should we have another Brexit Referendum?

Hang on we are moving out of the zone here. The 'Concessions' to the UK and Poland were to obviate the need for referenda where Brown and Tusk were in charge. Brown had been in the government that promised a referendum  on teh Constitutional Treaty but with the Lisbon treaty he said it was a parliamentary decision despite it containing in essence most of what the Constitutional Treaty said.


D'estaing was not treating it from a French perspective he was commenting from the drafters perspective and referred to the concessions but was more than happy that the French had had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Ireland was the only bugbear as they had to have a referendum and we know what happened there.

I did not deny it I was quoting d'Estaing who confirmed that there were changes for Poland UK and Ireland in his article but that does not remove the basic premise that he said it was effectively the same thing the French had rejected, which scuppered the draft Constitution but the French, and most others, got exactly the same thing by different means and did not get the chance to vote on it in referenda. Because we got changes,  we were then told that a referendum was not necessary and Brown signed for us.

Again Ireland was the bugbear as they had to have a referendum and the EU hates referendum as the hoi polloi do not understand the issues. Perhaps not but that does not mean that those in power can take liberties and d'Estaing was cock-a-hoop on how he had made the whole thing impenetrable to the layman.

Some of the disadvantages of rejoining the EU mentioned in the article have been spoken of here and elsewhere it's nothing enlightening, accept this is what the author believes Starmer will face if Labour form a government. The author

believes Starmer won't keep fighting to rejoin the EU (much to the dismay of EU-loyalists) no matter how much he apparently disagrees with the democratic decision to leave the EU. That to me reads as common logic and one who accepts the

reality of Brexit. I wouldn't expect the leader of the oppostion to subvert that. 

In areas like defence and security it would be wise to keep the EU at arms length politically. Sure, there is room for cooperation in certain areas so long as it is in the interests of Britain. In other geopolitical matters the UK will no doubt be better off

not being bound by the EU. Given how much the French cherish their Franco-British defence and security pacts this was a good strategic manoeuvre by Britain to leave them out of the TCA agreement. 

The problem with this is that Starmer has a proven track record of lying to get elected. He did so to his own members, and I saw it from the inside, being one of them at the time.

The media have largely given him a free ride on this because they approve of his general direction so the ends justify the means. But any man who can lie to one electorate to get elected is equally capable of lying to another.

Such a man needs to be judged on what he has said in the past, the positions he has taken, and what we know about how he thinks on any issue. Because his words are very unreliable.

When it comes to the EU, Starmer's track record is very pro-EU, and pro-EU membership. I make no comment on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, beyond saying that I voted against Brexit and always knew it would be economically disastrous.

I doubt whether even Starmer will attempt to take us fully back in - and doubt the EU will even want us back - but a much closer economic and regulatory alignment with the EU is inevitable under him, probably involving us being a full part of the EU economic area without actual membership, a bit like Norway. Personally I think this would be a good thing but the last thing Starmer is going to do publicly is spell this out in advance.

I don't believe for a nanosecond that Starmer thinks there have been any benefits of Brexit. He is just lying to the electorate again in pursuit of their votes. Those who agree with what he really thinks re the EU might be tempted to give him a free pass on this. But if he can lie about one thing he can lie about many others. And not all might be so agreeable to people.

This is quite an interesting admittance from someone who voted remain that the media are largely on the side of Europhiles.

I quite agree that there is blatant media bias. It's also interesting that it is okay for Starmer to lie but not someone like Johnson.

The more talk of Starmer heading for 'dynamic alignment' and the UK being a vassal state of the EU gets spoken about, the less chance he'll win an election IMHO. Let's hope the press start putting this to the public, and Starmer himself.