhaps the link below will be of some assistance.

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/skills/reading

11 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

fantastic news.

I challenge one racist Brexiteer to tell me one single benefit of Brexit? These racists have left the UK on their own in a world where super powers are taking full advantage of them.

Sick of the entitled racists. Most of them voted Brexit didn't have to suffer the consequences either ... their benefits and pensions kept coming.

Stopped me retiring to France though.

Although I didn't vote.

3 hours ago, IsmeUno said:

Can you back your statement up with facts and figures? As I recall, more migrants arrived under Conservative government. They were in power since 2010. In 2022, around 45,000 made the crossing.

Labour have only been in power since mid 2024.

So on what basis do you consider it a Labour issue?

How long do you think a party should be in power before stuff is their fault?

Four years?

In which case no party would ever be at fault!

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

It's not my job to explain things to the hard of understanding.

The person I was replying to had no issue reading it. Perhaps the link below will be of some assistance.

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/skills/reading

It's a discussion board, rather than a 'post a link that doesn't answer the question' board. My guess is that you are simply incapable of answering the question posed. You suggested that he would reverse ties with the EU. Where is that policy?

Restoring pubs? Is that a joke? Just a pathetic populist policy meant to trigger certain folk.

2 hours ago, JAG said:

I doubt that he could explain what he means - it is the product of a frothy mouth with no discernable underlying phillosophy except hatred.

I already explained what it means. The "phillosophy" is very clear.

Distancing ourselves as much as possible from the corrupt, undemocratic, federalist project that is the EU.

It doesn't require hatred to wish Britain to continue to be a sovereign country with its own distinct culture/values as opposed to being absorbed into a United States of Europe and subsequently lorded over by unelected European technocrats.

Are Thais that wish Thailand to continue to be a sovereign country with its own distinct culture and values exhibiting a "phillosophy" of hatred or is this something you only attribute to indigenous British people when you have no reasonable counter argument to the points being made?

31 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

How long do you think a party should be in power before stuff is their fault?

Four years?

In which case no party would ever be at fault!

How long is a piece of string, is the answer of your oh so obviously disingenuous question.

"Stuff is their fault" is just a figment of your angry mind. What I wrote is that more migrants came to Britain under the Conservatives. Care to dispute that?

The question was "So on what basis do you consider it a Labour issue?"