Скачать или смотреть JUST IN! Starmer EXPLODES As Labour MPs Wants Him to RESIGN Amid Brexit Betrayal

Imagine campaigning for office on an explicit promise not to take Britain back into the EU single market, winning a massive parliamentary majority based partly on that promise, then months later casually announcing you're actually quite keen on dragging Britain closer to that very same single market if it suits the national interest. Welcome to Sir Keir Starmer's world, where manifesto commitments are more like aspirational guidelines and Brexit means whatever's politically convenient at any given moment. Labour MPs have reacted jubilantly after the Prime Minister hinted at his biggest Brexit reversal so far, celebrating what they see as pragmatic economics whilst Brexiteers scream betrayal and point furiously at that pesky manifesto everyone was supposed to take seriously. This isn't just another political controversy. This is potentially the most significant shift in Britain's relationship with Europe since Brexit itself, disguised as technocratic necessity. And it's absolutely tearing British politics apart. Let's unpack this explosive development.
‎
‎Labour MPs have reacted jubilantly after Sir Keir Starmer hinted at his biggest Brexit reversal so far. Jubilantly. Not cautiously supportive, not quietly pleased, but jubilantly celebrating. That tells you everything about how large sections of the Labour Party never accepted Brexit, never wanted it, spent years looking for opportunities to reverse it, and now think they've finally found their opening. The Prime Minister yesterday said he is prepared to drag Britain closer to the EU single market if it is in our national interest. Prepared to drag Britain closer. That phrasing is doing enormous heavy lifting. What does closer mean? How close is too close? At what point does closer become effectively inside? These aren't semantic quibbles. These are fundamental questions about sovereignty, regulation, and what Brexit was actually supposed to achieve.
‎
‎If it is in our national interest. That's the escape clause, the justification that can mean absolutely anything you want it to mean. Who decides what's in the national interest? The government, obviously. So Sir Keir has given himself permission to move towards single market alignment whenever he decides it's beneficial, regardless of manifesto commitments or voter expectations. That's not principled governance. That's keeping options open for policies you promised not to implement. It's having your cake and eating it, except the cake is Brexit and eating it means quietly reversing it whilst insisting you're doing no such thing.
‎
‎Trade Minister Chris Bryant waded in with what can only be described as historical revisionism so brazen it would make Orwell blush. He said if memory serves me, most of those who argued for Brexit said of course we wouldn't leave the single market. If memory serves. Well, let's actually check whether memory is serving accurately, shall we? The Brexit campaign explicitly promised leaving the single market because staying in it would mean accepting free movement of people, and controlling immigration was absolutely central to the Leave campaign. Vote Leave, the official campaign, made this crystal clear. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, every major Brexit advocate understood that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. Some Remain campaigners predicted Brexit would be economically disastrous precisely because we'd leave the single market. The entire referendum debate was premised on this understanding.
‎
‎Now, it's true that a handful of Leave supporters briefly floated the Norway model, staying in the single market whilst leaving the EU. But that was always a minority position, quickly abandoned once the referendum was won. By the time Theresa May delivered her Lancaster House speech in January twenty seventeen, leaving the single market was official government policy supported by both major parties. So Chris Bryant's suggestion that Brexit supporters promised to stay in the single market is either genuine memory failure or deliberate misinformation designed to justify breaking manifesto commitments. Either way, it's not remotely accurate.
‎#keirstarmer #rachelreeves #nigelfarage #angelarayner #shabanamahmood #davidlammy ##kemibadenoch #edmilibard