“There is no point pretending everything is working fine. The paper-thin Tory deal has stifled Britain's potential and hugely weighted trade terms towards the EU. Every day it isn't built upon, our European friends and competitors aren't just eating our lunch - they're nicking our dinner money as well”. Very good, Sir Keir. Do you think they don’t speak English in Brussels?
On he goes, talking about criminal gangs, The Boats, and food prices, then claims “Every one of the problems I have outlined can be fixed from outside the EU”. No. Just no. We know how this will play out, and Niall Ó Conghaile has summed up the most likely scenario in a Twitter thread (HERE).
“It'll be positivity and smiles at the start … Then Europe will reiterate its own red lines, which are the same as they were for May, Johnson and the Brexiters … Talks will make little progress … UK press and pols will demand ‘flexibility’ from Europe while UKG offers zero flexibility … UK press and pols start lobbing Europhobic bombs. The old tunes like references to Naziism, Soviet dictatorship, woke socialism … Talks will collapse”. There was more.
“UK press, pols and many people will blame Europeans for not giving them what they want to make Brexit great … [what] Starmer is doing [is] ducking the hard conversation about what's wrong with the UK … By promising the undeliverable, he sets the UK on a path to further rancour and intemperate language towards its neighbours (even hostility or worse)”.
Small wonder he prefixes his observations with “The Express interview with Starmer today is quite troubling for anyone who wants the best for the UK or wants better European-UK relations”. The electorate is slowly but inexorably realising that Brexit was a calamitous mistake. He can sound as Brexity as he likes, but the mood is no longer hostile to accepting political reality.
Not even Margaret Thatcher - claimed today as some kind of Brexiteer visionary by many of those bad faith actors who use her name to peddle more of those false prospectuses - made such lame and defeatist admissions as to assert that “Britain’s future is outside the EU”. She said just the opposite.
In her 1988 speech to the College of Europe in Bruges, which Brexiteers are adept at selectively quoting, she said “Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.” She had more to say on that subject.
“Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour”. Starmer’s woeful defeatism does not even try and match Mrs T. His political antenna is way short of that demonstrated by Blair. He fails to grasp post-war reality.
I leave that to one of the great Liberal politicians, Joe Grimond, who said this to the House of Commons in 1960, 63 years ago, as true then as it remains today: “The sad feature is fifteen years ago [in 1945] Britain was at the peak of her power and influence, and the leadership of Europe was hers for the asking. We have thrown it away on grounds that have largely proved wrong”.
Keir Starmer wants to throw it away all over again. Read and weep.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
29 comments:
I warned you, Tim.
The Quisling hasn't even started.........
The truth is, Brexit was a cake baked with bad and out of date ingredients. One can change the chef. And even change the oven! At the end of the day, the end result is something quite inedible. Starmer needs to take this on board!
Starmer is being carefully shuffled into position to take over from current fellow right wing zombies.
The recent gradual media step away from the Sunak gang shows the establishment want them gone.
Starmer is a replacement with the same political agenda, albeit in different pr language and from a slightly different angle. Wait until you see him crawling on his knees to Washington for endorsement.
He's a tenth rate conman fraud. Always was, always will be.
Phil M of A Different Bias YouTube Channel sees Starmers's article differently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B8mfk5nga0
In Dulci,
Phil is not a good faith commentator. Very poor at analysis and with little charm to back it up.
@15:43
You sound like the bitter and twisted Tories who resent Phil's razor sharp analysis and Northern wit.
I'm sure both you and Phil agree on that.
As Batman and Bruce Wayne would.
@22:41
Oh dear. Referencing fiction and implying that I'm Phil.
I am not Phil Moorhouse. I have never met Phil Moorhouse. I have never communicated with Phil Moorhouse.
Your posts, Anon, are of help to the Tories, Gammons and other right-wing numpties who'll parrot anything that knocks Labour.
Also Anon stating anyone else as being "Charmless" absolutely takes the biscuit. Oh my aching sides.
Are we really in a situation where Phil Moorehouse has fans? Such an unrealistic scenario naturally led me to Phil setting up alts.
I'd recommend No Justice on YouTube, she thoroughly debunks his nonsense theories.
If you want a pro Starmer content creator who actually uses his brain try Maximillien Robespierre
Help us out here, Anonymous.
Which Anonymous do you mean, Anonymous?
@12:59
Like yourself, the No Justice channel debunks nothing. I watched "Starmer will NOT give you electoral reform Phil" and had to put up with utter bs.
I find it amazing that there are people analysing Starmer's Daily Express article as if it was published by New European.
Phil, calm down mate.
You gave it away. I could maybe handle someone being a Starmer fan and analysing his policy, but there was no way Phil's rubbish analysis would convince anyone.
Sorry Phil, you'll have to be more subtle next time.
@21:50
Yeah, right. Over one hundred and sixty thousand subscribers, but no fans.
What is Phil's analysis then Dulci?
That Starmer's lying. He won't even say Starmer has broken any pledges.
Next you'll be telling me you fund SuperTanskii.
Stick with Tim and Zelo Street and give Robespierre a go.
@14:28
You're getting more desperate in trying to execute a strawman technique mode of attack. So sad, but in doubt if anyone expects better from you.
FYI: I visit Max Robespierre, Novara Media and other channels.
Whilst you're watching all these channels please look up what "strawman" means.
Novara, in particular, cover that extensively Phil.
@20:36
Strawman Technique: Create a false and inferior image of someone and then attack the false image.
That's what you do amongst other things.
In Dulci, I haven't attacked you. I thought you were Phil, I still think you're Phil, but unless you think Phil is some interior being, then it doesn't fit.
Do a bit of research, come back, watch some decent stuff, then give me a decent reply.
There's a good fellow.
Yes, anonymous. I can see that In Dulci is not a university man, he clearly hasn't learnt rhetorical reasoning, but he's clearly simply a fan of this Phil guy - never heard of him myself - and you should just leave him alone.
@16:30 and 16:31
My first comment on this thread was about a YouTube channel that viewed the Starmer article differently and I supplied a link. I was hoping for some intelligent discourse.
'rhetorical reasoning'? You mean 'Bullshit'. On this thread, it's Strawman Technique and fantasy with a complete absence of any form of reasoning.
"Do a bit of research, come back, watch some decent stuff, then give me a decent reply. There's a good fellow." "I haven't attacked you. I thought you were Phil, I still think you're Phil"
It appears that I've strayed onto a blog that some regard as their personal patch where their views are sacred. Just like a crap golf clubhouse.
My dear friend, I wasn't insulting you. I just noted that you're not a university man and, thus, haven't learnt how to argue your point logically
That said, what you argued was done passionately, and I can't fault you for that.
Like what you.like I say. I'm sorry to have offended you.
@23:10
No, you referred to 'rhetorical reasoning' whilst I pointed out Anon's use of 'strawman technique'.
The point of my first post on this thread was to alert others to an alternative reason for Starmer's article in the Daily Express.
btw: not everyone who went to university was obliged to engage in the art of persuasion.
Oh, I apologise. I didn't mean to have a dig. After reading some works of my contemporaries it was nice to read something so raw and less polished.
For what it is worth, anonymous did not engage in strawman technique. I have watched Phil's analysis of it and I think, broadly, he puts too much stock on Starmer doing what is electorally right only to about face once in power. There is little evidence for that, and he doesn't approach, from any angle, the very real fact that this does not make him favourable.
Still far better than the tories but, I think, anonymous has a fair point. Phil's analysis isn't without some thought, but it is very surface level. He might like to talk about politics, but he should probably start learning about it first.
@15:13
Anonymous has created a false image of me and is attacking the false image. Part of political strategy involves denting support for rival political parties and that seems to be the purpose of Starmer's article in the Express. If Starmer had written that article for the New European or the Guardian the criticism would be valid, but not for a right-wing rag whose readers regard Alf Garnet as a folk hero.
You see dulci, this is what I find fascinating.
Anonymous hasn't created a false image of you, it is you that, in my view, has created a false image of Starmer. Indeed, a false image of this Phil guy.
Until you settle those misconceptions, he will always get you.
That's my view. Fascinating.
@06:11
Your reasoning is suspect. Anonymous accuses me of being Phil Moorhouse and uses that falsehood to rubbish me.
I have stated that I am not Phil Moorhouse, but that hasn't stopped Anonymous.
Anon has used Strawman Technique to create a false image and has attacked the false image.
You should note that Anon is trying to belittle Phil Moorhouse at the same time by inferring that he has to resort creating a false identity on a blog.
As for Anon always getting me, he's just an irritating prat on par with Darren Grimes and he gets nothing.
In Dulci, with all due respect, you sound like you might be Phil Moorhouse.
But you make a fair point, albeit it one that does not show the strawman technique at all.
I would only say that anonymous is implying and you are inferring. Bit of a bugbear but please don't confused the two.
@14:41
No offence mate, but you've been going on for two days now just because I didn't like Phil Moorhouse.
Tim had less engagement on this blog when he was doorstepped by Tommy Robinson. You've left more remarks than Rumpled of the Bailey Phil
Post a Comment