Google tells me that David Lammy said that in early 2019. Anyway, I think he was right about this bit:

Leaving the EU will not free us from the injustices of global capitalism, it will make us subordinate to Trump’s US.

their Welsh leader is still in prison for taking money from the Russians. Somehow though, their popularity has not diminished as much as it should have

Reform supporters believe that the idea of Russia being a threat has been made up by the liberal media to distract everybody from immigration. I wish I was kidding.

You could argue it’s a deal that some Brits voted for, but definitely not all Brits of course.

Only 51.89% of those who voted in the Brexit referendum in 2016 voted for Brexit.

In 2019 there was a general election, and during that election campaign, Boris Johnson promised to “get Brexit done”, but only 43.6% of voters in that election voted for Johnson’s party, the Conservatives. So a majority of voters in that election voted against the Conservatives.

It would have been possible to leave the EU while staying in the single market and/or customs union, but the Conservatives chose a particularly hard version of Brexit, cutting more ties than necessary with the EU.

Some Brexiteers suggested that Brexit would be a softer affair, in the lead up to the referendum.

Tory peer Daniel Hannan (formerly an MEP) said in 2015: “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”. And yet we did leave the single market, as part of the hard Brexit pursued by the Tories.

But yes I suppose other leading Brexiteers didn’t make details explicit. Perhaps, after the Brexit referendum, we should have had a second referendum to determine what shape Brexit should take. We could have remained in the single market for many industries (similar to Norway/Switzerland/Iceland) or the customs union (similar to Turkey), or both.

Brexiteers are famously supportive of “democracy” so they shouldn’t have had any objections to a second referendum.

I’m just going to leave this here.

Maybe the economy does indeed need fixing. I wonder how many Brits agree with the Lib Dems’ suggested fix, which is to rejoin the EU single market and customs union:

We need to fix our trading relationship with Europe to tackle the cost of living crisis and grow our economy.

Liberal Democrats are calling for the UK to join the single market and customs union, to fix the damage done by Brexit and get our country back on track.

I can respect the fact that they’re more certain about what they want to do. I think Burnham is alright, but his position on Europe seems to be “I don’t know yet; we’ll try to get closer to Europe, but we don’t know what that looks like yet”.

I definitely think Europe should have strong relationships with good allies, like Canada and Japan. Hopefully they would both be reliable.

Mexico, potentially yes, they could be a reliable ally. As for India I’m not so sure, because India seems to want to be quite friendly with Russia (I think India buys a lot of military equipment from Russia), and Russia has been waging war against Europe for the last 12 years.

I think more Europeans need to realise that the only countries which care about the security of European countries are European countries.

Michel Barnier, formerly the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said earlier this year that the UK wouldn’t need to adopt the euro to rejoin the EU (source):

“I am speaking about Schengen, I am speaking about the single currency: there are other member states who are not in them. It is perfectly possible to have opt-outs in these fields.”

Coming and going over and over again would probably not be sensible. But the UK could definitely rejoin the EU if it wanted to. It just depends on whether there’s enough political will to make it happen. Currently there probably isn’t, but I think the UK could rejoin the EU during my lifetime, or at least the UK could certainly forge a much closer relationship with the EU even without membership. Similar to Norway or Switzerland, for example.

Voters chose leaving the EU by a slim margin, but the UK could have still taken part in the EU single market without being an EU member, like Norway does.

So you could say that blame for the way in which Brexit turned out lies with politicians, specifically Tory politicians who pushed through a hard Brexit without consulting the public on it. So much for “democracy”.

Very true. It would have been entirely sensible for the UK to have had a second referendum regarding which kind of Brexit should be pursued. We could have stayed in the single market, or parts of it, while still leaving the EU. We could have stayed in the customs union; Turkey is in the EU customs union while not being an EU member.

Alas, the Tories chose a hard Brexit on a whim.

Your in-laws sound like GB News viewers here in the UK. GB News is a right-wing news TV channel, and it has only existed for a few years. Previously people had to watch BBC News or Sky News, which are both pretty moderate. But now right-leaning voters can get sucked into GB News propaganda. They are never shown different sides of an argument presented fairly; instead everything they are shown is highly biased.

Maybe actually I’m making a mistake by comparing the French election with the 2024 US election because of the different voting systems.

I suppose leftist voters in France might think “if we can get Melenchon into the second round then moderates will have to vote for him to keep out Le Pen”. So then the second round polling between Melenchon and Le Pen might change when the reality sets in that Melenchon and Le Pen are the only two options. Which is different to the single-round US presidential election, where the only two realistic candidates to win were Trump and Harris. In that US election, every anti-Trump non-voter just helped Trump.

As for Melenchon being anti-Ukraine, I don’t know his stance in detail, but like you, I’m not in favour of anti-Ukraine stances.

I’m just looking at polling. In fact Melenchon now seems to be in second place for the first round, behind Le Pen, so perhaps he is likely to get into the second round. But the problem is that he fares worse than Philippe in the second round against Le Pen.

The most recent second round polls seem to show this:

• Philippe ~44%, Le Pen ~56%
• Melenchon ~31%, Le Pen ~69%

Of course polling can change. Pollsters in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton would enter the White House. But still, at the moment, if Melenchon gets to the second round, it looks like a victory for Le Pen is more likely.

I guess with the French election I’m mainly thinking about the second round. If it’s Philippe versus Le Pen then hopefully enough people will back Philippe, because I think Le Pen would be worse.

In the first round maybe there’s more freedom to vote for who you really like. But if it ends up being Melenchon versus Le Pen in the second round, it could be pretty difficult to stop Le Pen winning.

Torygraph propagandists are losing their jobs?

Let me go and find my microscopic violin…

Removed by mod

The solution is simple: European AI.

Europe should invest more in European AI companies like Mistral. Otherwise, Europe might find itself dependent on American AI or Chinese AI, and both of those countries don’t seem very friendly towards Europe.

Fuck America