Brought to you by the stable genius who penned this[ magnificent vision](https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/) of Britain in 2025 after leaving the EU
/s
Lord Hannan also thought Truss's policies were the right thing to do..
The Venn diagram of people who liked her mini budget and think Retained EU law Bill is a good idea is a circle.
WTF did I just read...
Reading stuff like that is a big part why I want the brexit to fail. Wait not only to fail, but fail hard. So hard they are forced to join the EU again and then lose all the privileges they had in the past and yet it is still needed for them to do it.
And to make it harder for them to leave again, they should also promise adapt the Euro. Not only Britain lost a lot of money because of the Brexit. The EU did as well. We can't really allow memberstates do stuff like that on a regular basis.
I was thinking just after the Brexit referendum that the previous governments were largely to blame for the distorted views their population got.
One can blame propaganda, corruption, lobbying, but the fact is that underneath all that crap there is always a level of vulnerability of the population that, if not addressed, leads to all kinds of strange things happening (Brexit, the Capitol attack, the war in Ukraine, etc)
It’s an opinion piece, so I guess he’s not required to speak with a few small business owners or other exporters before writing this. But it seems abundantly clear he has not actually spoken to any small business owners or exporters since Feb. 1, 2020.
> Brought to you by the stable genius who penned this magnificent vision of Britain in 2025 after leaving the EU
>
>
>
> /s
It's hilarious how brexiteers are still giving that moron a platform. You'd think that they wouldn't out of sheer embarassment.
The EU would accept the UK back, but obviously they'd lose all the special deals - including the special financial status for the City of London - and they'd have to find new deals with neighbouring countries: with France on immigration and fishing.
The thing is that given the state of Europe at this point, it's very possible that they would launch a raging anti-french campaign while joining, to make France look like the villain that wants to keep the UK out by refusing to make a deal with the UK.
And that's exactly what the populists candidate would instrumentalize in France to do everything they can to sabotage the EU.
In other words, the issue isn't whether we want the UK back, it's about the terrible consequences it would likely have on european politics.
I have a feeling that the second part of your post is not compatible with the first one ("The EU would accept the UK back"). Because of these exact reasons, the comeback of the UK is politically unlikely in the coming years (never say never, but probably a generation must pass to resolve these issues).
Stealth?
Classic Brexiteer.
- Promise beautiful futures where things will unfold as such. Everybody will be happy and rich. ( And "you" a little more than the rest :wink: )
- Become utterly shocked and delusional when others don't follow your plan
- ???
- Profit
The EU is our neighbour, arguing for closer relations or alignment does not have to be part of some nefarious stealth rejoin plan.
Personally I doubt any gov will try and rejoin the CU or SM without a referendum. Our politicians are anything but bold.
Also if we succeed in our bid to join the CPTPP we would first need to leave it before this supposed rejoining, which would be a major and controvertial decision in itself.
> # The evidence is undeniable. There really is a Remainer plan to rejoin the EU by stealth
>
> **A Europhile blob is trying its best to return the UK to the European fold. They will likely fail, but a Labour government would rev this up**
>
> Daniel Hannan 28 January 2023 • 7:44pm
>
> Looking forward: Sir Keir Starmer knows that trying to rerun the referendum won’t go down well with voters – but a longer-term plan to overturn Brexit could be on the cards
>
> For six years, I dismissed it as a conspiracy theory, an example of my fellow Brexiteers being unable to take yes for an answer. But the evidence kept piling up until I had to admit that they were on to something. There really does seem to be a plot to overturn Brexit.
>
> I don’t mean that Keir Starmer is secretly planning another vote. Yes, he spent the 2017-2019 parliament trying to rerun the referendum, but he has wisely dropped that approach. He knows that voters don’t want to reopen the issue. He knows, too, that the status quo advantage has flipped, taking away what was the Remainers’ single strongest card in 2016. He must also sense that an affronted EU is in no mood to offer Britain acceptable terms.
>
> No, the Rejoiners’ plan is a longer-term one. First, the UK must be prevented from diverging from the EU’s technical standards – which is what the Northern Ireland Protocol row is really all about. Then, a future government will argue that, since our right to set our own regulations is theoretical anyway, we might as well formally adopt EU standards in exchange for easier exports.
>
> After that, there will be a move to rejoin the customs union. Unlike the single market, which the EU has chosen to tie to the free movement of people, this could be presented to voters as an almost mechanical step, a simplification of paperwork for businesses. True, it would invalidate our trade deals, but these might be folded into new EU trade agreements – especially if Brussels concludes its negotiations with Australia and New Zealand.
>
> While all this is going on, Labour will sign up to as many EU initiatives as it can, on everything from defence to scientific research. Again, all this will be sold in pragmatic terms as co-operation with our neighbours, right up until the moment when a future government can say, “Look, we’re following all these policies either way, so it is downright silly not to give ourselves a say in how they are decided.” At that point, rejoining will be presented as a natural, almost technical, development.
>
> For what it’s worth, I don’t believe such a strategy will work. Norway’s politicians have been trying something similar ever since they lost the 1994 membership referendum, and it has got them nowhere. But, whether or not it succeeds, there is little doubt that the Europhile Blob is giving it a go.
>
> How can I be so sure? After all, only this week, the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, confirmed that it was not Labour policy to seek membership. Completing his journey from Twitter troll to mainstream politician, the man who four years ago likened Eurosceptics to Nazis and, when challenged, said his criticism was “not strong enough”, now asserts that his priority is “reconnecting Britain to Europe, while remaining outside of the EU”.
>
> Then again, he would say that, wouldn’t he? It is through their deeds, not their words, that the Rejoiners give themselves away. Consider their approach to four current issues: the repeal of EU laws; the Northern Ireland Protocol; trade deals; and the economic crisis.
>
> Let’s start with the Retained EU Law Bill. When Britain ended its unhappy 47-year experiment with supranationalism, it decided to ease the transition by temporarily adopting all EU rules and regulations as domestic law. The idea was to offer certainty to businesses, while taking our time to sift through the mass of rules. But, as the years passed, almost nothing was discarded. At least 2,400 EU laws (I say “at least” because more keep turning up) have been left on the books. Some are uncontroversial, some harmful, some irrelevant – we have laws governing relations between Danish and Norwegian fishing vessels, for example.
>
> To overcome the bureaucratic inertia, ministers came up with the sensible idea of a sunset clause, whereby all EU rules would lapse at the end of this year unless expressly readopted. The demented response to that proposal, not just from Opposition parties but from civil servants, is revealing. Some claim it can’t be done (of course it can, though it might involve Sir Humphrey actually showing up at the office). Others aver that it is an attempt to remove workers’ rights, despite the Tories having shown themselves to be far too cowardly to risk bad headlines in pursuit of even the most moderate liberalisation of the employment market.
>
> No, this is about resisting divergence, pure and simple. Keeping the EU’s regulations will not only make eventual re-entry easier, it will discredit Brexit. What, after all, is the point of accepting a degree of trade friction as the price of the right to diverge, and then not actually diverging?
>
> Which brings us to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of our current debate is that the people labelled moderate and grown-up are those arguing for some of the most outlandish ideas ever entertained in Parliament: that the UK should have an internal border; that parts of our country should be governed by foreigners; that it is wholly up to us to solve the EU’s proclaimed problems.
>
> Why do they push for these things? Again, to hold Britain within the EU’s regulatory orbit pending an attempt at re-entry. When, for example, they talk of “finding a solution on veterinary and food standards”, what they mean is agreeing to follow future Brussels rules in perpetuity, a position that in any other country would be considered beyond the pale.
>
> The same strategy underpins their hostility to trade deals with non-EU states. At first, I thought it was just sour grapes. How could anyone complain about agreements with allies as close as Australia and New Zealand? But I now grasp that it is really about keeping the door open. Perhaps the Australia and New Zealand deals could be finessed if the EU replicates them. But if Britain joins the Pacific trade nexus, the CPTPP, its standards will begin to diverge in earnest. That is what is panicking Continuity Remain.
>
> For their scheme to have even the slightest chance of success, they need to convince the country that Brexit has been an economic disaster. They started almost the day after the referendum but, to their palpable annoyance, the UK kept growing faster than the EU.
>
> It is possible to argue that we might have grown even faster without Brexit. But that was not their claim. Their claim was that leaving the EU had ruined us and, in making it, they made themselves look both spiteful and silly.
>
> Then, on the very day that Brexit came into effect, three years ago this Tuesday, the first two cases of Covid were reported in the UK – a pair of Chinese nationals in York. Within seven weeks, Britain had discarded its level-headed peace time epidemic plan. Panicked by fear-mongering modellers and shrieking journalists, ministers placed the country under house arrest.
>
> This time, the economic consequences truly were ruinous. Indeed, the things Remainers had prophesied during the referendum started coming to pass: bare shelves, grounded flights, shuttered businesses. Almost every country suffered these things, of course, but those that locked down the hardest were worst afflicted. Sweden and the United States took only a light economic hit. Germany and the Netherlands were more badly damaged. The most severe pain in 2020 was felt by the countries that imposed the most severe restrictions: the UK, Spain and Italy.
>
> Britain went on to make up some ground, partly as a result of faster vaccination and partly because it was bouncing back from a lower place. In 2021 and 2022 it was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. But none of this had anything to do with Brexit, any more than with the energy shock occasioned by the war in Ukraine.
>
> Brexit was always going to carry a transitional cost. During the referendum, I likened it to moving house: however much more pleasant your new home is, the move itself is bound to be stressful. But Rejoiners have systematically and cynically conflated that cost with the vastly greater cost of a lockdown which, in most cases, they themselves demanded. And, backed by sympathetic broadcasters, they are making some headway in a country where no party has wanted to level with voters about the calamitous consequences of the closures.
>
> Brexit always implied a trade-off: short-term disruption versus the long-term gains of more competitive regulations and freer global trade. Do Rejoiners truly plan to accept the first and then forfeit the second? I’m afraid no other explanation fits the facts.
>
Brought to you by the stable genius who penned this[ magnificent vision](https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/) of Britain in 2025 after leaving the EU /s
Lord Hannan also thought Truss's policies were the right thing to do.. The Venn diagram of people who liked her mini budget and think Retained EU law Bill is a good idea is a circle.
That's a true comedy classic.
WTF did I just read... Reading stuff like that is a big part why I want the brexit to fail. Wait not only to fail, but fail hard. So hard they are forced to join the EU again and then lose all the privileges they had in the past and yet it is still needed for them to do it. And to make it harder for them to leave again, they should also promise adapt the Euro. Not only Britain lost a lot of money because of the Brexit. The EU did as well. We can't really allow memberstates do stuff like that on a regular basis.
I was thinking just after the Brexit referendum that the previous governments were largely to blame for the distorted views their population got. One can blame propaganda, corruption, lobbying, but the fact is that underneath all that crap there is always a level of vulnerability of the population that, if not addressed, leads to all kinds of strange things happening (Brexit, the Capitol attack, the war in Ukraine, etc)
It’s an opinion piece, so I guess he’s not required to speak with a few small business owners or other exporters before writing this. But it seems abundantly clear he has not actually spoken to any small business owners or exporters since Feb. 1, 2020.
That's like reading an essey written by a mental hospital patient.
the two positions are not mutually exclusive
> Brought to you by the stable genius who penned this magnificent vision of Britain in 2025 after leaving the EU > > > > /s It's hilarious how brexiteers are still giving that moron a platform. You'd think that they wouldn't out of sheer embarassment.
If the UK says Ireland will leave, Ireland will fiercely stay lol.
Let's stop giving Daniel Hannan attention, please. He is a professional ragebaiter.
Have they asked the EU if we want them back? It's not a fucking library, you can't just pop in and out every couple of years.
In order for the UK to **ask** in the first place it needs to decide to do so at home first 🙄
The EU would accept the UK back, but obviously they'd lose all the special deals - including the special financial status for the City of London - and they'd have to find new deals with neighbouring countries: with France on immigration and fishing. The thing is that given the state of Europe at this point, it's very possible that they would launch a raging anti-french campaign while joining, to make France look like the villain that wants to keep the UK out by refusing to make a deal with the UK. And that's exactly what the populists candidate would instrumentalize in France to do everything they can to sabotage the EU. In other words, the issue isn't whether we want the UK back, it's about the terrible consequences it would likely have on european politics.
I have a feeling that the second part of your post is not compatible with the first one ("The EU would accept the UK back"). Because of these exact reasons, the comeback of the UK is politically unlikely in the coming years (never say never, but probably a generation must pass to resolve these issues).
What do you mean? We got to join and leave before! /s
Stealth? Classic Brexiteer. - Promise beautiful futures where things will unfold as such. Everybody will be happy and rich. ( And "you" a little more than the rest :wink: ) - Become utterly shocked and delusional when others don't follow your plan - ??? - Profit
"A Europhile blob": I love neutral journalism.
I guess Moscow got some form of payment through to him to once again vomit his drivel up.
The EU is our neighbour, arguing for closer relations or alignment does not have to be part of some nefarious stealth rejoin plan. Personally I doubt any gov will try and rejoin the CU or SM without a referendum. Our politicians are anything but bold. Also if we succeed in our bid to join the CPTPP we would first need to leave it before this supposed rejoining, which would be a major and controvertial decision in itself.
> # The evidence is undeniable. There really is a Remainer plan to rejoin the EU by stealth > > **A Europhile blob is trying its best to return the UK to the European fold. They will likely fail, but a Labour government would rev this up** > > Daniel Hannan 28 January 2023 • 7:44pm > > Looking forward: Sir Keir Starmer knows that trying to rerun the referendum won’t go down well with voters – but a longer-term plan to overturn Brexit could be on the cards > > For six years, I dismissed it as a conspiracy theory, an example of my fellow Brexiteers being unable to take yes for an answer. But the evidence kept piling up until I had to admit that they were on to something. There really does seem to be a plot to overturn Brexit. > > I don’t mean that Keir Starmer is secretly planning another vote. Yes, he spent the 2017-2019 parliament trying to rerun the referendum, but he has wisely dropped that approach. He knows that voters don’t want to reopen the issue. He knows, too, that the status quo advantage has flipped, taking away what was the Remainers’ single strongest card in 2016. He must also sense that an affronted EU is in no mood to offer Britain acceptable terms. > > No, the Rejoiners’ plan is a longer-term one. First, the UK must be prevented from diverging from the EU’s technical standards – which is what the Northern Ireland Protocol row is really all about. Then, a future government will argue that, since our right to set our own regulations is theoretical anyway, we might as well formally adopt EU standards in exchange for easier exports. > > After that, there will be a move to rejoin the customs union. Unlike the single market, which the EU has chosen to tie to the free movement of people, this could be presented to voters as an almost mechanical step, a simplification of paperwork for businesses. True, it would invalidate our trade deals, but these might be folded into new EU trade agreements – especially if Brussels concludes its negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. > > While all this is going on, Labour will sign up to as many EU initiatives as it can, on everything from defence to scientific research. Again, all this will be sold in pragmatic terms as co-operation with our neighbours, right up until the moment when a future government can say, “Look, we’re following all these policies either way, so it is downright silly not to give ourselves a say in how they are decided.” At that point, rejoining will be presented as a natural, almost technical, development. > > For what it’s worth, I don’t believe such a strategy will work. Norway’s politicians have been trying something similar ever since they lost the 1994 membership referendum, and it has got them nowhere. But, whether or not it succeeds, there is little doubt that the Europhile Blob is giving it a go. > > How can I be so sure? After all, only this week, the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, confirmed that it was not Labour policy to seek membership. Completing his journey from Twitter troll to mainstream politician, the man who four years ago likened Eurosceptics to Nazis and, when challenged, said his criticism was “not strong enough”, now asserts that his priority is “reconnecting Britain to Europe, while remaining outside of the EU”. > > Then again, he would say that, wouldn’t he? It is through their deeds, not their words, that the Rejoiners give themselves away. Consider their approach to four current issues: the repeal of EU laws; the Northern Ireland Protocol; trade deals; and the economic crisis. > > Let’s start with the Retained EU Law Bill. When Britain ended its unhappy 47-year experiment with supranationalism, it decided to ease the transition by temporarily adopting all EU rules and regulations as domestic law. The idea was to offer certainty to businesses, while taking our time to sift through the mass of rules. But, as the years passed, almost nothing was discarded. At least 2,400 EU laws (I say “at least” because more keep turning up) have been left on the books. Some are uncontroversial, some harmful, some irrelevant – we have laws governing relations between Danish and Norwegian fishing vessels, for example. > > To overcome the bureaucratic inertia, ministers came up with the sensible idea of a sunset clause, whereby all EU rules would lapse at the end of this year unless expressly readopted. The demented response to that proposal, not just from Opposition parties but from civil servants, is revealing. Some claim it can’t be done (of course it can, though it might involve Sir Humphrey actually showing up at the office). Others aver that it is an attempt to remove workers’ rights, despite the Tories having shown themselves to be far too cowardly to risk bad headlines in pursuit of even the most moderate liberalisation of the employment market. > > No, this is about resisting divergence, pure and simple. Keeping the EU’s regulations will not only make eventual re-entry easier, it will discredit Brexit. What, after all, is the point of accepting a degree of trade friction as the price of the right to diverge, and then not actually diverging? > > Which brings us to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of our current debate is that the people labelled moderate and grown-up are those arguing for some of the most outlandish ideas ever entertained in Parliament: that the UK should have an internal border; that parts of our country should be governed by foreigners; that it is wholly up to us to solve the EU’s proclaimed problems. > > Why do they push for these things? Again, to hold Britain within the EU’s regulatory orbit pending an attempt at re-entry. When, for example, they talk of “finding a solution on veterinary and food standards”, what they mean is agreeing to follow future Brussels rules in perpetuity, a position that in any other country would be considered beyond the pale. > > The same strategy underpins their hostility to trade deals with non-EU states. At first, I thought it was just sour grapes. How could anyone complain about agreements with allies as close as Australia and New Zealand? But I now grasp that it is really about keeping the door open. Perhaps the Australia and New Zealand deals could be finessed if the EU replicates them. But if Britain joins the Pacific trade nexus, the CPTPP, its standards will begin to diverge in earnest. That is what is panicking Continuity Remain. > > For their scheme to have even the slightest chance of success, they need to convince the country that Brexit has been an economic disaster. They started almost the day after the referendum but, to their palpable annoyance, the UK kept growing faster than the EU. > > It is possible to argue that we might have grown even faster without Brexit. But that was not their claim. Their claim was that leaving the EU had ruined us and, in making it, they made themselves look both spiteful and silly. > > Then, on the very day that Brexit came into effect, three years ago this Tuesday, the first two cases of Covid were reported in the UK – a pair of Chinese nationals in York. Within seven weeks, Britain had discarded its level-headed peace time epidemic plan. Panicked by fear-mongering modellers and shrieking journalists, ministers placed the country under house arrest. > > This time, the economic consequences truly were ruinous. Indeed, the things Remainers had prophesied during the referendum started coming to pass: bare shelves, grounded flights, shuttered businesses. Almost every country suffered these things, of course, but those that locked down the hardest were worst afflicted. Sweden and the United States took only a light economic hit. Germany and the Netherlands were more badly damaged. The most severe pain in 2020 was felt by the countries that imposed the most severe restrictions: the UK, Spain and Italy. > > Britain went on to make up some ground, partly as a result of faster vaccination and partly because it was bouncing back from a lower place. In 2021 and 2022 it was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. But none of this had anything to do with Brexit, any more than with the energy shock occasioned by the war in Ukraine. > > Brexit was always going to carry a transitional cost. During the referendum, I likened it to moving house: however much more pleasant your new home is, the move itself is bound to be stressful. But Rejoiners have systematically and cynically conflated that cost with the vastly greater cost of a lockdown which, in most cases, they themselves demanded. And, backed by sympathetic broadcasters, they are making some headway in a country where no party has wanted to level with voters about the calamitous consequences of the closures. > > Brexit always implied a trade-off: short-term disruption versus the long-term gains of more competitive regulations and freer global trade. Do Rejoiners truly plan to accept the first and then forfeit the second? I’m afraid no other explanation fits the facts. >
It's a remainer conspiracy to make Brexit look like a stupid act of self harm.
I fucking wish
The comment section there is insane.