if the UK had stayed in the ERM it would have joined the euro and exiting would have been impossible
Soros is very, very much against brexit, to such an extent he funded numerous remain campaigns and continued to fund campaigns dedicated to overturning the result (Trump style)
Actually impossible, or just really bad for everyone’s economies? Because every time I saw the suggestion that Brexit would be bad for the British economy (or indeed anything British), I saw someone dismiss the suggestion as “project fear”, while any suggestion it might be in any way bad for anyone else was met with the response that this was a reason the UK “would get a good deal”.
Sometimes I even witnessed both of these responses from the same person in successive sentences in contexts where it would be illogical for both to be true.
to be blunt: this is your misunderstanding
fundamentally leaving the currency/monetary union and leaving the economic/political union are completely different things, so obviously they would have different outcomes
Greece was considering the former, the UK carried out the latter
the latter (brexit) is at worst is predicted to do some minor damage to growth over a long period of time, which your average person won't even notice
ignoring the practical problems of re-introducing a currency (eg. prevent people hoarding physical euros), even the suggestion that leaving the euro is going to happen would immediately trigger a massive exodus of capital, and at the point it happens you have a massive devaluation that immediately wipes out the savings accounts of everyone in the country as the speculators pile in
and then inflation goes crazy (making today look harmless)
as the Greeks discovered: it is politically impossible, especially when the EU's position is that "the Euro and the EU are linked: leaving one means leaving the other", which would have triggered the situation above in a UK with that adopted the euro
Ironically, you seem to have misunderstood me, because:
> fundamentally leaving the currency/monetary union and leaving the economic/political union are completely different things, so obviously they would have different outcomes
Is something I’m aware of and I wasn’t contradicting.
I was saying potential negative consequences specifically of Brexit were near-simultaneously used by the same person both were not going to happen at all and yet simultaneously that they were a reason the EU would give the UK a good deal.
In one case, the pause between these two claims being made by the same person was literally only just long enough for me to say “no” without actually justifying why I was disagreeing with him. So please, don’t just say I’m misunderstanding.
And that makes me think that in a parallel world where the UK has been in the Euro but still voted to leave the EU, the government may well have dismissed any and all concerns about the economic consequences, left, and then blamed all the harm that did happen on “remoaners” and “saboteurs” and “the jealous EU”, just like they did for the much milder difficulties they faced in the real world.
> it is politically impossible, especially when the EU's position is that "the Euro and the EU are linked: leaving one means leaving the other"
First, “Politically impossible” doesn’t seem to be in the vocabulary of current UK politicians right now.
Second, I get the impression many of the louder Leave campaigners hated both the currency and the EU, so I don’t actually see how your claims are evidence makes it more politically channeling in the UK than Brexit was all by itself. Economically more challenging, sure (though you’ve still not convinced me it would have been impossible). Politically more challenging? I don’t see it.
re: the pertinent points:
brexit was politically easy[1] as the core of the conservative party has wanted it for 20 years, as have the electorate
and economically it was a non-event
leaving the euro would be neither (as previously described)
[1]: other than during the period May screwed up by losing her majority with the fixed terms parliament act that prevented her calling another election (but the subsequent election fixed that, and now that act has been rescinded, so this will never be repeated)
edit - this is why left wing groups try to shut down all discussion of him by screaming antisemitism, and why right wing groups are convinced he is the root of all evil.
Oh come on :) You can't tell me you haven't heard of this?
I think he funds some groups that advocate criminal justice reform.
There is a case to be made that the sky-high incarceration rates are indicative of a wider problem.
So... Two medals?
and using the media in exactly the same way Trump did
the phrases were different ("Russian interference", "non-binding referendum", "people didn't understand what they were voting for"), but the intended outcome was the same: overturning a legitimate result conducted fairly
and this went on for years
the only difference is the people trying to overturn the referendum result were considered "the good guys", so it's acceptable
whereas for Trump, it's unacceptable because he's the bad guy
It really wasn't. Trump is claiming widespread electoral fraud. Big difference.
All political campaigns try to get their message across through a variety of media. Can you be specific?
The remainer objections you quote are at least arguable (some more so than others). Many remainers wanted the result overturned through legal or political mechanisms (typically, a second referendum). But Trump pressured officials to modify vote tallies and literally told followers the election was "stolen". There is a distinction.