Brexit has completely failed for UK, say clear majority of Britons – poll

MicroWave@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 922 points – Brexit has completely failed for UK, say clear majority of Britons – poll
theguardian.com

Only one in 10 feel leaving the EU has helped their finances, while just 9% say it has benefited the NHS, despite £350m a week pledge according to new poll

A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.

Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.

278

Nothing good in human history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.

You mean a backwards looking ideology doesn’t address the needs of society today and in the future?

Even calling it "backwards" is falling for conservatives' euphemistic lie. Conservatism has never really been about "upholding tradition" or any of the bullshit they claim; it's only ever been about authoritarianism and enforcing hierarchy. If it happens to jive with a "tradition" it is only because said tradition is authoritarian and hierarchical.

It's never really been conservatism, it's regressivism. They want Feudalism because they think they can be king.

"Conservatism" has always been a euphemism for regressivism. There is no difference between the two concepts, and never was.

To say that "it's never really been conservatism," as if there's a distinction to be made between the abhorrent ideology of conservatives like Trump and some kind of other non-abhorrent version of conservatism, is to be an apologist for it. It's understandable that you'd make such an error since conservatives spend a lot of effort trying to gaslight the public and launder the reputation of conservative ideology, but nevertheless, the notion that there exists (or has ever existed) some idealized form of conservatism that isn't thoroughly regressive garbage remains a fallacy.

Yep. There is value in looking at how things are currently done and have been done in the past. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, and there may have been good reason for some decisions in the past. We had a safety system at work that had some superfluous quirks, but when we went to remove them, we learned the customer had specifically requested it to be that way. On the other end, we learned that we had some poorly designed equipment because we had specifically requested it in the past.

None of that though is what modern conservatives do.

None of that though is what modern conservatives do.

FTFY. Half the point I was trying to make is that the notion about conservatism being about acting with caution isn't just a lie now, but has always been one. Conservatives have been falsely claiming this ever since the 16^th^ Century!

Fair, yeah. We need a different term for the ideology to separate it from conservatism.

No we don't.

I think I still haven't quite made myself understood: The version of conservatism centered around perpetuating social hierarchy is conservatism. We don't need another name for it because it's the only kind of conservatism there ever was. The "good" kind of conservatism that's about caution or moderation that folks keep trying to contrast it with also doesn't need a name because it's not actually a thing that exists as a distinct ideology. (I suppose if you really insist on labeling it, you could call it "not-conservatism.")

Everybody who claims to be the "good" kind of conservative is either (a) a trash conservative who is lying about their motivations, or (b) a confused non-conservative.

The "It used to be fine so it still should be" ideology

When in fact it wasn't fine, it's just a bigots fever dream

Which is exactly what those peddling the lie want. So it was "fine" by their books, because they got to abuse people.

conservatism

Putin worked hard to promote conservative agendas in UK, U.S. and France, to degrade those countries. It worked in all but France.

Agreed! France really impresses me. The people there are strong-willed and don't put up with bullshit. I found myself cheering for them all year this year.

I am glad to live in this country but there is still a lot of work to be done. I hope that the centre-right's unification with the alt right will be a wake up call to all voters

Ive been seeing a surge of conservative comments on lemmy. Im glad that comments such as this one still gets highly upvoted

National parks maybe

I think you are confusing conservationism with conservatism. These two topics are completely unrelated. The very first sentence on the wikipedia page for conservationism expresses that.

If you were referring to presidents who most influenced the proliferation of national parks, I think Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would be the two that are most responsible. As you probably know, both were famously progressive (the opposite ideology of conservatism).

I think you didn't read much of the page you shared. Conservationism ~ ecology is a 20th modern movement, the origin of it is conservatism of natural resources for industrial use, not preservation of nature. So yes, the origin of conservationism is related to conservatism, the notions evolved to be less related today.

You are being really weird right now. Re-defining words is a common behavior for people who are desperate to create a fictional narrative. In this case, I think you are so worried about looking foolish that you will say anything.

The very first line of the wikipedia entry for conservationism says:

Not to be confused with Conservatism.

Just stop.

I'd rather continue because I know the few people who read this thread without being too influenced by the massive downvoting may learn something, and maybe you will too.

Here are the relative quotes you may have missed

The early conservation movement evolved out of necessity to maintain natural resources such as fisheries, wildlife management, water, soil, as well as conservation and sustainable forestry

Some say the conservation movement is part of the broader and more far-reaching environmental movement, while others argue that they differ both in ideology and practice. Conservation is seen as differing from environmentalism and it is generally a conservative school of thought which aims to preserve natural resources expressly for their continued sustainable use by humans.

The early years of the environmental and conservation movements were rooted in the safeguarding of game to support the recreation activities of elite white men, such as hunting.[29] This led to an economy to support and perpetuate these activities as well as the continued wilderness conservation to support the corporate interests supplying the hunters with the equipment needed for their sport.[29] Game parks in England and the United States allowed wealthy hunters and fishermen to deplete wildlife, while hunting by Indigenous groups, laborers and the working class, and poor citizens--especially for the express use of sustenance--was vigorously monitored.[29] Scholars have shown that the establishment of the U.S. national parks, while setting aside land for preservation, was also a continuation of preserving the land for the recreation and enjoyment of elite white hunters and nature enthusiasts.[29]

While Theodore Roosevelt was one of the leading activists for the conservation movement in the United States, he also believed that the threats to the natural world were equally threats to white Americans. Roosevelt and his contemporaries held the belief that the cities, industries and factories that were overtaking the wilderness and threatening the native plants and animals were also consuming and threatening the racial vigor that they believed white Americans held which made them superior.[30] Roosevelt was a big believer that white male virility depended on wildlife for its vigor, and that, consequently, depleting wildlife would result in a racially weaker nation.[30] This lead Roosevelt to support the passing of many immigration restrictions, eugenics legislations and wildlife preservation laws.[30] For instance, Roosevelt established the first national parks through the Antiquities Act of 1906 while also endorsing the removal of Indigenous Americans from their tribal lands within the parks.[31] This move was promoted and endorsed by other leaders of the conservation movement, including Frederick Law Olmstead, a leading landscape architect, conservationist, and supporter of the national park system, and Gifford Pinchot, a leading eugenicist and conservationist.[31] Furthering the economic exploitation of the environment and national parks for wealthy whites was the beginning of ecotourism in the parks, which included allowing some Indigenous Americans to remain so that the tourists could get what was to be considered the full "wilderness experience".[32]

Etc.

You've worked hard to defend your position that something good has come from political conservatism. And still, you've provided no evidence that conservatism has ever resulted in anything good.

Racists can find value in progressive policies. In your example, racists found value in the policies of the leader of the progressive party. That does not make those policies conservative policies. They are just progressive policies that some conservatives (or racists) find some value in.

Conservatives neither need nor want your defense of them. They are proud that their policies are designed to harm and deceive people. Harm is their platform. It always has been. Why are you doing such intense gymnastics to defend conservatism? What good can come from your defense of the indefensible?

You are either misunderstanding my intentions or using a straw man argument, I am not defending conservatism. I wanted to point out at that national park may be something that is considered good today, and that, surprisingly, it started with conservative ideas (industry, capital preservation, racism). Most people today probably don't know about that because they associate national park with environmentalism, which is rather a left progressive idea. That's why I wrote this initial comment.

You are using the progressive policies of a progressive leader of his time as an example of something good that came from conservatism. It's not a good example to support your position that something good has come from conservatism.

Progressive leaders created the national park institutions, but not the concept of conserving natural space, which was initially done to conserve natural resources for human use (sometimes with capitalists reasons or racist reasons), not to preserver nature as we know them today. See the wikipedia page for more details about that.

I mean, thanks for the good faith effort I guess, but you're still objectively incorrect as a matter of the historical record.

You would have done better to single out the Interstate freeway system as "conservative," since it was created under Eisenhower. But even that is a weak example since it wasn't opposed by liberals at all.

Let me know what you think I wrote that was objectively incorrect. I get the feeling most people reading this thread and following the downvotes think I'm claiming the USA national parks were solely created by conservative, which I didn't. I wanted to point at that conservative ideas was what started what later gave birth to national parks as we know them, and not only in the USA. Maybe some national parks locations we know today wouldn't exist if it hadn't been protected for conservative reasons initially. Note also, that I used the word maybe, from the beginning, because it's certainly not the only reason they exist today. I admit guilt to use a short, surprising sentence without further explanation to raise questions, but it seems almost all reactions got negatively oriented from there because of how touchy politics is here, especially if it doesn't follow the left main stream. This saddens me because with the default ranking system, this interesting thread got buried, and fewer people could read it.

I appreciate your persistence in explanation, your point became more clear.

Right on. Just chiming in to say that everything you say is totally congruent with what I learned about the conservation movement in my environmental studies courses. I get plenty of reminders geographically, too, since I live not too far from the USDA Forest Products Laboratory on Gifford Pinchot Drive, as well a Muir Knoll, named for preservationist John Muir. The conservationists and the preservationists were ideological rivals—a store of resources for judicious human use vs. nature's value pro se—and the modern environmental movement is much more aligned with the preservationists. The conservationist movement was more c*nservative, relatively.

I guess sometimes on social media, you run across a Two Minutes Hate gathering, where nuance is not welcome, without being able to realize it in advance.

Yeah that's what is described in the wikipedia article but people here read conservatism, they see red and can't discuss anymore.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, part of the "progressive era" in US political history. There isn't a way to spin it such that he can accurately be called a conservative. The conservative position on national parks, at least in the west, would be that they should remain open for resource extraction. We see this at play with the recent bullshit surrounding the Bears Ears National Monument de-designation under Trump and the ongoing effort to allow drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

You are simply objectively incorrect.

More straw man arguments, I never called him a conservative.

The conservative position on national parks, at least in the west, would be that they should remain open for resource extraction.

Yes, that's the point, but also consider that this how it started, before progressive politics made it about nature preservation. Read the Wikipedia page or the quote I have taken have of it if you're feeling lazy.

You are simply objectively incorrect.

You are simply not trying to understand what I mean because you'd rather confirm the bias you have formed about me when you've seen the downvotes on my comments.

Horseshit. I've spent literally decades reporting on land-use issues in the rural west. That, together with the reintroduction of wolves in the intermountain west, is kind of my life's work as a journalist thus far.

I actually don't even know where to start with how wrong you are.

So the wikipedia page about the history of conservationism is completely wrong? I'm not claiming anything more than what's on it. Maybe it's important for your job to read this page.

Gosh, if ONLY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE WARNED PEOPLE that brexit was a terrible idea tossed together by fear mongering, self interested dickheads!!! If only someone had mentioned it was a terrible idea ahead of time!

Also if only more than 24% of the voters could have been arsed to vote.

It's not like remainers ever put up a convincing argument prior to losing the referendum.

Turned voting age on the referendum, visited our predominantly working class school, only ever brought up cheaper phone calls abroad as to why they should vote to remain.

Brexit only had pull out the weakest reasons to leave becuase they were the only ones who took the referendum seriously.

The reality is that there were a thousand paths back from that cliff. The vote was no binding, and barely a majority. If the British public wanted to halt it they could have just elected non-leave politicians in the years afterwards, but they didn't.

The problem was that nobody in the UK did an effective job of arguing for remain. They were caught napping because they were convinced that people wouldn’t want to leave.

When they realised that we were in danger of voting to leave it was too late.

Obviously, people in the EU said that it was a bad idea but they obviously would say that because we’re “sending them £350 million a week” and they wouldn’t want to lose that.

The UK spent decades convincing everyone that all bad decisions are made by the EU and all good decisions are made by Westminster. That's the first mistake.

If the UK had properly educated its citizens about what the EU actually was and did, no remain campaign would've been necessary whatsoever. But it was politically convenient to have a scapegoat.

And let's be honest, remain aka "remoaners" had a ton of arguments all the time. But brexiteers just wanted to enter the magical land where the UK still mattered and they'd eat their cake and have it still.

Everyone saw this coming but still decided to walk off the cliff rather than admit they'd made a bad decision

"What we believe shapes who we are. Belief can bring us salvation or destruction. But when you believe a lie for too long, the truth doesn't set you free. It tears you apart."

I spent the first twenty years of my life believing that every piece of gum you swallow stays in you forever 🪦

Pootin and the GRU/IRA were behind the effort mostly waged on social media

Yes this analysis was clear as day even before the referendum passed. The only amazing thing here is that 10% still think it has helped. Wow.

10% is actually amazingly low. I've said it before, 25% of any population, any country and time period is dumb as a bag of rocks. So no matter what you'll always have 25% mouthbreathers. Here even 15% of them realized they've been had!

Around 35% of the total population actually voted for it, and even then, those people weren't the ones who decided to push forward despite it clearly being a shit show.

Blame the people responsible, I'm so sick of this lazy "everyone" blanket statements people make about events that have very specific individuals and institutions to blame, all it's doing is literally letting them get away with it.

Mmmmmm no. This is the justification many trump voters used. It implies voters are completely off the hook for the consequences of their actions and it's only the 'scheming criminals' who fooled them that can be held accountable.

Just as ignorance of the law does not get you out of your speeding ticket, allowing yourself to be fooled as a voter doesn't absolve you of the poor choice you made with your vote. It's a collective fuck up. Own it.

The problem with that approach is that just finding a scapegoat doesn’t solve the issue. The Brits and the EU still have to live with the consequences.

The proper way to address this is to analyze what happened and make sure that it will never happen again. If the result of that analysis is that voters are fucking idiots, we somehow have to alleviate that.

You'll never alleviate that. Most people are dumb as fuck. That's not inherently a bad thing, but it can be exploited. In the new age of constant misinformation if you want to get people to vote against their own interests you need only start a gas lighting campaign and without too much effort you'll find success.

Most people aren't dumb, they are just poorly educated and can easily be swayed into making emotional decisions rather than rational ones.

It's also why politicians love non-voters, one less moron you have to convince.

No, it's literally the distraction the likes of Trump use themselves.

It implies that those deliberately using their almost complete power over the legal system, economy, education, and media to manipulate and flat out lie to people, many of who were, also deliberately, made desperate and vulnerable to said manipulation by the very same system in the first place - have nothing to do with the end result. How fucking convenient!

And what exactly am I meant to own? The fact that I voted remain, and did my best to get others to do the same? Are you seriously trying to claim that individuals like myself could ever possibly have more impact than the Murdoch empire? Or David Cameron? Or Boris Johnson? Why the fuck should we own it but not them, when they're the ones making millions if not billions selling lies and doing "talks" about "what they learned" fucking the country up?

Do I begrudge people (again, the literal minority of the population) who voted leave? Fuck yeah. Do I blame them for brexit? Why should I? They didn't think it up, they didn't propose it, they didn't go ahead with it despite warnings because it would further their career and make them money, they didn't lie to and manipulate others to get their way. Those in power did. So I fucking blame them, because they are fucking responsible.

The fact that you compare the voters to criminals, rather than those who manipulated them says it all really.

I bet you also blame cancer patients who die from snake oil they fell for, rather than the grifters who sold it to them..

Those in power don't even need to wash their hands of their actions anymore, people like you literally do it for them. But hey, bootlickers gonna lick boot. Keep blaming powerless individuals for systemic problems, see how that works out for you.. ¯\(ツ)/¯

You get what you vote for.

In this particular case people had no idea what exactly they were voting for.

It was a non binding referendum, they had no reason to give a shit. They still voted for the fuckwits that enforced the non-binding resolution and made it law.

That was clear too, but Conservatives still won a majority and expectedly squashed any chance of a second referendum. We can't absolve ourselves of all blame when democracy is still a functional tool we have at our disposal. Now even democracy itself is under attack all around the world, and I'm afraid that "not my fault" mentality will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They did not win a majority.

365 out of 650 seats, 56% majority. It was a record win for them.

Eh only 43% of the vote though. It's just FPTP that cause the majority in the house of commons. It wasn't exactly a binding win for Brexit considering the parties pushing for either remaining or another referendum won more votes overall. Plus a big part of it was a vote against Corbyn, rather than a vote for Brexit.

General elections are too general to be used as justification for a single policy IMO.

I wouldn't say everyone, at least. The vote was actually very close, which I think is something most of us forget at this point.

They used the wrong kind of referendum given the seriousness of the question, it should have required a significant majority consensus, instead it was just a "who got more votes even if it just one more".

The results showed a deeply divided nation, and we still are. Some brexiters do regret their terrible decision, but I don't forgive them. There was ample information, experts, everything showing what a terrible disastrous idea Brexit was, and they voted for it anyway.

This wasn't some shades of grey issue, it was surprisingly black and white for once, haha. Which makes it all the more strange that so many people still voted to deeply damage the nation and their own futures.

Oh, and one other point just because I think we often forget, the referendum wasn't at all binding. The government could have simply said "We've taken your thoughts into consideration but decided to do what's best for the country and stay in the EU, even if this will hurt our political careers. Our duty is to the nation, above even our own careers".

They....did not say that :-( Instead they got theirs, at all our expenses.

Actually only half of all people saw the obvious downsides. The other half said "nuh uh it'll be great, way better in fact" with no evidence or facts and folks went with that.

Completely failed? That is just not true. For Johnson's co-conspirators, who lied and swindled to profit from Brexit, it absolutely caused the desired shifts in wealth - that is from everybody else into their own pockets.

There is no better friend to have than the kind that can provide millionaire consulting gigs and non-executive board memberships in thanks for writting the laws with them in mind when replacing EU legislation and regulation.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is Corruption: the only part of the Judiciary that can investigate and prosecute Corruption in the UK is the Serious Fraud Office who have about as big as budget as the tinniest of British city halls (i.e. Councils) so nobody but the small fry ever gets investigated, much less prosecuted and convicted, so there are no people one can say are corrupt in the UK without falling foul of the local Libel Legislation (which is quite extreme by European standards) as they're not officially corrupt until convicted.

It's a special country with a special system, hence the continue deca, and whilst Brexit stands out as a trully primo inter pares of specialness, something like this happenning is no surprise.

The honest and intelligent britons (of which there are many) need to start pondering more on the possibility that when you keep getting the same ailments and treating them only for more appearing, the actual problem might be an underlying disease rather than merelly the ailments themselves.

You should go crawling on your knees and beg the EU to take you back, and farage, rees-mogg and boris should pay for the entire thing.

My hot take: the EU is better off without them. Britain has always been a belligerent holier than thou obstacle to progress for the EU, even after they got a sweetheart deal that NO OTHER European nation got offered.

Let them rot on their island while the rest of Europe actually makes progress.

Yup. If the EU takes them back, it should be with HEAVY scrutiny and no sweetheart deals. You wanna fuck around? Time to find out.

Pretty sure it was already said that if they ever want back, they get treated as any other country trying to get in. No special treatment

1 more...

All the while being pissed off that no, you won't get all the exceptions you had the last time. And yes, you'll have to ditch £ for € eventually*.

* there's a pretty stupid loophole that allows you to postpone adopting Euro indefinitely, though I feel even the fact that officially they're agreeing to adopt the Euro will be a low blow for the pride of UK people.

That’s like a couple getting married again after a divorce. It HAS happened, but only when both people are lost together in a world of mutual crazy that neither can live outside. I don’t think the EU is participating in the Uk’s fantasy world, so it’ll never happen.

Nah. The honest truth is that the EU doesn't care that much about the UK.

It's much more like someone storming out their local pub and refusing to come back. It's a big deal to the guy that left, but a much smaller deal to everyone still drinking in the pub.

If the UK stops acting like a dick and pays for their share they'd be eventually welcome back, once it looked like they'd actually learnt their lesson and wouldn't do it again. The real barriers to rejoining are on the UK side. No one wants to reopen that can of worms.

UK had one of the larger militarys in the EU. Only reason I can see them ever considering it.

Aren’t most of the EU also NATO members? I guess I’ve never thought much about the military aspects of the EU.

I think your analogy is not a 1:1 representation of the situation at hand.

Oh? Well, don’t leave us hanging. Why do you think that?

Do you think your analogy is a 1:1 representation of the situation at hand? Lol.

Look. If you’re not prepared to actually discuss and share your ideas, why comment at all? And don’t go putting the burden on me to invalidate the opinion you just dropped, raw, and walked away from.

Do you think everyone on the internet is worth arguing with?

I just asked you a simple yes or no question.

1 more...

Gives middle finger to biggest trading partner by far.

Surprised Pikachu face when economy goes to hell.

I cannot fathom the thought process of the Regrexiters.

It makes sense when you frame Brexit in the context of "we don't like brown people". They weren't thinking about the economy. Never were.

Kinda. A lot of them had this very strong opinion that they were basically an economic powerhouse and were actually better off without the trades that were lopsided against them. They're learning how trade power actually works.

Which is funny because they have a much smaller GDP then Germany, and only slightly bigger than France.

I would wager it comes from a history of being a trade powerhouse. I'm no expert, though.

IF the UK rejoins the EU at any time in the future, we will certainly never have the preferential terms and disproportionate power that we'd originally had. Defacto not as good as a deal. However, STILL much better to be part of the EU than to be circling the drain as we are right now.

I am still furious about Brexit on a personal level. Freedom of movement was amazing. It meant that I could just decide to go live and work in an EU country whenever I wanted. I had previously used this to spend a couple of years in Spain and maybe a year in France. I'd been planning a move to Portugal when Brexit took this away from me. All those opportunities gone because of dumb fuckers who didn't even realise we had them. Ignorant bigoted wankers. Goes without saying I voted remain. I'd be delighted to rejoin, and if it means we adopt the euro that's fine with me. It won't happen for at least a decade though, and at my age that'll be too late for me.

No, they realised that they had the freedom of movement. The Brexit vote was in part to punish people like you because you still had that freedom.

And getting rid of the unfair preferential terms is good for the EU as a whole, because it will reduce resentment in all other current and potential future member nations.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe Brexit hurt everyone in Europe and I can't wait to welcome UK back into the Union, but make it on equal terms. It's a very small silver lining to the whole fiasco. I just hope it doesn't take too long for UK to find a leader string enough to say "I think we made a mistake, we should reapply". Make a new referendum while the populace still realizes the connection between Brexit and the current misery before some populist schmuck finds a new scapegoat.

Agree completely. The old arrangements were compromises to get the original deal dome. That was half a century ago and a lot has changed.

To me, I never understood the desire to leave. Even the people who being talking heads for Brexit actively benefitied financially from UKs position in the EU. The choice to leave was roused up on a bunch half truths and bold face lies to scare the the general public of hatining anything south of the channel... Despite getting so much benefit.

Smartest thing they could do is beg their way back into the EU and claw back what ever benefits they had enjoyed like stated above there is no scenario where UK ends up good as they were back in 2016 let alone in a better bargaining position, but they also don't have to throw away their future prosperity based on stubborn pride.

It's hysteria.

but they also don’t have to throw away their future prosperity based on stubborn pride.

Lol, but they will.

I think it's best for the EU if the UK doesn't have preferential treatment.

Want it said that if the UK rejoined then they'd have to go on the Euro?

If and when UK is allowed back in, this time they will not be offered all of the opt-outs!

Welcome, Schengen and Euro!

That would be nice for Ireland, we could finally join Schengen which is currently out of the question because of the open border with Northern Ireland.

I'm not an economist, but what I have seen is the decline in the value of Sterling since Brexit as well of the downgrading of the UK credit rating. Even if we adopt the Euro, the value of the same goods will still vary between different countries. However, the same silly arguments will arise again saying that the is EU taking over.

That isn't really an issue, either Denmark or Czechia don't want the Euro but said they'll get it so they skirm around the ascention criteria a bit. Can't see why the UK couldn't do the same.

That isn't an Issue, jet. But it could be in the long run.

The fact that the EU haven't taken measures in that matter doesn't mean it will not do it in the future.

Yeah I get it, but still. Britain got its priviliges in the EU by being a part of it for a long time. If it becomes a problem in some 20 years, Britain probably won't be alone, will have been a member for a longish time and will most definitely be better off than outside the EU. And if it comes to it, they'll be able to leave again.

At least they'll have the most experience in leaving which might make the second time at least a bit more painless.

Everyone says this, but I think the EU wants Britain back in enough to make some exceptions again. The way I look at it is that it doesn't hurt to try.

Eh, willing to bet that Germany wants to set a precedent that they, and no one else, like France, can just leave and rejoin on a political far right whim.

Imagine voting against Scottish Independence then getting fucked out of the EU immediately afterwards by Brexit.

Britain is Europe's America.

Europeans would be wise to distance themselves from them.

It sounds like cooperation works better than unnecessary contention. Who would have guessed.

The ruling class, which is why they fight cooperation among workers.

Any sane person would have seen this outcome coming. The leavers were still stuck in the Victorian Era with their mentality.

You say that but people still want to vote for Trump. This kind of jingoistic populism is doing pretty well right around the globe right now

Some wanted to be spiteful. Not sure to whom though

No fucking shit.

I’m still in disbelief at racist ignorant Tory cunts that voted for this.

Fuck them and their political apathy.

Fuck them and their complete disregard for factual information.

They can now lie in the bed they made, the absolute fools.

Murdoch holds a lot of the blame as well, without that prick taking sides in his newspapers it would never have happened

I hope you can all work to get Tory shit out of your government

And fuck the fucking fucks!! Fuck you, you fuck! You BIG fuck! You massive, whopping, FUCK!

9% say it has benefited the NHS

Are 9% of the UK shareholders of plantir or something? Cunts!

I don’t understand why it’s a fucking opinion poll when there is actual data to examine.

Facts don't always say what you want them too. Options can easily be curated for on the other hand.

I don’t understand why it’s a fucking opinion poll when there is actual data to examine.

I think that people tend to take just one or two reference points to decide things like this because it’s too complicated to consider them all.

The points that might have led people to believe that the NHS was improved by Brexit are that we were told that leaving the EU gave us the ability to approve and buy the COVID vaccine more quickly and that we did seem to get it more quickly than the EU.

Hey UK, Come back into the safety of EU's warm bosom.

I'm not an expert on foreign affairs, but from what I understand, UK got kind of a sweetheart deal to be included in EU originally.

I doubt very seriously they will get such a sweet heart deal next time, since they are proven an unreliable and fickle partner.. and thats on the pretense they are allowed back in at all.

They would absolutely get allowed back. They were one of the most important economic and military powers in the EU.

But you are absolutely right in the whole "deal" thing. No pound, yes Schengen, no national exceptions, no fishing great deals and of course, EU military is a must. No more veto to the joint military for sure.

After that is clear, they would be allowed back for sure. Maybe they can keep the password as a gesture.

I got downvoted hard for saying this before, but while I don't think the UK would get all of it's benefits back, I think that they would get to retain some privileges - at the cost of others.

It's not because the UK is great or anything. The sole reason I believe the EU would welcome back the UK with open arms is to keep the UK as a friendly example of how badly your economy can fuck up after leaving. History shows that you don't kick someone when they're down, you bring them back, and form them into a useful ally.

IMO, the same deal wouldn't make sense anyway, because the UK is far weaker than they were previously. Let the UK keep the pound, but lose any special veto rights they once had.

I understand that the pound would be an absolute moral need for the UK, but for me It would be the first thing that would be demanded to drop. A UK in eurozone would be key to the strength of the Euro.

If the UK is smart the fighting ring would be the London City privileges. That's where money is.

But ultimately I do agree that they would keep some small things but to the eyes of the other members, they must be "punished" in all the other important areas just to keep the flock together.

Just to clarify for anyone reading: these are opinions, not facts.

The requirement to adopt the euro is not something that can be forced. You can agree to do it eventually when you join, when any country joins, but the EU would never kick a country out of the EU unless they moved to the euro at a specific time.

The UK will one day rejoin, will agree to one day use the euro and then like many other countries in the EU will never use the euro

That is absolutely correct but you could bend the join requirements to force the adoption even against the euro requirements criteria. You can even talk about skipping the line under some specific requirements.

The EU lets some of the members keep their currency because they are not that important to the gross number. Everyone knows the game they are playing but looks elsewhere. I am sure the Pound was always a problem and you have to consider again that UK never accept the Euro in the first place. I am pretty sure the way can be found to force the pound out and if not, they will be required to at least go the sweden way to keep it at the expense of "cheating". It is a huge difference in political terms.

During Brexit negotiations it was cristal clear who had the hight ground and the UK had to comply to a lot of their red lines.

It would be fair if they had no special exceptions, but it would be a large failure by negotiators if they proposed that. A few exceptions as a show of graciousness would go a long way, and probably do more to thwart any other brexit mentalities than being strict would.

But in more equal terms, not with all the special exemptions that were present under the previous terms.

1 more...

Oh gee. Who coulda seen that coming, huh?

Glad it happened, though. The total clown show of Brexit very quickly shut up all the Anti-EU trolls.

Reading this in a Minnesotan accent. Ah jeez! Who coulda seen this coming, ha, hon? They really, well, they shot themselves damn near in the foot, didn't they now? Don'cha know the Eurapeans want to help you now, but these racists ya see, racism always gets in the way of peace. That's what my mother always said.

I genuinely asking for some education on Brexit, because I personally thought, and still think it was a terrible decision for the nation, but I am hoping to get a better understanding from real people and not just read articles. I know I can research it, but would like to hear personal opinions/thoughts/etc….

I am a UK citizen, but I was living my teen and mid adult life in Australia. I didn’t get to vote on Brexit as I was not residing on the country at the time, and never thought I would return. Circumstances have changed, and I have now moved back to the UK at the beginning of the year, so I’m in the thick of the Brexit mess now. I can’t comment on what life was like before Brexit, but I am now a citizen of its consequences.

From my limited understanding, and what I really need clarification and advice on is;

Brexit was a campaign point that David Cameron ran on for election. When he won, he called the referendum, but he was opposed to it. Meanwhile, the Brexit campaign was in full swing with lots of misinformation, but Cameron only decided to rally hard in the leading three months up to the vote, failing to properly educate and explain the deal to the public.

The vote was close. Somewhere in the 52%/48%

Cameron stood down

Brexit happened, finalising at the end of 2020

I know there’s a lot of nuance, and I know I’m missing a lot of major information, but is my understanding the very basic gist of what happened?

Thanks for any response

From a continental EU country, I can tell you that Brexit was a shitshow from beginning to the end. The Leave campaign was clearly helped by the same Russian bots that helped Trump get the US presidency. Then, May added confusion to the shock and frustration. People kept saying lies, like it is possible to keep the common market benefits while cherry picking which regulation to follow. Then came Johnson and his lunatic demands, like creating an independent judicial body that would rule any future disagreement on the deal between UK and the EU. Then the constant whining and bullying about fisheries and goods transportation. The UK had been a beacon of hope, heart and decency for the whole 20st Century. Brexit has made it a sinister clown in Europe.

Thank you for comment. These points you mention really illustrate the absolute clusterfuck it has become.

Annoyingly, I believe in democracy and can’t get angry that it happened. It went to the people. The people voted. But damn it was a joke from the beginning, full of lies and deception. Sadly the UK citizens are suffering from this, but hopefully things get better sooner. I’ll always be the eternal optimist.

Calm down with the good old times, India gained its independence in 1947.

With a bloody war after the Brits left. Meanwhile, most countries had a go at dictatorship (Italy and Germany of course but also Spain, Greece, the Vichy régime in France,...), East Europe was under Soviet rule, France had a colonial war in Indochina, another in Algeria...

Brits and any other colonial power who randomly cut land according to their greed have huge responsibility in wars following decolonization.

Absolutely. Colonization in Asia and Africa occurred mainly in the 19th Century though. Look, I am not trying to say that the UK was a country full of angels doing God's work. I am pointing the fact that comparatively to other European countries, it kept a strong democratic trajectory during the 20th Century, often doing better than its neighbors. Damn, it was the only country in the world resisting the Axis countries during 2 years

I'm not sure how being occupied by Soviets really counts as being the bad guy, tbh.

Talking about governmenst. Surely you've heard about East German political police, the crush of Prague's uprising, the brutal rule of Ceausescu

The fishing thing is a good example of how Brexit was handled. Fishing has been stirred up by the media for decades causing some strong feelings against the French and Europe. While fishing is pretty meaningless for the average person it became important because people who read certain newspapers thought it was important. That, to me, seems like the backbone of Brexit. Shite from newspapers.

I'm convinced all the talk about fishing was to stir up these feelings in the public and use it to the politicians will. Raising it with the EU was a message to the people that their concerns are being addressed. Illusion of the people having power.

Speaking to people who voted to leave I had answers like fishing given. Other answers were that people didn't like talking orders from Brussels, that was more common than fishing. Some racist comments (some REALLY racist). And one person claiming after Brexit he will get gold capped milk back (apparently the EU banned his favourite milk, and that alone was worth leaving the EU...). I know a few people who didn't know what to vote for so went with the "default" to leave. I'm assuming they meant they just followed the crap in the news and didn't apply proper thought.

This media bollocks is still happening now. I saw the other day an article about being able to buy wine in pints. Sigh.

It really was a shit show and still is!

I was with you till this.

The UK had been a beacon of hope, heart and decency for the whole 20st Century.

You drop this gem of satire in between your serious post

Compare it to the rest of Europe in the 20th century and it doesn't look so bad. Pretty much all of continental Europe was under some kind of barbaric dictatorship at one point or another during the 20th century. Only the UK remained a democracy.

Now, before you say anything, I have friends and family in Northern Ireland so don't for a moment imagine that I am somehow unaware of the UK's perfidy. The point is just to say that it's the only major European power to have been a democracy throughout the 20th century.

You mentioned Cameron seeming to be a bit limp in opposing it and actually campaigning on it originally. Some interesting context

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

Thank you for the article. The more I learn about it, the more fucked up it truly is. I had a basic understanding of bad it was from a simple perspective, but the more you learn, the more messed up it becomes. I really hope there is something good to come from how monumentally messed up the situation is.

I’m getting used to GDPR regulations in my line of work I haven’t had to deal with… primarily with how my industry uses AI transcription for media. We have to be very careful with which transcription services that reside outside of the UK are used. so if for example, we use an S3 based transcription service in the cloud that is based in France, we might come into issues, even though they might be GDPR compliant. It’s all a bit of a mess, but once you know what to do it is okay, but to cut through the red tape to get an answer can be laborious because so many people need to agree to the request

That’s just one little thing, out of hundreds of impactful changes because of Brexit. It really was a ballsup

Yeah, that's about right. And now the Brits are paying the price.

I mean, a lot of folks who voted leave are probably dead by now...

Those who voted remain knew this was coming, and still get to live with it.

Absolutely everyone thought it was a bad idea... Except Britton

I still wonder why they made that referendum happen in the first place.

A lot of Rubles

I don't get what you mean by "rubles"

It's Russian currency, I'm guessing they're saying Russia had a part in helping Brexit pass.

This is unfortunately a well documented fact at this point.

Guess where the money for the bus came from? Brexit will be remembered as one of Putins biggest triumphs.

You guys really could've explained it earlier.

I genuinely didn't get the joke at first, and my punishment was lots of downvotes.

Gotta get more informed buddy. Nothing discussed here is that new. That said downvotes are a piss poor way to make that clear. Come on guys, let's be civil.

Honestly I kinda deserved it, since I basically knew nothing about what was happening in politics back in the day.

Russian money lol

Yeah, I know that. But why?

The Tories were afraid that the Brexiteers would split off from their party, and the "first past the post" would kill them off. So they thought that showing those Brexiteers that their idea had no majority.

So now they will be killed off by FPTP in 2024. Helped them lots, and killed the countries' future.

The Tories were scared of the rise of the right wing UK Independence Party (UKIP), particularly their leader Nigel Farage. In order to try to stop losing voters to UKIP David Cameron (the prime minister) promised a referendum on EU membership thinking they would not vote to leave. It back fired, he resigned, and the shit show began. The vultures descended to make political and monetary opportunities despite the damage it would do to the country.

The vultures descended to make political and monetary opportunities despite the damage it would do to the country.

This is the tl;dr of every capitalist nation in history.

The vultures descended to make political and monetary opportunities despite the damage it would do to the country.

This is the tl;dr of every capitalist nation in history.

For short time political gain in a deal with UKIP and because they were sure nobody would vote leave.

Darn.

You should've seen the faces of Farage and Johnson when the Brexit campaign did win and they suddenly realized there was no plan at all, not even a rough idea of what to do in case of Leave winning. The mouth was cheering but the eyes were desperately looking for a rock to crawl under.

Bozo changed sides at the last minute to back whatever would provide him with the vehicle that would help him to be prime minister.

But not to be PM right away. Let some other sucker take that job and fuck it up (because it’s an impossible task as there are a dozen different ideas of Brexit) then he can come along later once most of the dust has settled.

Power grab and racism

Wasn't it more xenophobia? The word racism is thrown around so much it has almost lost all its meaning. Most of the immigrants were white.

The definition of “white” has changed throughout history, to fit the needs of whatever racists want to push.

When the Irish potato famine was happening and America was being flooded with refugees, there was a lot of anti-Irish rhetoric and Irish settlers often weren’t conferred the same benefits that other white settlers were. Even though Irish are pretty much the whitest whites to have ever whited, they weren’t considered white.

Same with Italians and the Spanish. Whether or not they’re considered white is always up in the air, because it changes depending on what the racist is trying to push. If it’s the “speak English” type of racist, they probably aren’t white. But if it’s the “we have the majority, we should control the majority” then they probably are.

Yeah it's well earned. Enjoy, Brits.

1 more...

Pride and racism mixed with delusion. A significant amount of British people think they're better than everyone else and the EU was lucky to have them.

1 more...

I thought I read that outside of London that the average income for the UK is lower than the average Mississippi state resident (poorest state in the US statistically; still has debtor prisons)

It probably makes more sense to use median income. Sometimes a few rich people "raise" everyone's average income.

Well yeah, they're literally peasants.

Inb4 some peasant gets mad that I would say that they belong to a rural lower socioeconomic class by birth with less legal rights than their "betters."

That's kinda accurate actually.

One of the biggest problems with Britain is that everything is centralized around London while other cities and towns are an afterthought to the government.

London is the only city with an underground railway network. It is also one of only three cities (Newcastle and Glasgow being the others) with any kind of metro transit network. Public transport outside of these three cities is heavily overpriced and monopolized at a local level by a handful of big bus operators, i e. First, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go Ahead.

Another massive problem is that we simply aren't building new homes because doing so would harm landlord profits. Londoners are moving further out because London is so overpriced.

Things are so bad here that Bristol (the city I live in) is now the second-most expensive city to live in behind the capital. Before that, the idea of us overtaking SE England or even Bath was unthinkable.

There's probably tens of thousands of brommys and mancs which earn more than you.

Admitting you're wrong and acknowledging evidence is project fear, correct? Am I doing this right? Tories?

Ok they had their fun. Can they rejoin?

I'm not even Bri'ish and I would vote for that. Europe should laugh at them hard then throw in the rope and let them climb back into the boat before they proper drown.

I think they should be allowed to rejoin with concessions.

I truly believe they need additional punishments to ensure something like this does not happen again.

No shit, when all those who benefited from Brexit absolutely made sure to see that damn trainwreck go through.

Well it certainly sucks for Britain but it is great for the EU. Britain was not making the EU better they were dragging it down.

How so? Honestly asking.

By virtue of having a disproportionately beneficial EU membership agreement, they actually caused friction with later EU members that received the standard agreements later on.

It's hard to overstate how catastrophic the UK fucked up by leaving the EU. They joined on the bottom floor, had the leverage to negotiate a deal that gave them more benefits, let them keep their currency instead of promising to one day adopt the Euro, and had access to all the immigration controls they needed to deal with the 'problem' Tories perceived.

It's incredible, really. Part of me still can't believe they tossed all of that away. It's got to be one of the biggest peacetime geopolitical fuckups ever.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a landmark poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK fully leaving the EU single market and customs unions.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has been of benefit to them or the country.

Just one in 10 people (10%) believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.

James Crouch, head of policy and public affairs at Opinium, said the perception of Brexit being handled badly and having had negative effects on various aspect of UK life appeared to be spreading: “Public discontent at how Brexit has been handled by the government continues, with perceived failings even in areas previously seen as a potential benefit from leaving the EU.

“Half (51%) of Leave voters now think that Brexit has been bad for the UK’s ability to control immigration, piling even more pressure on an issue the government is vulnerable on.

“This shift in sentiment may be particularly stark among the ‘red wall’ voters who rallied most eagerly to Johnson’s banner four years ago, but have been most exposed to rising bills and collapsing public services since.

The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 259 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I find it even more uninspiring since it happened right at the time of a Covid. Even those who wanted it now hate it.

Well obviously it was a failure and always was going to be a failure. Whereas before there was frictionless trade, travel, employment, living, there is now an ever expanding wall of bullshit and red tape. Getting goods to and from Europe is subject to import duties and delays that just kills trade - why would a Spanish company buy widgets from the UK when a supplier in Germany can supply them faster and reliably without any customs redtape?

It will take the UK years to form other trade deals, none of which will be remotely as favourable as they would get with negotiating power of the entire EU behind them. There have already been noises in the UK press about having to take food from the US which would fail EU standards - bleached chicken, GM crops, growth hormones etc. And that's because when the US comes to the negotiating table they're going to bend the UK over and screw them. And China, India and the rest of the world will be lining up for some sloppy seconds.

Why did the British owner class allow for this to happen? Have there been any big privatisation efforts after Brexit? Did they hope the NHS would crumble?

okay but like 6 dudes were able to avoid paying taxes, which was the real, actual point of brexit

conservatives always ruin everything

Whilst I firmly believe Brexit was fucking dumb, asking this question of the public seems impossible. How can someone reflect on their finances and say how Brexit has affected them when there is a soup of turmoil impacting personal finances. Energy, wars, COVID, global inflation are also to blame. I think if anyone looked at their personal finances and compares them to 3 years ago with a question prefaced as "Brexit" is going to be steered to saying they are worse off.

It's a shame the "clear majority of Britons" have shit all to do with it, and brexshit happened for and because of a handful of people, who are not going to go back on their plan to make themselves richer and have fewer people to answer to, even if 99% of people voting in some poll want them to..
It's about time people get it through their heads that we are never going to be given a better world by those who are holding us hostage, we are going to have to take it.

I think we were always told it was going to be bad before it got better.

I wasn't old enough to vote for Brexit at the time (just under the voting age), and I likely would have voted for Remain had I had the chance, though it feels a little unreasonable to judge the outcome of the Brexit decision just yet.

Okay but when should the outcome be judged then? What would it take in the future to decide Brexit had been ultimately successful?

I'm an outsider looking in, but it seems like it's directly failed in some ways Brexiteers promised success (NHS funding), created a complicated customs situation with Northern Ireland, and done nothing of obvious benefit. For it to be successful in the future something needs to change for the better, and I'm not sure what would.

We are in a more resilient position outside the EU than we were inside of it; we are dictating our own laws, we are becoming more stable by no longer relying on immigration to fill in the gaps of our job market, no longer reliant on foreign aid.

In the short term, of course this is painful. It's withdrawal symptoms. In the long-term, it means that the UK will stick around for longer, regardless of whatever turmoil our neighbours get into.

Lol no longer relying on immigration. Last year had the highest immigration level ever....

What's the evidence? Can you point to any similar situation where a country was part of a free trade bloc like the EU only to leave it and doing better outside?

I'm honestly curious. Because if there is no evidence then what you're describing is more hope and dreams than anything else.

I studied systems theory, I'm just recounting what I know based on how I understand systems work.

pp. 83-5 Thinking in Systems Donella Meadows talks about hierarchy, resilience, etc.

How does that tie in with the aims of brexit? Won't the four freedoms make the economic system work better? Isn't that why they exist?

Since it sounds like you don’t have much experience with how conservatives work, here’s a tip:

It’s not going to get better.

didn't this pass by referendum not executive action? and doesn't that mean the people wanted it?

also, if we judge everything by it's ability to help our finances then we'll destroy ourselves, our communities, and the planet

if they change their minds, they should have a referendum and re apply to join the EU if it passes. otherwise, this is just noise

No, the referendum was non-binding, it was passed by executive action.

David Cameron, who was against it, and therefore the will of the people, resigned because of this referendum.

It would not be good to pass a referendum and then have its result ignored by executives. What would have been a better outcome? Exercise democracy and then ignore the results??

I'll say it again. If the people of the UK want change they should do another referendum, see if it passes, and if it does: apply to join.

Yes, it would have been better to take the results of the non-binding referendum, create a study group that would have had sufficient time to prepare an actual exit plan with multiple options, forecasted results for each, and then make a decision whether to exit or not based on the study.

There’s nothing inherently good about putting up something for a vote and proceeding blindly on it, and to put something so fundamental and world changing up for a simple majority vote while swimming in disinformation and ignorance was beyond stupid.

I think that the key part is that the government tried to come up with a Brexit plan on their own but couldn’t. They even started negotiating with the EU before they knew what they wanted and could get passed Parliament.

They wasted the best part of a year coming up with a single plan only to get it shot down because it didn’t match what most MPs wanted. It couldn’t because there were ten or twelve different versions of Brexit ranging from leaving in name only to just not even doing a deal with the EU at all.

Had they created a study group to analyse the options and the consequences of each they could have come up with a coherent plan with Parliament so that they’d know what everyone wanted before starting negotiations with the EU.

yes, the people can't be trusted to make decisions. we must have experts make decisions, with study groups etc, for the people.

That is a strawman because it’s not what I said.

I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you explain why you think a vote makes a decision inherently good? Break down the philosophical case for me, and show me how it leads to optimal outcomes and under which circumstances if such should be applied.

Not the one you were asking, but I agree with them, so might give it a shot!

You know how sometimes you do something stupid and then have to live with the consequences and then next time you don't make the same mistake?

For example, when you fall off a bike. Or grab the very hot stove. Or when you vote to leave the EU.

If you weren't allowed to make mistakes, would you learn anything? Would you have learned to ride a bike if you only ever used it with the helping wheels for fear of falling?

Saying that people's will should not be respected is very far from what democracy is. The will of the people is ultimate in democracy. And in the beginning, people will make mistakes. The only way to stop making mistakes is by practicing further.

you said do a study because of the referendum and make the decision from there.

Who would make that decision after a study if not experts?

why do we need experts if we trust the people?

you're an enemy of democracy and the free world

But “the people” didn’t decide on the deal because they were only given two choices and the interpretation of “leave” was down to the Government and Parliament.

It would have been much better to get experts together to decide what options there were and how each one affected us and for that information to be made available to everyone so that Parliament could have had a complete view of the various options that Government was considering.

Instead they hid away and came up with a single version of Brexit that got shot down and then they still triggered the leave process anyway.

They should have taken years to come up with a leave plan before triggering the leave process instead of the mess that happened.

Edit: and if this process determined that it really was a shit idea then act on that by either having a second referendum or just deciding that it was a bad idea and not doing it.

Yes, we must trust experts to ensure peace and security for society.

Yeah, because reducing an extremelly complex subject to a binary choice for the public, and then having people whose only qualification is being loudmouths figuring out what the option selected by the public actually maps to in the real world and hammering out the details of its implementation, is such a superior way and is working so well...

How complex is it really? You don't think British people are smart enough to understand being a member of the EU vs not being a member? Are British folks too stupid to govern themselves?

The evidence of its complexity was all around when the exit treaty started being negotiated - kinda hard to miss the trully gigantic mass of details that were there and needed to be agreeded upon merelly to exit, unless you're a bit of a simpleton.

Only a fool would think they know everything and can thus decide on everything without the help of domain experts.

To put it in really really simple way: would you grab a random Briton of the street and have him or her do brain surgery on you? Because your "we don't need any experts" "logic" implies that anybody would be fine to decide on anything, which includes the detailed choices in brain surgery. Surelly your brain is simpler than a massive international treaty covering just about anything related to the human economic activity of 520 million people and more.

Even experts need other experts for things outside their domain of expertise

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...