Keir Starmer is an idiot

After 43 years of membership, exiting the EU was never going to be easy. But the government’s current tone and approach is making a hard job even more difficult. There have been 165 days since the referendum result and there are only 118 left until the prime minister’s 31 March deadline to trigger article 50. The clock is ticking, but still we do not know the government’s basic plan for Brexit.

We do not have answers to fundamental questions such as the government’s position on the customs union, our likely relationship with the single market or future contributions to the EU budget. The government has also failed to provide much-needed certainty for the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK.

This matters, because uncertainty over the government’s plans – and the continuing likelihood that it favours a hard Brexit – is weakening our negotiating position and making it less likely that Britain will get the best possible Brexit deal, one that protects jobs, the economy and living standards.

You do not publish your goals as you start a negotiation. Only an idiot would believe that you do.

Imagine negotiating a widget contract by stating, at the beginning, what your end goals on price and volume were….

There’s also a reason it’s called a negotiation – because you end up, having taken int account their desires, in a different place from where you started.

52 thoughts on “Keir Starmer is an idiot”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    What all these complaints boil down to is a demand by the losers for sticks with which to beat the government into submission in order that they can over-turn the will of the people.

    The government should ignore them.

  2. Starmer is not being stupid here. He’s being devious. As a remainiac, he’s trying to sabotage the government’s negotiating position, which, arguably, is a form of treason.

  3. ‘Twas another idiot socialist, Mad Gordon McDoom of Kirkcaldy, who announced to a chortling world well in advance that he intended to sell a large chunk of the UK’s gold holdings.

  4. They’re not buying widgets. Unfortunately, when you run a country, you can’t keep all your strategies and desires secret like you can if you run a widget shop.

    Imagine if the Tories emerged in two years time saying that they had negotiated a good deal for the City, but had been unable to secure anything for the expats in Spain. Or vice versa. All the stakeholders need to be kept informed and you can’t do that behind closed doors.

    It cuts both ways. Well be able to listen in to the 27 national debates on the other side.

    Or what if they emerged with a Norwegian deal? You’d be saying were should have listened to Kier.

  5. Theophrastus makes a good point about him being devious.

    Then he makes a really stupid point by calling it treason. Trying to undermine the will of 52% isn’t treason any more that Her Majesty’s Opposition are being treasonous for being the opposition.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    ” The government has also failed to provide much-needed certainty for the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK.”

    He loses credibility, or what little he had over that statement:

    European Council president Donald Tusk has rejected the UK’s proposal for an early deal to guarantee the status of EU citizens in Britain and British citizens in the EU. Tusk disingenuously writes “we have assumed that one of the main reasons for the vote for Brexit was the rejection of the free movement of people and all the rights it entails”.

  7. It could also be because the biggest thing these dumb fucks have ever negotiated was a free set of car mats for their last motor.

  8. Keir Starmer is a labour man, AND a barrister. By definition, lawyers are very shifty. Best to pay no attention.

  9. Bloke in North Dorset

    “All the stakeholders need to be kept informed and you can’t do that behind closed doors.”

    No, all the stakeholders should be listened to but the Government is under no obligation to negotiate with them first. And the Government doesn’t need to go very far to hear what the loudest stakeholders want, its all over the BBC, Guardian and most of the rest of the MSM, but as we’ve got here because Governments only listened to the loudest stakeholders they should also tell them politely to fuck off if they think they are going to be part of the negotiating team.

    Once it has listened it to all it needs to decide what it believes is best for UK and what price it should pay for it. Obviously some Remainers will be willing to pay what we pay now to be as close to being full members as possible whilst some Leavers wouldn’t pay a penny.

    The only obligation the Government has is to get the best deal it can for UK in the circumstances it finds itself in as negotiations take place. This being politics nobody will be happy, but that will be the case whatever the outcome.

  10. “Tusk disingenuously writes “we have assumed that one of the main reasons for the vote for Brexit was the rejection of the free movement of people and all the rights it entails”.”

    Which is, of course, such beaulocks. Because a) anyone who’s been In Foreign for more than a trivial amount of time will have achieved permanent residency under *national* law (and if they haven’t bothered to apply for it, they should). b) there’s a bunch of human rights legislation over and above the EU – if the EU thinks that they can displace people who have jobs under local conditions, have set up family lives, have mortgages, have children in local schools and so on, they’ll run into the European Convention on Human Rights. So we can take any EU position that infringes that entirely off the table right from the start.

    And finally, c) reciprocity is a bitch. There’s a *lot* of EU-27 citizens living in the UK, sending money back home…

  11. markc:“‘Twas another idiot socialist, Mad Gordon McDoom of Kirkcaldy, who announced to a chortling world well in advance that he intended to sell a large chunk of the UK’s gold holdings.”

    And recently, HMRC announced a plan for 13 regional centres without first securing the sites of those proposed centres. Which gave property holdings companies something to finally be grateful to them for.

  12. “The government has also failed to provide much-needed certainty for the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK.”

    This shit enrages me. The government works for us, motherfucker. Now, it may be in our interest to look after some Poles and Spaniards working here for what they do for us, but that’s the limit to which our politicians should care about Poles and Spaniards. You want certainty? You can apply for citizenship.

    I want uncertainty for most of them, because we don’t need 3.5 million immigrants living here. Sure, we might need a few Spanish translators, French pastry makers and German SAP specialists, but we don’t need people in factories making sandwiches from Poland or Portugeuse baristas. These are not rare skills.

  13. Oh and remember… this is the cocksucker who ran the FSA. Didn’t he tell the banks the government would bail them out? How did that work out?

  14. I’ve got the answers here.

    “the government’s position on the customs union”
    not be a member
    “our likely relationship with the single market”
    those of just any other foreign country
    “future contributions to the EU budget”
    zero
    “much-needed certainty for the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK.”
    just another set of foreign residents

  15. Given the legislation passed to allow the referendum I believe Parliament has already given consent to allow Article 50 to be triggered.

    If the courts continue to say otherwise and Parliament has to vote to approve the triggering of Article 50 there is no need for the government to detail its negotiation strategy. It simply needs to be a vote on triggering Article 50 and nothing more.

    The attempts by Remainers to make the government set out its strategy before voting on Article 50 are just an attempt to delay Article 50. With David Cameron as PM I rather think he would abide by their demands.(Did any of them protest at Cameron’s pre-vote claim he would trigger Article 50 immediately?) May as PM makes it a very different game.

  16. Dave C:

    Trying to undermine the will of 52% isn’t treason any more that Her Majesty’s Opposition are being treasonous for being the opposition.

    Deviously undermining HMG’s attempts to achieve the best deal in the national interest, given the referendum result, sounds not unlike treason to me. Certainly, it’s well beyond what I expect of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition – though its hardly ‘loyal’ with Corbyn in charge.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Socialists always state their end goals because they never negotiate.”

    Good point. And for them the end always justifies the means, no matter how brutal.

  18. “just another set of foreign residents”

    Quite. It’s not like non-EU citizens don’t live in the UK or anything…

  19. @Dave, Theo said “a form of treason”. Starmer is trying to undermine the democratic vote of the people of this nation. Treason is undermining the nation. So whilst not *actual* treason it is a form of treason. And it’s all personal opinion so totally valid. Criticism is not treason. But Starmer’s tone is beyond criticism in my personal opinion.

  20. @sbml,

    don’t forget that a sizable number of remainers actually seem to want bad stuff to happen, just to be proved right (while themselves being insulated by their nice middle-class careers).

  21. The other side can guess at what we want but they cannot know unless we tell them.
    You tell the public this is what we want, then you don’t get it because its not what the other side wants, then the public will blame the government.
    When its those demanding to know all the details in advance who will be to blame.

    Whatever the negotiators come back with as an agreement there is no way everyone is going to be happy.

    Now if I was really evil I’d get Corbyn to negotiate for us – Labour would never see power again.

  22. BiW
    ‘Oh and remember… this is the cocksucker who ran the FSA. Didn’t he tell the banks the government would bail them out? How did that work out?’
    Starmer is a shit but it was the CPS he ran.

  23. There is but one goal: get out of the EU.

    Don’t be distracted by these second level considerations. Freedom is far more important than any of them.

  24. The Inimitable Steve

    Theo is spot on.

    After 43 years of membership, exiting the EU was never going to be easy.

    Sending an Art 50 letter to the EU and repealing the 1972 European Communities Act would literally take hours of work.

    We do not have answers to fundamental questions such as the government’s position on the customs union, our likely relationship with the single market or future contributions to the EU budget.

    Those are areas we should be clear on. As Mrs Thatcher once said: “No. No. No!”

    The government has also failed to provide much-needed certainty for the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK.

    No harm to Spanish GP’s and Polish plumbers and whatnot, but it’s not the British government’s job to provide them with any kind of certainty.

    I can’t imagine we’d want to deport law-abiding, gainfully employed Europeans, but we can and should get rid of the scroungers. Starting with all those foreign Big Issue vendors and their gangmasters.

    Brexit is an incredible opportunity for Britain as a whole to get our country back and for Theresa May in particular to cement a populist centre-right realignment of British politics. If only she tries being more Mrs Thatcher and less John “Reverse Midas” Major.

    I don’t have high hopes for our spineless conservatives, but this is the biggest open goal in political history. If they fluff it, they deserve to be taken to the vet’s for a final jag.

  25. @Theophrastus

    What sounds reasonable behaviour for the opposition probably depends on whether you’re part of the opposition or the opposed.

    IIRC, more than 52% supported the war in Iraq, but there was plenty of opposition to keep HMG accountable.

  26. BiW

    “The government has also failed to provide much-needed certainty for the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK.”

    This shit enrages me. The government works for us, motherfucker. Now, it may be in our interest to look after some Poles and Spaniards working here for what they do for us, but that’s the limit to which our politicians should care about Poles and Spaniards. You want certainty? You can apply for citizenship.

    I want uncertainty for most of them, because we don’t need 3.5 million immigrants living here. Sure, we might need a few Spanish translators, French pastry makers and German SAP specialists, but we don’t need people in factories making sandwiches from Poland or Portugeuse baristas. These are not rare skills.

    Almost everyone I know who voted Out (and that’s a lot of conversations) was concerned primarily with sovereignty & democracy (ie control), rather than issues such as consensual migration amongst western European countries with similar GDP / capital numbers (and which works both ways with our retirees to the Med etc).

    The only thing that we can say with any certainty is that we (the 52%) voted “to leave the EU”.

    I certainly don’t want to see a good number of colleagues and friends being told that – despite having lived and worked (and contributed) here for years – they must now leave?

    And if I really thought that we were going to be as reactive as that, to people who are already here, then even I – though I despise the EU (and everything this wannabe supra-nationalist monstrosity stands for) – might have voted Remain.

  27. “Sure, we might need a few Spanish translators, French pastry makers and German SAP specialists”

    We need German SAP specialists?

    This “there’s been 165 days!” business is nonsense anyway. Left to the legals, there would be a 10 year initial enquiry just for starters. And to our German SAP specialist, 165 days is but a heartbeat.

  28. Dave C

    I personally read the treason arguments of this as being more connected with the continued attempts (through drip by drip stealth) to destroy our sovereignty. That is – arguably – a form of treason.

    If not directly overthrowing the British government, the entire EU project has been a continued process of diluting its power.

    And now the people – on the the first occasion they have been directly asked since we joined – have rejected that process of dilution.

  29. The stumbling block for free movement of people IMHO is not the Jean Claudes or Wilhelms but Germany potentially issuing EU passports to anyone who turns up and asks for one.

  30. 43 years? Maths failure… the EU did not exist prior to the Maastrict Treaty of 1993, c23 years.

    Meanwhile, there is no such person as an EU Citizen, the EU is not (yet) a Nation. There are citizens of EU Countries.

    Under nationality on passports no EU Country enters EU Citizen, it is British, French, German, etc Citizen.

  31. Has this gentleman not heard of the European Court of Human Rights? There is no current proposal to leave that, and they determine the human rights of everyone resident in its jurisdiction, even Jordanian citizens.
    He is either spectacularly ignorant or lying.

  32. PF,

    “I certainly don’t want to see a good number of colleagues and friends being told that – despite having lived and worked (and contributed) here for years – they must now leave?”

    I’m not saying they must now leave. I’m talking about certainty to remain. I would not want valuable skills departing these shores.

  33. Given the legislation passed to allow the referendum I believe Parliament has already given consent to allow Article 50 to be triggered.

    As the briefing paper for the-then Bill made clear, the legislation doesn’t give a power to the Government to act or require it to act on the result. The briefing paper contrasted referendums in the UK generally with those in the Republic of Ireland, which has a constitution providing for binding referendums, and this specific legislation with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 (or ‘AV referendum’), which required and empowered the Government to act on the result.

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212#fullreport

    In essence, the mechanism was a piece of legislation approved by Parliament before the referendum that would have immediately been put on the statute book in the event of AV (and boundary changes) winning the vote.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/part/1/crossheading/result-of-the-referendum/enacted

    (The paper also contrasted this referendum with the EC referendum in 1975, which was held after the negotiations with EC member states were ended.)

    None of the above is intended to suggest the EU referendum result must be ignored, solely that Parliament did not require or empower the Government to act on the result.

  34. The Inimitable Steve

    None of the above is intended to suggest the EU referendum result must be ignored, solely that Parliament did not require or empower the Government to act on the result.

    Because they never imagined losing.

    Not that the government needs additional powers to go Art 50 – bullshit, politically motivated judicial monkeywrenchery aside, they don’t – but Dave Cameron didn’t expect to win the last election with an absolute majority, so never expected to have to honour his referendum promise, and certainly never dreamed that we plebs would call his bluff on that glorious day.

    You could write books on the gargantuan, historic, histrionic failure of the politico-media elites here and in the US to read the mood of their own Joe Public / Chad J. Everyman III. It’s been evident for a while that Western elites are dangerously disconnected if not outright hostile to normal people, and now it’s starting to blow up bigly.

    Brexit and Trump are just the beginning. Politicians can either lead, follow, or flounce off like Dave did. Otherwise they’re standing in front of a steamroller of increasingly angry, desperate, and nothing-to-lose public opinion and who knows where that might lead?

    Rapengropenkebabfuhrer Merkel probably isn’t going to be Ceausescu’ed tomorrow, but then I bet Elena thought the same thing in the heady days of 1989.

  35. @The Inimitable Steve, December 4, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    “Theo is spot on.

    After 43 years of membership, exiting the EU was never going to be easy.

    Sending an Art 50 letter to the EU and repealing the 1972 European Communities Act would literally take hours of work.

    Agree. As does John Redwood

    “Brexit is an incredible opportunity for Britain as a whole to get our country back and for Theresa May in particular to cement a populist centre-right realignment of British politics. If only she tries being more Mrs Thatcher and less John “Reverse Midas” Major.

    I don’t have high hopes for our spineless conservatives, but this is the biggest open goal in political history. If they fluff it, they deserve to be taken to the vet’s for a final jag.”

    Excellent on the Major dig.

  36. Bloke in North Dorset

    Just been watching Clegg get Billo’d.

    It appears that because there wasn’t a manifesto commitment by the leave campaign that said we would be out of the single market and customs union we deserve a 2nd rereendum, despite every leader of the leave campaign saying we would be out of them.

    I don’t ever remember any federalist or Remainer defining exactly what Ever Closer Union meant, but I’ll bet if the result had gone the other way we wouldn’t have been allowed a 2nd referendum after they had defined it.

  37. My dream option would be to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union, declare unilateral free trade and to declare we also want free movement with the EU-27. The fascists wouldn’t like that one.

  38. Bloke in North Dorset

    I’ve just had a rather off the wall thought, red wine induced I will admit.

    If the aim of the Remainers is to have single market access to 500m consumers in the EU why don’t we go one step further and negotiate a single market deal with China for access to 1.2bn consumers or a similar amount with India?

  39. Back in the 1890s, no one told the US writer Henry James to leave the UK. In 1940, PG Wodehouse was living in Le Touquet. Somerset Maugham lived in a villa near Nice for years between about 1925 and his death some 30 years later. The American director John Huston lived on an Irish estate in the 1960s. TS Eliot, yank, lived in London for nearly 60 years. The EU was not the start of ex pats. However it is certainly ultra – bureaucratic. Maybe the real question is how did the EU screw up the effective free movement of people of talent and ability?

  40. Bloke in North Dorset

    Slightly off topic – I’ve just heard a BBC reporter covering the referendum in Italy referring to “so called populists”.

    Now they’re trying to equate us with ISIS. Is there no depth to their desperation?

  41. Better late than never-away yesterday.

    If French poli-pork want to be dumb enough to have half their entrepreneurs have to live in London to make a living fine.

    What we don’t want is unskilled mass import –either of Europeans or 3rd world crew masquerading as Europeans.

    Starmer is vermin and a leading “light” in Yewtree and the Saville caper–if his degree of scummy-nature is not already sufficiently well-known.

    That he is Remainiac scum is then no surprise.

    Time for Treason and Sedition charges all around.

  42. > more than 52% supported the war in Iraq, but there was plenty of opposition to keep HMG accountable.

    There’s a difference between opposing the war and undermining the war effort in order to help the enemy. Piers Morgan, for instance, likes to claim he was sacked by The Mirror for opposing the war, yet was in fact sacked for knowingly committing treason on the front page.

  43. UKL,

    Law is not just what’s written down; it also includes precedent and custom and reasonable interpretation and so on. It is wrong to point at the act of Parliament without also pointing at the Government’s distibution of a leaflet to every household promising to enact the Referendum’s result and the total lack of complaint in response to that leaflet.

  44. 1. A leaflet doesn’t – or shouldn’t – grant the Government power.

    2. The leaflet said, “The Government will implement what you decide.” The right method is to put legislation through Parliament to give the Government the power to do so.

  45. It is wrong to point at the act of Parliament without also pointing at the Government’s distibution of a leaflet to every household promising to enact the Referendum’s result and the total lack of complaint in response to that leaflet.

    I didn’t think it needed to be said that the Government should not have misled the public about the limits of its power to act.

  46. UKL–Tough shit.

    If it had gone the other way there would be ZERO chance of any of the garbage now being mooted being deployed —or even mentioned–against the Remainiac scum.

  47. Starmer is a complete moron why would anyone listen to this intellectual lightweight and his annoying whiny voice typical Remoaner tard

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *