Re-litigating Brexit

It is the policy of the Lib-Dems to rejoin the EU. And now, two of Labour's possible leadership contenders also are calling for closer ties and possible eventual rejoining.

This has caused the usual suspects, yes you Nigel, and the Daily Hate Mail, to claim Brexit betrayal, as this seem to be the only word they know.

There is no doubt the UK needs to have a conversation with itself about Brexit and whether it was worth it, and where to go next. But as some Brexiteers are claiming its been a success or just not done hard enough or even that the Civil Service Sabotaged it.

As I have written many times, there is just one way to rejoin, and that is through the Article 49 process, which is long and difficult. Even if the UK were to go through that, there is no guarantee that the EU would accept the UK, not without broad political support for rejoining in the UK.

And then comes the fact that the UK now has five main parties, each capable of obraining between 15 and 25% of the vote in an election. But the foibles of the First Past the Post system used here, can throw up wildly different results with pnly a swing of one or two percent either way.

Labour had a disaster in the recent local elections, but lost votes to both the Greens and Lib Dems, but the lost votes meant that even though they had a reduced vote share, Farage's party gained 1200 councillors. But, as usual, in a month over 25 have had to resign or be removed due to racist or anti-semetic posts on social media.

Farage, however, might not be as keen to re-litigate Brexit as most might think. As his comments and promises as to what Brexit would mean to the UK would be dug up and presented to him in interviews. Farage backed Johnson's Brexit deal to the point he withdrew all candidates where the Johnson's loyl Brexiteer MOs were standing, to ensure a result that made Brexit happen. Having done that, how could he claim now that Brexit wasn't done properly then, or be done differently and/or harder?

Starmer is a dead duck. Parliament no longer trusts him or his adminstration on National Security matters in the wake of the Mandleson scandal, when the PM tried to invoke National Security as a reason for not releasing documents to show the vetting process. Parliament instead voted itself to be in charge of the review, and had the Foreign Office release files to their committee.

Normally, a PM so mortally wounded would have resigned, but Starmer bumbles on. Doing it is whatever he does.

Rules for replacing a Labour Leader is different form the Comservative Party, but the usual left v centre-right battle will be rejoined when the contest starts. If it starts. Sadly, most possible contenders seem to be wedded to trying to lure Farage voters by talking about ever more extre immigration policies, even though up to this point, such promised polices have shifted nay votes Labour's way.

As it did with the previous 15 year's under Conservative rule, Labour's time in power has drifted, and despite having a majority in the Commons, Labour has done little of any substance to improve the nation or people's lives. Labour has three years to change that, or suffer possible extinction like the Conseervatives under Kemi Badenoch.

But Farage's talk of closer links with the US and Trump look fatally flawed after the first 18 months of Trump's second presidency, so at some point a decision will have to be made to have closer links with the US, the EU or something else. But the liklyhood is more drift, as in the age of social media, governing the country now seems beyond all UK political leaders.