nobody appreciates the good parts of something until they are gone then the bad parts don't seem so bad anymore
I voted Remain, and that decision makes little sense in retrospect (not none, it was just a lot of the fearmongering turned out to be false).
The bad parts of the EU are far more evident now we are out of it. To most Brits...the EU just seems a bit mad (and did before btw, it was just that many Brits believed the EU would change). I don't think any Brits know what "the good parts" are (again, this was true before 2016 too, we weren't in the EU for "the good parts"...there weren't any for Britain, we didn't need to shed guilt like Germany, we didn't need to use trade barriers to gain competitiveness like Italy or Spain, we didn't need to use to elevate our global profile like France).
Ofc, the points made in the article are nonsensical...but it is the Economist. Saying that Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of Europe is...comic. The economic points are totally illogical...look at Europe's banks, look at the UK's banks, monetary policy, the values are just totally different.
I'm also puzzled by your claim that support for re-join has dropped because as it happens, it actually didn't change much and the latest polls suggest that re-join has the lead[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_...
I don't think we've seen any EU wide political effects because of the rise of the far right in Europe. But I find the idea an interesting one that's being aired by some in the UK. Yes, Europe is seeing the hard right and populism growing but no it's not a problem yet at the continent level as far as I know.
It's a strange argument that I don't see how it could have played out had the UK remained.
no, the Conservatives are centre right, and very much left of the democrats
> Wasn't Farage(far righter) who caused issues in the EU up until he lost his position
no, his party never managed anything other than annoying the people running the parliament
So while Farage never won political power himself he certainly moved the political window rightwards.
I would not call the Conservatives centrist in any sense. They may appear further to the left on some issues than the US, but only because they would not win if they were honest about their intentions (e.g. privatise the NHS).
I understand why people from the EU are confused, because the far-right are in parliament in almost every nation and in govt in a few in the EU. The UK doesn't have a far right, they don't exist politically, our voting system means it is impossible.
The only far-right political party in the UK was the BNP, they don't exist anymore, never elected to Parliament, and their height was electing a few local councillors (and MEPs...ofc, even our far-right figures flocked to the EU).
Farage isn't far right, he is just called that because he opposed the EU. But UKIP has never had any MPs elected to Parliament, it has had 2 MPs (iirc) defect from the Tories, Farage has never been an MP, their only role has been in the EU Parliament.
There is no connection between the far-right and Brexit either. If you look at the Cabinet, you will see non-white MPs who supported Brexit. It is sad that everything has to be overlaid with that context (again, one reason I am glad to be shot of the EU) but it makes no sense. I suppose Europe is content to keep fighting the battles of the early 20th century again, but people in the UK are happy to move forward (this is also why Brits are opposed to PR voting, sounds good in theory but then you look to Europe and see the nutters they have in govt...FPTP has neutralised that debate totally).
IMHO sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing is something far-right would do. Creating hostile environment to achieve something is a thing that far-right would do. Controlling access to porn and arresting people for tweets is something far-right would do. Government officials acting as they are not laws for them is something that far right would do.
Anyway, let's agree to disagree.
I'm sure you would agree it's all a matter of degree rather than a yes/no situation. The point is that in Europe there are further, more extreme far right parties. And they are increasing.
However I don't think they are causing an actual problem at the EU level.
There's also a counter argument that the UK should have remained in Europe to counter the rising European far right, to help moderate things at a continental level! Ironic but a little heard argument as the main campaign was that the EU didn't need the UK, rather it was the other way around (the UK needed the EU).
It's OK to just put your own view forward. You don't have to claim to speak for the rest of us.
The BNP and The National Front just evolved into other groups like Britain First, English Defence League, English Democrats etc. and yes, UKIP.
"Ukip is the party for decent supporters of the BNP" said Deputy Chair Neil Hamilton in 2014 for example.
> The UK doesn't have a far right, they don't exist politically, our voting system means it is impossible.
They absolutely do and political power is more than winning seats. UKIP's primary influence was simply by splitting the right wing vote so that the Conservatives had to move further right (and adopt hard Brexit positions) to neutralise them.
UKIP has historically been at least a "further right" party beyond the mainstream. At best I would call it the suit wearing, dog-whistling front for the far-right. Under the new leader Batten it is more unambiguously far-right itself. It appointed Tommy Robinson (BNP member, EDL founder) as an advisor for example.
Fundamentally, the UK is just going in a different direction. Staying in the EU isn't helpful for the EU or the UK. But the EU approach of: you should be inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent being pissed on by us...is idiotic (if the history of the 20th century didn't tell you how that ended for Europe).
Those aren't recent. The data varies heavily by question asked, and tends not to consider the trend. People don't want a second referendum (they elected a govt on a significant majority on that basis, for some reason people tend to just ignore the fact that the public did have a second vote after 2016...the result was even more emphatic).
Corporatism, centralisation kind of things are big words that need explanation. It's like saying that it's red, blue and white Brexit. How poetic but what does it mean?
For example, since UK leaving EU, did the UK abolish corporations and become agrarian civilisation where everyone works for themselves? If so, what exactly prevented UK doing it before leaving the EU? Did UK abolish the central government and gave power back to the local governments? If so, what exactly was stoping UK doing it when in EU?
> Those aren't recent
Okay, please provide the data you are basing your opinions on.
They don't need explanation...that is why the terms exist. The EU is run by large corporations. The EU is heavily centralised.
Ah, so you don't understand what corporatism means...so then use some ludicrous analogy, but you don't understand that just highlights your own ignorance.
And yes, the UK is giving power back to local govts. Nothing was stopping that before, but the point of being in the EU is that you are in the EU, which centralises political authority away from voters...again, I suspect that sounded better in your head.
Tell me what political party has a policy of re-joining the EU, and how much vote share they are getting at the moment? The polling on the exact question is exactly the same as it was in 2016 (that will probably fall back to where it was last year through the rest of this year) but if you look at polling on whether people want a second referendum or whether they view rejoining the EU as likely, it is clear (if the result of the "second vote" in 2019 wasn't).
I don't see why we should argue over factual stuff. Three for example, my provider, now charges 3GBP per day for roaming in the EU. I'm not a mastermind who voted remain but supports Brexit but I guess, the argument would be that these are not roaming fees due to some definition detail or something?
Anyway, do you have anything concrete on your claims or do you attest anything positive happening to Brexit, even if there's no reason for it not happening before Brexit? Like blue passports being a major Brexit win despite nothing stopping UK from having blue passports before Brexit?
I'm bit slow and ignorant, would be nice of you to explain it. How did Brexit freed UK from corporatism?
No but Britain sure needed to be allowed to use British Overseas Territories like Cayman Island to facilitate systematic tax evasion.
Britain does not have control over BOTs, and we have tried to bring them up to the UK standards of tax avoidance. Hopefully EU govts will join that effort and stop using tax evasion as a competitive advantage.
- Google
- Microsoft
- Amazon
It's worth noting that Amazon are actually tax resident in Luxembourg rather than Ireland, because it makes more sense for their business.
The "Not join" lead from 2020 has vanished and replaced with a "rejoin" lead, about a 5 point swing over the last 2 years.
As to the effects, you clearly haven't tried to ship anything between the UK and the mainland, even with the controls still not in place [3].
"LSE finds one-third decline in trading relationships under Boris Johnson’s deal – which has hit small firms hardest" [1]
Even Rees-Mogg agrees brexit red tape is a disaster [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-red-ta...
[2] https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/15196917707365580...
[3] https://www.cityam.com/uk-delays-checks-brexit-checks-on-eu-...
Yes, I have. What am I supposed to have noticed? I used to work in equity research, I still follow companies that trade in Europe...have seen no mention of Brexit yet, it just doesn't appear to have been a significant event. If I had something to say about it, I would be able tell you...but it just wasn't a big event.
By "brexit red tape", you should clarify: regulations that weren't brought in and so have had no impact. I don't think anyone would deny that food and drink hasn't been impacted (inevitable, the EU has a strange xenophobia about "foreign" food...that seems to respect arbitrary political demarcations) but even in fresh, it has been surprisingly limited. Companies that failed to prepare suffered...but such is life, companies that failed to prepare for the global rise in freight costs have also suffered.
Most of those rules could be disappeared tomorrow if the EU was genuinely in favour of reduced bureaucracy. One thing you quickly realize if you study the issues in depth enough is that it really isn't in favour of that. Their entire mentality is that red tape is bad if it's not the EU's and good if it is. That's not the path to increased cooperation.
Some are finding it now when they get bounced off a flight for an (almost) expired passport, when their phone bill is high after going to an EU country, or when they can't bring their pets on vacation, etc
Or if they are a smaller company that have seen their sales share to the EU plummet
That hasn't happened. Even in food and drink, you would have expected to see an impact...it hasn't happened.
> Who takes their pet on vacation?
> A Brexiteer Tory MP has urged the government to let his dogs keep their freedom of movement rights after Britain leaves the EU. Bob Stewart, the MP for Beckenham, said his "French-speaking" hounds crossed the Channel regularly on their EU "pet passports".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tory-m...
Indeed. Weren't you and other Britons supposed to be fighting over cans of food in a Max Max-style "anarchy in the UK" situation by now?
I especially loved the glee—yes, glee—shown by Remainers when there was a shortage of truck drivers. *PROOF* that Brexit was a colossal mistake!!!!1!!!1!! As opposed to COVID19-related staff shortages that also affected the continent.