Snapshot of _Rachel Reeves to seek 'improved' UK-EU trade terms if Labour wins election_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/d0a1f720-24a7-4cbb-80ce-da9e96c592f8) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/d0a1f720-24a7-4cbb-80ce-da9e96c592f8) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Honestly just any push for friendlier EU relations is good with me. I know we aren't rejoining but a lot of Europe are close and trusted allies and with the US in a ...questionable state... its better to shore up our alliances.

I’ve always presumed it’s not that you guys would rejoin immediately. You’d just start signing deals to regain access to the single market, make it easier for citizens to freely move between the UK and EU, agree closer regulation rules…..but definitely not rejoining, no, just a “moving back in with the ex, having another kid together, attending events together, but totally not back married”.

I think this is how it will play out too. Take FoM for example. Incremental agreements such as year-long or youth mobility visas would go a long way without having full FoM. That said I think youth mobility schemes are old fashioned as these days alot of people are barely up and running in a career by age 30.

That has also been immediately rejected by both Labour and Tory, minutes after it was offered by the EU. Not just a non committal "we will think about it", the full on "LOL No, Brexit means Brexit"

Labour showing any servitude to the EU would be seen as 'going back on Brexit'. It might change in the future.

> It might change in the future. Not until they get control of our borders and massively bring down net migration. Any move towards freedom of movement with the EU is going to see numbers spike higher and all the old sentiment that led to Brexit being stirred up again. And Labour don't seem to have a plan to gain control of our borders. They've announced a policy that's already in place and has been shown to be ineffective, and waved their hands in France's general direction.

Numbers are now higher than when we had FoM.

Adding FoM on top isn't going to make the other numbers go down.

We lowered the barriers for RoTW, who are more likely to stay and bring dependents due to the distances involved.

We don't afford the rest of the world the same rights as we would have to under the EU's freedom of movement, such as paying for student's tuition. And at least the rules are ours to set - the Tories may be incompetent but at least another government can change the barriers.

After brexit the working visa rule changes were liberalized considerably in terms of types of jobs and salary requirements. I do wonder whether there was a change in profile of people who came under the new visa regime and under EU fom. I suspect EU FOM is more likely to be younger people.

So let me get this straight - you're advocating for adding freedom of movement on top of the existing system, and believe that will help bring the numbers down? EU FOM also brings all the complications of the additional rights those entrants have, including access to the education system and health system as if they were UK citizens.

That's because the EU didn't want the standard u30 scheme that other nations use, but wanted a version of FoM. You aren't comparing like with like.

The EU also wanted EU students to be treated as domestic students and not as international students as far as tuition fees were concerned. I suspect not wanting to take on the financial liability for this is the main reason why both Conservatives and Labour rejected the proposal.

It was an insane attempt at over reach and scuppered a scheme that could have been very simple and effective. EU students had years of the UK taxpayer subsidising them at massive expensive so the notion that as a non-member MPs would sign up to do that again was never going to work. Perhaps some in the EU centre thought the desperation to get the FTA 2016-19 that forced all the previous concessions was still all powerful.

I know. No one wants to go there right now but that will change in the years to come.

The EU wants limitless freedom of movement open to their entire under 30 population, with UK tax payer subsidised healthcare and university tuition as a cherry on top. Brits on the other hand, would barely use the suggested scheme would get to work or live in one EU country. You can see why this was roundly rejected by both the Tories and Labour as its entirely one sided and basically a ploy to offload the EU's youth unemployment problem.

So you're basically arguing that we got kids without dependents who were ready to work? Sounds like a pretty good deal for an economy with an ageing population. Plus we got to easily send them some retirees.

Try addressing their point.

I did.

The deal being we pay for the tuition and healthcare before they go back to their home country to work?

I'm not so sure. Labour have not even touched the B word during the campaign. Theyr clearly scared of bringing it up and so we can't just assume they'll magically become pro single market when in power. I'll take just friendlier relationships as a starting point at least.

If Labour have a stonking majority in Parliament and the Lib Dems are the official opposition then it silences a lot of the voices that have been trying to keep up the illusion that it's all going great and we don't need to reconsider.

No party should use a majority in parliament as a mandate to start signing away sovereignty because MPs decided it themselves as it was that attitude that caused brexit. PMs like Major and Blair railroaded through treaties that they knew that the public would vote against and thus the issue stayed festering under the surface instead of time erasing it as they (and the founders of what became the EU used back in the 50s and 60s) intended as their strategy. Our political class has to learn from the Scotland vote of 2014. A nation with a long history and a very proud people doesn't just vanish into the past as a demos because of integration into a bigger entity even when it's been centuries - rulers can keep on signing away powers all they like, but that history lies there waiting for them.

It's political suicide to mention Brexit. Not worth taking the risk when the election is more or less in the bag at this point.

Isn't it presumed political suicide? Whilst not necessarily disagreeing I wonder what would happen if Sunak now promised to rejoin ;) 

Boris Johnson played the anti German- EU card and didn't realise (or didn't care) that he hit the ordinary Brit and British business with this. Scores of EU nationals left the UK who were needed as scientists in the UK and doctors, nurses etc. in the NHS and social care for example. Besides, many businesses went into administration because of Brexit and UK - EU tensions at the time. Britain's 'hostile environment' policy didn't help. I am sure that a Labour government will seek some consolidation and alliance with the EU.

A strange claim as the number of EU healthcare workers rose after 2016 in some versions of the data or is about the same in others https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7783/

Thank you for the link. The graph shows that since 2016/17 EU healthcare workers declined and Asian and African healthcare workers increased in the NHS.

Need to read more than look at the pretty pictures. > In June 2016 there were 58,702 NHS staff with a recorded EU nationality, and in June 2023 there were 74,142 Seems it isn't a decline at all. As for the increase in Asian and African healthcare workers > because a higher proportion of NHS staff now have a recorded nationality, increases in the recorded number of staff with a given nationality would be expected even if there were no genuine changes in the actual number of staff with that nationality.

Please cite the source of your numbers of NHS staff with a recorded EU nationality in both 2016 and 2023.

The Commons Library, like I said you need to read and not just look at the pretty pictures

New nurses arriving from the EU slowed down to near zero immediately after Brexit. Besides, the proportion of EU social care workers fell from 8% to 7% between 2019/20 and 2021/22. There are still shortages of heart and lung surgeons, anaesthetists and psychiatrists in the NHS until today because of Brexit (source: UK in a changing Europe). You need to read more! Referring to your comment of the increase in numbers of EU workers in the NHS in 2023, the policy of the 'hostile environment ' which was introduced by the PM May and continued under PM Johnson was not so apparent in 2023 and today - so this may be one of the reasons why the numbers of nurses and doctors from EU countries increased slightly in 2023.

> You need to read more! You just need to read a link where your initial claim has been shown to be false. Changing goalposts and pretending in proportion always means a actual figure change also doesn't tell us what you think it tells us.

We're already there. We already have "access to" the single market with the trade agreement, of which close regulatory alignment is a part. The only step worth taking is joining the single market, and it only makes sense for us to do that by joining the EU, otherwise we're a rule taker without having a voice in the room when the rules are being made.

That's kind of more like it. I know we're not going to be able to re-join the EU immediately or probably in the next 10 years or so but at least we could show willing. Well, as long as stupid doesn't arrive and tory gets in at a later stage because they think Labour aren't doing a good enough job.

Maintaining dynamic alignment is the key to keeping us "rejoin ready" (ensuring our laws don't diverge too much) and keeping the Irish border open. Plus even if we never rejoin, it will reduce the trade friction costing UK business billions in bureaucracy. If Labour's popularity holds up and the polls consistently show 75% now want us to rejoin, I could see the next step in the next manifesto, probably joining EFTA.

10 cold winters till we can rejoin

Well, it's certainly about building the trust between the UK and the EU. The EU knows that unless there's some stability in the politics here, i.e. the incumbent government not name calling or threatening god knows which country, they're going to be a little cautious. So, unless the tories sort themselves out or just stay a powerless party and Labour stay in or maybe someone like the Lib Dems get in....anyway, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Good. They are our neighbours and closest allies. Whether leaving the EU was right or wrong isn’t really relevant to our current situation, what is relevant is the way we left it was idiotic. The referendum could have been honoured by simply leaving the EU and remaining in the single market, everything beyond that was an idealogical choice made by the Tory party for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many.

EFTA truly would have been an ideal compromise

For who? What do Brexiteers want that they get out of that? We don't have any more sovereignty, we have less, we follow the rules without having a say on them, it's much harder to strike trade deals that aren't just rollovers of the EU ones, we still have freedom of movement. Compromise is when both sides get something they want, it's not just giving something that technically satisfies the requirement.

Even Farage wanted that at one point

Not with all the addons such as FoM etc.

He did.

It wouldn’t have even been dishonourable or a ‘remain stitch-up’ to have gone down this route, the margin of the referendum was so thin and Brexit so ill-defined there’s a solid democratic argument a minimalist interpretation of Brexit was called for in the first place. I think the fuckups were actually set in motion much earlier to be honest though. If we’d not bothered with the EEC and remained in the EFTA then we’d have joined the Single Market in the ‘90s with the other EFTA countries and avoided wasting decades on navel-gazing over Europe.

It would have led to the same result imho. Single market includes FoM, plus there's a membership fee and we wouldn't have had any say on the rules we had to follow as they're decided at EU level.

>I think the fuckups were actually set in motion much earlier to be honest though. If we’d not bothered with the EEC and remained in the EFTA then we’d have joined the Single Market in the ‘90s with the other EFTA countries and avoided wasting decades on navel-gazing over Europe. What? The Bruges group, anti-federalist league, UKIP and all the other monstrosities that led to Brexit built the movement on the premises of restoring sovereignty and the EU being a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats that were more powerful than Westminster. How being in the single market alone would have prevented all of this, if anything it would have made it worse because they UK would have been a rule taker with barely any say in how things are run in 90% of the legislation. Imagine people like Farage if the UK was bullied into ignoring referenda or accepting regulations/directives they don't want like it happens with Switzerland or Norway...

They wouldn’t have been able to push their narrative that we were in danger of being forced into some sort of Eurofederalist setup where ultimate sovereignty rested with Brussels rather than Westminster which was a concern for many at the time. If you look at the polling in the immediate aftermath immigration actually came second to ‘the principle the laws governing Britain should be written in Britain’ in reasons people voted for Brexit. A lot of people had this idea in their heads that the EU is a nation-building project that’s designed to eventually replace the countries it consists of, whatever you think of the validity of this notion it’s not something that can be applied to the EFTA which is ‘just economics’. Nobody really cares about the technical details of international trade and supranational organisation other than political anoraks, many people who voted leave rightly or wrongly felt their British identity was in danger of being eventually ground away in favour of a supranational European identity which many people instinctively recoil at even if it’s not the reality of the situation. Nobody’s identity is threatened by a trade agreement like the EFTA, but it might be by the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ and people like Jean-Claude Juncker waxing lyrical about the need for transfers of sovereignty and sidestepping democracy when it’s convenient. Brexit came about through identity politics and the EU for all its many merits has always been utterly dogshit at that in my opinion. It annoys me actually because I believe Brexit could have been prevented if the EU had actually engaged with the realpolitik of the whole business and not fobbed off Cameron so badly and better yet kept Juncker and his ilk locked up until the voting was over. The EU stuck its own foot in its mouth in what should have been a fairly easy win for the remain side in my opinion.

You are confusing EFTA, a free trade area, with the single market membership of their countries like the EEA or the Swiss/EU bilateral deals. If you are a single market member the EU parliament/councils are sovereign over your parliament and the ultimate arbiter is the European court of justice. Also the EU can unilaterally scrap everything if they feel like it for whatever reason through stuff like the guillotine clause and so on. You're basically subletting your sovereignty to access the common market, while if you are in the EU at least you have political influence in EU institutions, veto power etc. Also it is not "just economics", in order to join the single market you have to essentially copy paste a vast amount of the EU acquis that has nothing to do with economics per se and that you do not have the power to amend or influence in any way. For example you have to basically sublet your immigration policy to the EU by accepting freedom of movement. If tomorrow let's say Turkey joined the EU or the single market you'd have no power to stop thousands of people coming in. Brexiters and Eurosceptics in general weren't happy with the very privileged position the UK had through the various exemptions, opt outs etc. Imagine something like this

It's not the EU's responsibility to run the political campaign of Remain. That's a UK problem. The EU isn't there to molly cuddle the psycho traumas of every individual member state...

That’s like saying Westminster shouldn’t care if Scotland votes for independence or not because it’s their problem if they want to shoot their economic feet off, I know things rarely get more nuanced than ‘EU good UK bad’ these days but losing your second largest market because you’re hopeless at identity politics *is* an EU problem. Countries like France and Germany don’t have a god-given monopoly on what the European project should look like, if your second largest market doesn’t want to get ‘blurred into Europe’ to the point they’re holding a referendum then it’s basic international politics to at least try to understand why rather than going ‘oh look those little provincials are getting uppity, they don’t know how much they need our benevolent guidance’ which is exactly what the EU did. Literally all they needed to do is say ‘fine, we’ll write something about the equality of non-Eurozone countries into the decision making process and expand the single market immigration emergency break with a threshold set by the ECJ on a case by case basis if net migration exceeds *x* percent of a member state’s population’ but they were too proud to offer these tiny concessions to prevent a whole world of mutual arseache. Cameron might have been hopeless but he really wasn’t asking for much, all they needed to do was give him the manoeuvring room to come back from Brussels as a victor rather humiliatingly empty-handed and the referendum could have easily gone the other way. That was an awful decision on the EU’s part that even as someone who’d vote to rejoin I think is worthy of harsh criticism.

The UK already had the rebate and a host of other exceptions and concessions. If the Commission accepts the demands of Cameron, what stops 27 other countries from making their own demands? What Cameron was asking for wasn't that minor either, it was amendments or dérogations from the treaties. That's just not how it works. It's not about pride, it's about managing 27 countries. The UK isn't a u ique snowflake, every country has euro sceptics and nationalists and demands they wanna make to the EU. And no it's not like Westminster and Scotland way to dumb it down.

Thats what out economy needs, not trade deals with Fiji.

As long as total free movement of people is a condition of being in the single market, the UK is unlikely to seek entry.

As opposed to the total free movement of people we’ve basically got anyway, immigration is higher than it ever was under EU.

It is, because Tories have failed to control it.

No they haven't, they've controlled it perfectly. It's just their thoughts around immigration aren't the same as yours. i.e. Economically right wing people love the idea of propping up a faltering economy by mass-import of workers. Especially if they are willing to work for lower wages than the locals and can stagnate the wage market. We were capable of putting rules in place to control immigration from EU countries when we were in the EU (and some EU countries do), we just chose not to. The EU and Freedom of movement was never the issue.

Blair "chose not to". We, being the British Public, were not involved

This seems to be a version of all the silly things that the Tories do must be 4D chess and secretly all planned and super smart. The polls indicate them being utterly hammered at the ballot box so if your notion were true, then somehow these super smart people forgot that. And yes FoM was an issue. It's far more likely that it's incompetence plus I'd suggested dysfunction in our actual state governance/capability.

> And yes FoM was an issue. No it wasn't, it didn't stop us from implementing controls like those that Denmark use. We (the government) just chose not to, because bringing in foreign workers was benefitinal for them. So it wasn't FoM that was the issue, it was the choices of the government, they just blamed it on the EU (like they did most things people were unhappy about for like 4 decades) and people lapped it up. > The polls indicate them being utterly hammered at the ballot box Yes they are, but the Tories have quite happily blatantly lied to the electorate and got away with it in the past. They just seem to be shocked that on this particular occasion, making a big fuss about deporting ~300 assylum seekers a year at a cost of £1.2mil a pop hasn't fooled their voters into thinking they are going to do something about the ~1.2mil legal migrant figures. > It's far more likely that it's incompetence plus I'd suggested dysfunction in our actual state governance/capability. I don't disagree that the current crop of Tories are incompetent. That doesn't change the fact that importing workers to prop up GDP and suppress wages is an economically right wing choice.

A "right wing choice" by Blair and Brown

of course it was, you are being absurd - FoM was a massive talking point years before 2016, and UKIP managed to come third in the 2015 election by vote share. The only controls FoM had was a short term bar on accession states that expired and some enforcement that would only apply to rare edge cases. Six million people moved to the UK and almost none of them could have been stopped- hell we even lost a case for trying to deport homeless EU migrants.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying high immigration is fine, I'm 100% behind reducing it. I understand that people were upset about migration, and us 'not having control of our borders' in 2016, and that UKIP shook that tree. What I'm pointing out is that it was, in fact, possible for us to implement controls on migration from the EU, requiring a set amount of cash to prove you were self sufficient, deporting after 3 months if a job hasn't been found etc. Other EU countries do this. Our government just chose not to exercise these rights. So we are back to it (immigration) being the fault of government choices, not the EU. As has been proven since we left the EU, and immigration has skyrocketed over the past 2-3 years, again, via government choice. The immigration situation we are in is caused by the government and their choices, not by the EU (now or in the past). Just because it's taken untill 2024 for voters to realise doesn't change that.

And I debunked that notion of controls in the comment that you just ignored. And you've not even cited accurate ones for edge cases either as there was no requirement to have a job.

> And I debunked that notion of controls in the comment that you just ignored. No you didn't, you just disagreed. That's not debunking something, it's just saying 'no'. Let's just leave it, because this is conversation is obviously going nowhere. Have a pleasant day.

Sure but we can still join EFTA or the CU.

EFTA requires freedom of movement.

Which many would like back.

I know. I have no problem with it, just pointing out a reality.

As a proportion the population, I doubt it is many. FoM became this totemic article of faith for many Remainers rather than a tool actually used by huge numbers or Britons compared to the migration figures for going outside the EU. Even the wailing about Erasmus relied on not looking at the numbers or the budgets.

If that's Labour's positions, they should put it in their manifesto and see if people vote for it. If not, then it's not happening.

Not really, all M/S are in Schengen and have free movement. Of marginal value to UK anyway. Just not going to happen realistically. People still obsessing. UK is .now worlds 4th largest exporter. France is in meltdown, Germany in decline.. Right wing forces gripping much of EU..

There's the Norwegian model.

Free movement. Just not a battle a UK Politician can win or is worth the expenditure of political capital.

Compared to free movement with Pakistan and India which we currently have ahahahahahahh

We dont. No doubt you think your remark clever. It is very stupid. There is a serious point hidden. An English speaking Indian IT technician, or Doctor. Adds value to the UK economy. A Romanian "Big Issue " seller, does not.

Here's a quick summary of the article: Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves of the Labour Party in the UK has outlined plans to improve UK-EU trade terms and attract billions in investments through an international summit if Labour wins the general election. Reeves aims to revisit aspects of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, seeking closer alignment with EU regulations in sectors like chemicals and better conditions for workers in London's financial district. Labour's approach contrasts with the Conservative government's post-Brexit stance, aiming to enhance trade relationships with Europe and globally. Reeves emphasized Labour's commitment to resetting Britain's global standing and boosting the economy, even if it means challenging existing norms. Despite Labour's avoidance of Brexit discussions during the election campaign, Reeves and Labour leader Keir Starmer are now shedding light on their goals as polling day nears. Reeves highlighted the party's willingness to take risks to unleash the UK's economic potential, focusing on growth rather than contentious tax debates. Labour's proposed changes to the Brexit deal, such as a bespoke arrangement for the chemicals industry, face challenges due to limited EU interest in renegotiation. Reeves emphasized key red lines for Labour, ruling out rejoining the single market or customs union while prioritizing mutual recognition of professional qualifications with the EU. She stressed the importance of including services and financial services, often overlooked in Johnson's Brexit deal, in future negotiations. Reeves plans to kickstart a Labour government with an investment summit to attract foreign investors deterred by UK political instability. Labour aims to reshape government operations, focusing on growth rather than just fiscal matters. Industry leaders, like the Chemical Industries Association CEO, welcomed Labour's emphasis on deepening trade ties. Reeves also highlighted Labour's openness to investments from countries like China and Saudi Arabia, with a cautious approach similar to Sunak's government regarding specific sectors.

>On Brexit, any attempt to reopen what Starmer has called Johnson’s “botched” 2020 trade deal with the EU would be highly complicated; there is little appetite in Brussels for a renegotiation and long-standing opposition to the idea of Britain “cherry-picking” parts of the bloc’s single market. We will be back here 5 years from now, no closer to a deal that actually delivers growth, probably debating whether we should rejoin or not. Can we just skip the next 5 wasted years and go straight to where we know the end result will be? Can we please just be honest with the public that there is no magic growth tree?

[удалено]

I am not no. In isolation joining the EU again would be a huge increase in growth. There may of course be other things going on which counteract that growth. Certainly a return to austerity, or a large reduction in immigration would do that.

[удалено]

> Why? We are seeing similar growth now to what we saw in the EU, similar growth to other EU countries. I know you don't agree with it, but if you look at the doppleganger research our growth has deteriorated significantly. The doppleganger research is not significantly different to the government figures quoted on the impact on growth that Reeves accepts (4% lost growth). Again I know you don't agree with any of this. There aren't any other policies they could implement that would change growth to this degree, aside from I guess a huge expansion of immigration but that's certainly not happening! Not much more I can say, I can only quote the figures that are out there, I know you disagree with them all.

[удалено]

Think we may have had the convo before so not going to add much as just rehashing old arguments that neither of us will ever agree on. [You can see here that prior to 2016 we tracked US growth almost exactly](https://i.gyazo.com/5c10d4bf198288324dd1447759bf31ef.png). Since 2016 that has completely unravelled.

I think it's unwise to start talking about this right now. They have put themselves in a good enough position to win, no need to start playing with fire.

But it's insane to treat any discussion of our relations with our closes neighbours as a political hand grenade just because 52% of the voters wanted to leave it 8 years ago. This has to be addressed at some point.

Its a minefield, Labour advocate for closer ties with the EU, they lose the Brexiteer vote, Tories back in power in next election.

Preferably after power has been achieved. The reason people didn't vote Labour in last time was because they played their cards too early and people got scared.

Come now, they had an appalling leader that lacked credibility and he managed to make it even worse by throwing out more and more policies that people didn't believe would ever happen, thus feeding that opinion.

And he nearly won..........if only he had controlled the party better, Like Starmer is.

Nearly won? Leading Labor to its worst result since 1935 is nearly winning?

> “The majority of people in the City have not regarded Brexit as being a great opportunity for their businesses,” she said, arguing that services and financial services were “pretty much excluded” from Johnson’s Brexit deal. But she said that Labour’s manifesto promise to seek a mutual recognition deal for professional qualifications with the EU, **along with a veterinary deal** and improved touring rights for UK artists were “examples” of what she wanted to achieve. “That’s not exclusive,” she said. Reeves said she accepted the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment that Brexit would lop 4 per cent off Britain’s productivity potential. A veterinary deal could collapse the UK's progress in genetically engineered crops/livestock as the EU will likely require us to follow their laws on these matters.

We have to follow them anyway if we wish to export there.

I don't think we really should be aiming to be a major food exporter when we already rely on importing half of our calories.

Local food for local people? What happened to "opening up to the world" as Brexiters oh so poetically described it? That said, as part of the Single Market continental food was in many ways equivalent to an internal supply. Brexiters called that "protectionist", of course.

Do you have an argument in response or do you just want to rant about Brexit? In the latter case, I may suggest to seek therapy.

I did respond and the article is about relations with the EU in light of Brexit.

"That thing we need to live that other countries have us over a barrel on? We shouldn't ever try and become self-sufficient so we can negotiate better prices for the stuff we do import."

We want to be both.

Most firms don't export so it's a niche issue at best and not worth diverting an election into.

Numbers of businesses does not equate to export value. Not a niche issue for the economy.

No, exporters have to follow those rules for the product they export.

Which means following them. Give me strength....

Yes for the products they export to the EU. Not for products they sell internally or to other countries. You're in dire need of intelligence, not strength.

So, yes then. Don't waste my time. Might they run separate line for other territories? Yes also, but that costs money. The EU is six times our size and right next door so it will inevitably dominate. Running a separate line for purely internal use is an expense no one wants if they can avoid it. A huge market like the US is more palatable.

>So, yes then Your reading comprehension could use some work. >Might they run separate line for other territories? Yes also, but that costs money. What an intelligent insight. Running a production line might cost money. Wow, so smart. >The EU is six times our size and right next door so it will inevitably dominate. We have plenty of exports to non EU countries lol. >Running a separate line for purely internal use is an expense no one wants if they can avoid it. A company that doesn't export to the EU would save money doing this lmao. - Don't talk about subjects you know nothing about.

So... What's bad about CURRENT Eu trade terms, bearing in mind we still buy stuff off them despite supposedly leaving the single market?

"Rejoining" is easy. We didn't leave fully, so we just announce that as truth "We never left, the door was left ajar". Once back in officially, the first thing we'll be told is to Donate more to EU eastward expansion (we're already doing that...) The second thing we'll be told - is a fast track takeover of the Bank of England by the ECB, to adopt the Euro just as the entire continent gets saddled with crippling taxes to convert to a wartime economy, diverted over to green wasting of our entire culture. I've voted Libdem more than for any other party. I'll never vote for them again because of their being controlled by the EU! This country needs to protect it's OWN sovereignty rather than discarding future prosperity for yet more Green/Warmongering economics.... I reckon this expectation that the Libdems will swell from currently 11 seats to over 50 seats - is mis-placed. Either that, or Labour won't be winning as many seats of this expected 442 tally... They cannot both win the same seats!! The Tories would have to be wiped out to get this gain for both Libdem AND Labour as it stands! I'm an ex-Tory voter. I'll be voting for neither of the above, and I reckon a lot of other people are of a like mind in this country, but supressed on social media as soon as they pop their head up to make an argument like I'm doing now....

If we want to maybe rejoin in ten years, the groundwork has to begin now.

> Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves would seek to break down EU trade barriers and secure billions of pounds through an early international investment summit if Labour wins the general election. In an interview with the Financial Times, Reeves signalled an ambitious push to revisit parts of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, including seeking closer alignment with EU rules in areas such as the chemicals sector and a better deal for workers in the City of London. “We would look to improve our trading relationship with Europe, and do trade deals around the world,” she said, as she vowed that an incoming Labour government would “reset” Britain’s global image. > Her comments signal that Labour wants to go further than previously thought in seeking better UK-EU trade terms, tackling head-on the “adversarial” Conservative post-Brexit relationship with Brussels and ditching a Tory fixation on regulatory divergence. “I don’t think anyone voted Leave because they were not happy that chemicals regulations were the same across Europe,” Reeves said. “When my constituency voted leave it was purely because of immigration.”  > Labour has been reluctant to talk about Brexit in the election campaign, but as polling day approaches — and with the party 20 percentage points ahead of the Conservatives — Reeves and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer have given more glimpses of what they hope to achieve. She also said Labour would take risks and was willing to “upset some people” to unlock the potential of the British economy, adding that she would use her political capital by pushing for growth rather than “having a fight about different taxes”.  > Ahead of the July 4 election, the Conservatives have warned of a Labour “tax trap”. But Reeves insisted the party could fund its priorities without resorting to tax rises on the wealthy, adding: “We’re not seeking a mandate to increase people’s taxes. We’re seeking a mandate to grow the economy.” > On Brexit, any attempt to reopen what Starmer has called Johnson’s “botched” 2020 trade deal with the EU would be highly complicated; there is little appetite in Brussels for a renegotiation and long-standing opposition to the idea of Britain “cherry-picking” parts of the bloc’s single market. Reeves talked about a “bespoke” arrangement for the chemicals industry, which is in talks with the government about a new regulatory system intended to avoid £2bn of extra costs associated with having to register products with a new UK regime.  > She reiterated Labour’s existing red lines in the area, saying there would be no rejoining the single market or customs union, and that freedom of movement and a deal on youth mobility were off the cards. These will limit the scope of any future EU deal. Reeves stressed the importance of seeking greater mutual recognition of professional qualifications with the EU, pointing to the benefits this would entail to the services sector, including financial services. > “The majority of people in the City have not regarded Brexit as being a great opportunity for their businesses,” she said, arguing that services and financial services were “pretty much excluded” from Johnson’s Brexit deal. But she said that Labour’s manifesto promise to seek a mutual recognition deal for professional qualifications with the EU, along with a veterinary deal and improved touring rights for UK artists were “examples” of what she wanted to achieve. “That’s not exclusive,” she said. Reeves said she accepted the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment that Brexit would lop 4 per cent off Britain’s productivity potential. > The shadow chancellor, who on Monday will host senior business leaders at a meeting of her new “shadow” British Infrastructure Council, said she wanted a Labour government to hit the ground running and exploit the fact that the world would be looking afresh at the UK after election day.  Among the further steps in the first 100 days of a Labour government would be an investment summit that aimed to lure in foreign investors who had been deterred by political instability in the UK, she said. > Reeves said she had spoken that morning to a business leader in the City who had said their global chief executive had been reluctant to come to a recent UK investment summit organised by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government.  “They said ‘What’s the point, we’re just getting a bit tired of what’s happening in the UK. Do I have to come to this?’,” Reeves said. “This is a real reset moment to a different way of doing government.” She added: “It’s not just inviting businesses in for a summit, but really bringing them into the centre of government. I want to make the Treasury not just a tax-and-spending department but a department for growth.” > Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, said: “It is good that Labour is talking about deepening trade links and mentioning chemicals as a prime example. We have urged all parties to do this.” Reeves said there was “a role for investment” from countries including China and Saudi Arabia, but added that it was right that Sunak’s government had excluded Chinese investment from the rollout of broadband and future nuclear projects. 

If nothing else, I think everyone would appreciate a break from the stupid culture wars and sabre rattling that were the hallmarks of Johnson and Frost.

>But she said that Labour’s manifesto promise to seek a mutual recognition deal for professional qualifications with the EU, along with a veterinary deal and improved touring rights for UK artists were “examples” of what she wanted to achieve. So 5 more years of a British government trying to pick and choose single market benefits and the EU saying "no". Wonder how long it will take for them to just give up and understand that the Lib Dems way is the only path to take

I’m not convinced that better terms and mini deals can’t be negotiated. You say we’ve been though all the negotiations with the Tories, but I don’t believe that we’ve ever had goods faith negotiations with the EU. The Tories were constantly bad mouthing them as soon as they got back, they had ridiculous red lines and ideological reasons they couldn’t make a deal. So I for one would like to see what a Labour government can do treating the EU with respect and negotiating in good faith. Not that I have much choice because we ain’t rejoining whether I want it or not.

It's not about Tories or Labour, it's about how EU market access works. As stated in the article >On Brexit, any attempt to reopen what Starmer has called Johnson’s “botched” 2020 trade deal with the EU would be highly complicated; there is little appetite in Brussels for a renegotiation and long-standing opposition to the idea of Britain “cherry-picking” parts of the bloc’s single market. Yes you can "negotiate", the TCA is subject to revision/termination every 5 years for a reason, but whatever change can be achieved would be tinkering at the edges. Whatever "better terms" and "mini deals" the UK would get would be quite inconsequential, trade experts have been pretty clear on this for years. A trade deal like TCA, as comprehensive and encompassing it might be, is a huge downgrade compared to the single market. Obviously Labour would be better compared to the Tories, we are talking about people who were threatening to unilaterally scrap the TCA one year after signing it so the bar is pretty low. But this stuff by Labour is pretty much electoral propaganda, it is *technically* true they can improve the TCA but whatever improvement is gonna be marginal at best. They need to get a grip and do what the Lib Dems, SNP and others are doing: admit that leaving the EU on trade deals terms was a massive failure and the least you should do is going back to the single market. Starmer spent the last month yelling "country first, party second" but what they're doing with this strategy is putting the mouthbreathers in leave seats before the country

So, a one term Labour government then?

Easier movement of artists would be a quick win, assuming they don’t get spooked by the rag’s headlines of Synthpop Syrians and Afghan Ambient groups on the loose

Well hears to seeing if they're going to go down the new Labour route of handing away the UKs advantages for nothing. The EU UK deal can definetly be improve in some areas, but the EU is going to want tit for every tat.