- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
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.
deleted by creator
The UK can apply and get in line like the others, which should be long enough for UK laws to be EU-compliant, no special treatment.
Scotland should secede and apply first, though.
I don’t understand this argument re Scotland. Brexit was a disaster for a country which had been a member with a trading block for a few decades and which only had some regulatory compliance laws on its own books to amend.
Scotland has been fully integrated into the UK economy, political system, and legal system, etc for hundreds of years. It would be many many times more painful and damaging for them to leave, and joining the EU after who knows how many years of sitting up there isolated wouldn’t make up for what Scotland would lose by leaving the UK.
We should be arguing for more cooperation and bigger unions, not smaller ones. Further devolved powers, a better system for representation of the nations in parliament, kicking out the Tories and bringing in more beneficial policies for the UK, etc should be the priority imo. Not even more -exits.
But in more equal terms, not with all the special exemptions that were present under the previous terms.