Of course, they will suffer economically for a while, but that was part of the game with Brexit.
The voters however - were slightly lied to regarding the immediate downsides. It's probably important to keep the big picture in mind.
Of course, they will suffer economically for a while, but that was part of the game with Brexit.
The voters however - were slightly lied to regarding the immediate downsides. It's probably important to keep the big picture in mind.
The UK had a very privileged place in the EU before, and was able to punch above their weight. When they inevitably rejoin they certainly won't be able to hold that special status again.
If I had voted remain you could say I had done so on lies if my motivation was to prevent house prices dropping by 18% [1] - where as actually they have moved about 18% higher [2]. There were no specific claims about removing foreigners, only the factually accurate statement that we could move to a points based immigration system if we wanted to.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/20/eu-referend... [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/housing-index
Might it not be fairer to state the sentence either as this:
> I'm sorry that the reality I want to believe does not line up neatly with the one you want to believe
... or this ...
> I'm sorry that the reality I experience does not line up with the reality you experience
All in good faith of the discussion.
As an aside, this sort of attitude is probably why you ‘better educated’ people lost the vote.
Compared to what? Efficiency always scaled poorly with size. For what it's worth, bureaucracies of US Federal government, not to mention those of China, India, Russia etc. are far worse, it seems.
It's not about the EU's throughput of things, but things it enables. Things like efficient allocation of resources via a single economic area, for example.