There is no need for a referendum - as long as parties like the SNP, Greens and Lib Dems put it in their 2029 manifestos. We do not need special terms - let's enter and entwine ourselves so completely that unpicking the relationship again would just be impossible. Let's have the Euro, Schengen and more!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Labour Party under Andy Burnham
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That's the simplistic argument that was painted on the side of the bus. The economic activity we lost is worth far more than the contributions saved, and so would be the economic benefits of rejoining.
That’s an equally simplistic argument for rejoining, based on some very dodgy statistics. The claim is that the UK would lose somewhere between 4 and 8 percent growth over the long term due to not being in the EU. However, whilst we’ve been out, UK GDP growth has been comparable if not better than most of the major economies including those in the EU. Is it truly believable that being in would manage to boost our growth to such a degree?
The issue with Starmer’s approach to the EU is that there appear to have been many concessions from our side, but it’s hard to see what benefits it’s actually gaining,
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's not a claim of loss of growth, it's studies that say the economy is 4% to 8% smaller than it would have been without Brexit, including from the OBR.
If you consider the statistics are dodgy, can you point us to any better source that isn't a right-wing pressure group?
Falcon1200
Established Member
I would very much disagree! We had a referendum to leave, and a parliamentary election cannot be fought on one issue alone, which is what would happen. The cost and conditions for rejoining must be known before the decision is made.
Given the sheer scale of the outright lies and deception involved in the first referendum, I suspect that all hard ‘facts’ for re-entry would go through the same lies and BS from both sides. Truth would be a very early casualty.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I believe re-joining would require two referendums, the first to secure agreement merely to enter negotiations with the EU and the second to vote on the agreed terms. This is what should have happened during the leave process.
The issue with comparing UK (out of the EU) with the EU (with the UK having left) is that there's a fairly good chance that trade has been impacted in both areas, as such it's overly simplistic to say something like; well they've done no better than us so we wouldn't have been better off if we stayed in.
Likewise, the opposite is also potentially difficult to prove, so just claiming that trade would have been better for all is overly simplistic.
However, at least on the second, there's economists who have presented papers demonstrated that this is likely. I'm not aware of (beyond newspaper stories saying it, but not with evidence to support it beyond the "they didn't do better than us, so we wouldn't have done" argument) of similar economic studies.
As always, happy for people to put forwards such studies which might have been overlooked.
The referendum actually broke this rule in both directions. The "remain" option was on the basis of Cameron's 2015-2016 renegotiation that nobody previously voted on*, and the "leave" option was on the basis of an unknown plan that was never later voted on*.
(* In a referendum)
Falcon1200
Established Member
That sounds most sensible!
The cost of not joining is becoming very apparent. This is why support for Beexit has crashed through the floor - there is no point on a referendum where the vast majority are already in the agree space. What I do suspect is there will be discussions over several elections. The first will be manifesto pledges to re-enter the Customs Union. Then the election after rejoin EU. Then the election after that Schengen etc.
Key to this will be political stability of course. But if the former 'big 2' parties have indeed lost their stranglehold on English politics, then the Greens and Lib Dems might be able to leverage electoral reform. That would lock us into a progressive majority that will comfortably see us rejoin the EU. The risk of course is Reform winning under FPTP in 2029. But such an outcome leads us down a different path but perhaps one with the same ending after many years of pain.
Falcon1200
Established Member
How can that be known without a referendum?!! What people say in opinion polls is not always how they vote when it comes to the crunch, and we cannot have a situation where a parliamentary election is decided on a single issue; We are already well on the way to having that in the forthcoming Scottish Government election.
Why would a single issue election necessarily be bad? If the issue is deemed the most important by a majority of voters it could be a good thing. Not advocating either way just playing devil's advocate!
In reality any election is always going to be about 1 main thing to voters but what that main thing is will be different to different people. Mine maybe to vote so we get anybody but reform for example.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Because voters would be asked to ignore everything else! In fact, because if a given party is offering EU membership, or Scottish independence, not just ignore, but forgive and forget, no matter how abject their performance or prospectus in any other area.
Peterthegreat
Established Member
Wasn't Boris elected on a promise to "get Brexit done:?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That's what he claimed. Whereas more people voted for a party that was at least committed to a second referendum, and there were many other factors particularly dislike of Corbyn.
For an issue like this I don't think being elected with a manifesto commitment is good enough, especially as FPTP and the increasing popularity of what used to be niche parties makes the result of the next election essentially a throw of the dice.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Rejoining the EU is such a major step that, just as when the UK voted to leave, a referendum must be held, and preferably two as per your Post #3757. Although I voted Remain I would be hesitant to vote Yes without knowing the conditions under which we would rejoin, and the cost.
This of course is a main reason why we need electoral reform. It's all well and good clinging to First Past the Post in a system which has two (maybe .5 if you count the Lib Dems and latterly SNP) parties. Then most votes wins makes some sense as you're always going to end up with, at least on a constituency level, the winner being someone who won, at worst, 45+% of the vote (or round about). But now that our politics is fracturing we've got on a GB wide level five competitive parties and in Wales and Scotland potentially six (as always poor NI is the redheaded step-child in this conversation but they have similar issues just with the NI specific parties rather than the GB ones).
It's absurd that Labour in 2024's General Election won 411 seats on just 33.7% of the popular vote (when Tony Blair was winning those sorts of seats in his pomp in 1997 and 2001 he was getting 40+% of the popular vote). It's absurd that UKIP, in 2015, got 12.6% of the vote and one MP and the Lib Dems got 7.9% of the vote and eight MPs whilst the SNP got 4.7% of the vote and were rewarded with 56 MPs. First Past the Post does not function properly in a world in which there are more than two (ish) viable parties.
We are facing a scenario in 2029 in which wave of constituencies are going to be won on basically a coin toss (possibly literally!). I reckon we're going to see constituency after constituency where the result will be something like Labour 20%, Green 19.5%, Lib Dem 18%, Conservative 19%, Reform 21% and Others 2.5% giving Reform a victory on 21% of the vote with 79% of voters opting for other candidates (and in this case 57.5% opting for centerish lefty parties but getting a hard right party). Or vice versa you'll have a seat where it might be more like Labour 10%, Lib Dem 10%, Green 25.5%, Conservative 24%, Reform 24.5% and Others 6% giving the Greens a seat where there was a strong preference for a right wing party.
Obviously quibble about exact percentages but the point isn't to Mystic Meg what the votes will look like but to simply illustrate what I reckon will be a repeated pattern again and again in 2029. Parties are going to win seats on a sliver of the vote in a constituency and that will then feed into another Parliament where the governing party either alone or in coalition can claim via the way our system works near complete power over the functioning of the country even though only a fraction of the population voted for them.
This strikes me as being extremely unhealthy for a country. Having potentially wild swings in governance based on a few percentage points or less (quite apart from the disenfranchisement issues, a constituency voting for largely right wing parties getting a left wing MP or vice versa, safe seats such as they are meaning a vote doesn't count, etc etc). I suspect it's part of the reason we're in the state that we're in to be quite honest.
But, as always, the party that benefited from it last is never willing to take the view of what might be better for the long term national interest. Labour have gone quiet on electoral reform now that they're in power via that system and even Reform have become much less chatty about it as well now that they're doing better in the polls and thinking they could win a serious number of seats under the existing system.
Did a bit of modelling on this analysing the last General Election - comparing FPTP and the Sainte‑Laguë Method of PR (used in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland local elections):
FPTP vs. PR
With 326 seats needed for a majority:
| Party | Vote share | Seats under PR | Seat share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | 33.7% | 222 | 34.2% |
| Conservative | 23.7% | 156 | 24.0% |
| Reform UK | 14.3% | 94 | 14.5% |
| Liberal Democrats | 12.2% | 81 | 12.5% |
| Green | 6.8% | 44 | 6.8% |
| SNP | 2.5% | 16 | 2.5% |
| Sinn Féin | 0.7% | 5 | 0.8% |
| Plaid Cymru | 0.7% | 4 | 0.6% |
| DUP | 0.6% | 4 | 0.6% |
| Alliance | 0.4% | 3 | 0.5% |
| SDLP | 0.3% | 2 | 0.3% |
| Others | ~5.4% | 19 | ~3.0% |
| Total | 100% | 650 | 100% |
FPTP vs. PR
| Party | Seats (FPTP) | Seats (PR) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | 411 | 222 | −189 |
| Conservative | 121 | 156 | +35 |
| Reform UK | 5 | 94 | +89 |
| Liberal Democrats | 72 | 81 | +9 |
| Green | 4 | 44 | +40 |
| SNP | 9 | 16 | +7 |
With 326 seats needed for a majority:
- Labour + Lib Dem → ~303 (short of majority)
- Labour + Lib Dem + Green → ~347 (majority)
- Conservative + Reform → ~250 (short)
Thanks for that, it does highlight that we'd be in another coalition, fairly left leaning (more so than than we currently have).
I think that there's almost no chance of any other groupings which would work together.
Green/Lib Dems certainly wouldn't work with Reform and a Tory/Green/Lib Dems would fall short (281 seats), even allowing for adding in the SNP/Plaid Cymru (301 seats) would be short of the 325 (or even 323 if we exclude Sinn Fèin from the count assuming that they don't take their seats).
I very much suspect that the Greens/Tories wouldn't work together either and the Lib Dems are unlikely to trust the Tories - especially since the direction of travel of the Tories since the last coalition. I also doubt that SNP and Plaid Cymru would be willing to work with the Tories.
GusB
Established Member
Scotland uses the D'hondt method for Scottish Parliament elections and Single Transferrable Vote for locals.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Interesting but needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt, due to tactical voting which many people will be exercising under a PR system in an attempt to avoid getting the party they want least rather than to support the one they really prefer. In 2024 the dominant public mood was to get rid of the Tories, with those on the right often turning to Reform and those in the centre and left choosing whoever was most likely to beat them and keep Reform out. If the polls look like they are now approaching 2029 then I believe there will be an even larger tactical vote against Reform, making it even more difficult to estimate the genuine level of support for all the other parties.
It would be illuminating, before or just after a general election, for pollsters to ask the question "Who will/did you vote for?" along with "Which party would you really support if they all had an equal chance of winning?".
I’d even suggest that there should be a minimum spec attached to the first vote and a legal obligation for it to be delivered. There has to be minimum wriggle room in order to prevent sabotage by anyone in power who might be hostile to membership. (They’d still do their worst of course.)
weeklycommuter
Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,039
The UK is governed by Parliament not by referenda. The accepted way for any policy to be considered to have a mandate from voters is as a manifesto commitment by a political party that wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons at a general election. Even if a referendum is held the result has to be enacted by Parliament.
My view of the way forward is for the UK to rejoin the European Economic Area as a non-EU member like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. This is just a trade agreement. It does not require the UK to join the Euro or rejoin the EU Common Agricultural or Fishing policies. It is not EU membership and certainly does not justify the holding of a referendum. As it is an established agreement it does not require detailed negotiation.
I can understand the Labour Party committing not to rejoin the EU but it was most unwise for the Labour Party to say a Labour Government would not rejoin the "Single Market" as rejoining the European Economic Area is clearly necessary to fix the economy. The other problem is that "Single Market" is not a precise term so political opponents can claim that almost any new agreement with the EU amounts to rejoining the "Single Market".
brad465
Veteran Member
Ironically the Tories might have to become champions of PR to get more seats in future; they haven't exactly improved their standing since this loss, despite Labour not doing very well in the eyes of many voters.
This. And joining the Euro would remove a lot of economic flexibility. For the foreseeable future.
The referendum problem was that it was "Leave" or "Remain". With the latter you at least get the idea it would be something like the status quo.
But leaving the EU was so open-ended; we could easily have remained in the customs union, remained in EEA yet left the EU as one example or gone for the hardest of hard Brexits (and everything in between).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Frankly with 5 parties regularly polling 10%, it is mad for it not to be on the agenda. Especially for Labour who must see the writing on the wall and are exceptionally unlikely to reproduce the results that got them power in the 2024 GE.
317 forever
Established Member
I feel likewise. I would probably vote to rejoin provided I broadly agree with the terms.
However, if there were a random Do we rejoin yes or no? question I would probably vote No. My view would be that until they had some clear proposals about what difference being back in would make, I would believe more in good relations with the EU from outside.
And yet that wasn't the option available when we were being asked to leave.
If there was a new vote, to bring more people onboard, it could be that there's a double vote, the first to determine if people would be willing for the government to seek the terms for a closer relationship and then a follow up with the options available (from just a bit closer through to full membership matching places like France and Germany).
I think the idea that people would consider voting 'No' for rejoining as it is too open ended, is a great reason for not having another referendum. The decision to leave has caused substantial, generational damage to this country - politically, economically, in our international relations and on an individual level with loss of rights etc - and yet some are still keen to continue to impose such terrible cost and consequence on the population. We are a Parliamentary democracy and I think we need to stick to that approach. It provides some buffering against unduly emotional, ideological, simplistic, incomplete, distorted, misguided and/or inflexible views whilst providing some protection against Tufton Street influence. Like any major decision of Government, the decision to rejoin should be one based on the core facts gathered by Parliamentary process not on what is peddled to the public by vested interests in mainstream tabloids like The Mail.
If you look at our recent referendums, none have served this country well. The Scottish Independence referendum will, I suspect, be seen in hindsight as something that supercharged the independence movement and has created a structural and political shift that will inevitably lead to secession in the future. The AV referendum killed the idea of PR in English elections for years to come yet, given where we are now with multi-party politics, has that served us well? FPTP may well give us a Reform Government with all the horrific outcomes that will entail! And then the Brexit vote has made us poorer, weaker, less relevant, marginalised and so forth. Referendums have not served the UK well in recent years. In contrast, the Parliamentary process, whilst far from perfect, generally provides better and more stable longer term outcomes.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I am no fan of the high tax and waste Starmer Government but this is a step in the right direction:
Unwinding Brexit Phase 1!
Link:
www.theguardian.com
If you look at our recent referendums, none have served this country well. The Scottish Independence referendum will, I suspect, be seen in hindsight as something that supercharged the independence movement and has created a structural and political shift that will inevitably lead to secession in the future. The AV referendum killed the idea of PR in English elections for years to come yet, given where we are now with multi-party politics, has that served us well? FPTP may well give us a Reform Government with all the horrific outcomes that will entail! And then the Brexit vote has made us poorer, weaker, less relevant, marginalised and so forth. Referendums have not served the UK well in recent years. In contrast, the Parliamentary process, whilst far from perfect, generally provides better and more stable longer term outcomes.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I am no fan of the high tax and waste Starmer Government but this is a step in the right direction:
Unwinding Brexit Phase 1!
Link:
Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset
Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest
www.theguardian.com
Last edited: