57% of Britons said the decision to leave the European Union in 2016 was the wrong one, compared with 32% who thought it was correct.
More than half - 55% - said they would vote to remain in the EU, against 31% who said they would stay out, if the referendum were to be held again.
That’s still a lot of people that think it’s all great and unicorns and rainbows. How?
Because they don’t want to admit they made a mistake.
I know somebody like this. Conversations end up with him raising a few dumb points, which he claims is worth it.
We both work in the same company which used to export 40% of manufactured goods to the EU. The customers we have managed to retain now come with additional costs. If it was a smaller business it could have forced closure. It baffles me how he thinks the way he does.
Cognitive dissonance.
If the last few years have proven anything to me, it’s that about 30% of our population is at best dismayingly gullible, and at worst unmitigated racist assholes who enjoy seeing out-groups they don’t belong to hurt.
I know two people who voted to leave because they had no opinion on the matter so thought leaving would be the default option. One was my sister. Neither pay attention to news or current affairs. Baffling.
Both got extremely defensive when I pointed out how backwards that was then started making up rubbish in efforts to justify their decision.
I voted remain for the same reason your sister voted leave, I wasnt aware of the effect of either side so my thought process was “better the devil we know”
It amazes me what people with the ability to vote will do sometimes.
That’s what I said to her. Defaulting to exit is voting for the unknown, without understanding it might be good but it could also be bad. Or vote to remain to continue living the way you always have been.
I’m sure some people voted with anger or desperation. Hoping change, any change, will somehow better their lives. I can only think that’s what my sister did what with living in border line provety.
Only 30%? Seems pretty much the majority these days
30% is pretty close both in the UK and US and I suspect most other places. The problem is the 30% are far more united due to simpler desires and thus can form majorities while the rest of us are disagreeing with eachother.
Yeah, probably. That’s the best condition for a based vote deciding the fate of millions
People who don’t spend one minute to (re)think it.
Does the mean Brexit will be replaced by Brenter?
The Breturn
Ole Brent is going to find the terms of entry a lot less favorable.
This debate always takes on a snarky tone but I’d like some serious consideration for what went wrong and how to avoid it in future.
First, what went wrong? Why did more than half the country vote to leave the EU? It’s far too easy to hand wave this away by blaming it on social media or Russian interference. Calling everyone who voted for brexit a lemming or idiot is clearly inaccurate and lacking any evidence. People made an informed decision and exercised their democratic right. Why? As best I can tell, people were hurting. Decades of neoliberal policies squeezed the middle and lower classes and enriched the wealthy. Part of the reason for people hurting was high migration. The UK has had sustained high migration for decades. This has placed enormous pressure on everything from healthcare services to the cost of housing, which is astronomically expensive now compared to just 20 years ago. Wages were suppressed, and working conditions made worse, while diminishing the bargaining power of locals. At the same time, all of the cheap foreign labour led to significant wealth accrual by business owners. In other words, all of the benefits of high migration were taken by the wealthy, and all of the costs were borne by the lower classes. This led to resentment, and the vote we saw.
So how to prevent this in future? Both major parties were and arguably are in favour of continued high migration, leaving few options for the population to express their dissatisfaction. The first opportunity they were given resulted in what many have described as a “protest” vote. I’m not convinced that restricting future referenda is the answer. Quite the opposite. The UK needs more democracy, not less. I believe the issue is first past the post (FPP). In most other European nations with proportional representation, they haven’t come close to a brexit vote. This is because there is always a party which appears to cater for political preferences. Don’t like high migration? Here is a party created just for you! And we see just this in many European nations. This lets off the democratic steam and gives voice to the concerns of voters. These minor parties can then use their votes to negotiate for their issues, and arrive at a compromise. This is the key issue with brexit: it was all or nothing. The party in power used their unilateral power to initiate a generation spanning action.
tl;dr: the UK desperately needs to transition to proportional representation. So too does the U.S.
Yep. FPTP led people to feel unrepresented, because, well, they are. Why they let themselves be fooled into blaming foreigners (EU+immigrants), not crap government, I don’t get, or forgive, but if we get out of FPTP, it won’t all be for nothing.
Sorry to be pedantic, but only about 37% of the voting population voted to leave the EU. 34% voted to stay and 29% didn’t vote.
It maddens me when Brexiteers scream “the majority of us voted to leave!” when it’s far from the case.
This is because that’s how democracy works. Most nations don’t force their citizens to vote. Leaders and decisions are decided by the balance of votes of those who actually bothered to vote. If the standard were 50% of more of the potential voting public, most governments would be in perpetual gridlock.
Err… Can you stay on topic please, this is a thread about bashing stupid Brexitiers and laughing at them not for balance and nuance. /s 😉
Scrap FPTP! Absolutely! I had high hopes that Labour would be bold enough to campaign on this but they have chickened out. Without their support we’re in for more of the same sadly. The two main parties just want to hold onto power.
People need to voice their opinion by writing to the their respective MPs. Nothing will ever happen unless there is a threat to votes.
No point with my MP. He always does what the Tory line is. He was one of the few MPs that turned up for the Boris thing and voted that it was wrong he should be suspended for 90 days.
MPs should do what the party line is TBF. MPs that get elected because they are with a particular party should follow that mandate they were elected for or stand as independent. When people complain about MP voting records, it is a bit silly if that MP is following the mandate. It is rare to see a 3 line whip that is not on the mandate, present government excluded from the norms of government OFC. The privileges committee vote was a single line whip, which means attendance is not compulsory, and guidance on how to vote may or may not be there. Voting against the committee recommendations is pretty low I have to admit. I would still write him a letter to make the bugger work a bit extra, just to piss him off.
At the recent local elections, I think Labour made two door stop visits and all we got from the Tories was a leaflet.
That is the problem with FPTP voting. They only need to focus on the swing areas. The rest of the country gets ignored. This is why the Tories have held onto power more than any other party. Campaigns are costly but produce votes, and they have more to spend than any other party. I keep saying it, we need a PR voting system. Far too many vote for what they don’t want and that leaves many without a say at all. I would really like to see party donations abolished along with second jobs. Restrict campaigns to a publicly funded platform, so that all get equal say. There should be a fact checking process merged into that to stop the lies that are being thrown around to con people.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens after labour wins.
If I’m not mistaken, brexit should allow them to more easily nationalise stuff like railways or public utilities (water, gas, …).
Of course, that’s exactly the kind of thing many right wing brexit voters hate, but it’ll be interesting to see if that’s now become possible.
I seriously doubt current labour would be doing much nationalising.
With a broken country where would they get the cash from. Nationalising is an expensive thing to do.
deleted by creator
There is nothing to stop them from running a nationalised rail service under EU law. This is something that Mick Lynch likes to use to vindicate the way he told his members to vote for Brexit. https://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180
deleted by creator
Only because they are being forced to see the consequences of their actions.
We have our special passports yes but its not worth much when there’s no food in the belly.
No surprises really. What with brexit being such a rip roaring success.
Other than the agriculture policy change from the awful CAP production subsidy, and potentially better AI regulation, they haven’t actually done anything.
It’s a failure of the Tories really.
Leaving the EU wasn’t the “wrong decision”.
Not joining EFTA after leaving was the wrong decision.
While I agree EFTA would be better then no deal.
I’ll ask the same question many brexit supporters did when they rejected it.
What dose being a member of the Trade association gain. Most of the things promised by brexit don’t exist if we still have to follow the EU rules without having a vote.
Free trade also requires free movement. Because the right to work across borders is all part of the EU free trade vision.
As biased as I admit I am. Because most of the promises of the brexit supporters never appealed to me anyway.
It is very clear that being a member of the Trade agreement dose not meet the reason most supporters voted for it. As it forces us to meet their regulations to be possible.
Members of EFTA are actually consulted before about EU legislation that affects them, and it doesn’t get the go-ahead without EFTA approval. So the argument that we wouldn’t get a vote is not true.
As for free movement, the whole debate around that is false because the government doesn’t want to reduce migration levels due to migrants being a net benefit to the economy. If the government were actually serious about lowering migration levels, they could have done so with non-EU migration whilst we were in the EU. And as we’ve seen afterwards, with record levels of migration, it’s all just smoke and mirrors. Which is why EFTA would have been absolutely fine and the best of both worlds.
So the argument that we wouldn’t get a vote is not true.
As was the argument that we don’t have sovereignty. Because other nations get a vote in the rules we have to follow. But Brexit supporter fell for it. And a yes or screw it for every other member vote. Is clearly less whatever the people voting thought sovereignty was, then being a member able to propose rules. So no the idea we don’t get a vote. Is no more false then any other idea that Brexit supporters wanted.
Sorry, that is not intended to be dismissive. But we have to accept at this point. Any arrangement must deal with the perceived idealism. EFTA was rejected for that very reason. The hard Brexiters did not see it as as leaving the EU. Just remaining with less of a say.
I agree with migration. But again, it’s not really answering my question. But skirting it. We left the EU because a % of voters wanted to stop migration. Being a member of EFTA in no way allows that. And the whole argument for Brexit can be put down to blaming the EU for shit our government did. So, saying our gov want migration. Is not a reason why EFTA is a better option then staying in the EU was. But just an attempt to ignore the arguments used to leave.
Just to make things clear from my point of view. Free trade means borderless trade. That is the point of the EU agreement. Any system that allows us to have laws dramatically different to the laws of the area we trade. Will require some form of customs checks. To ensure we are supplying goods that meet their laws, not ours. That is simply the way ant trade deal has to work.
If we are having to follow the laws to have an open border (goods as even if we could gain an agreement without migration it really does not change the argument). Then what is the advantage of being out of the EU if we are in the EFTA.
As I said, I am biased because I don’t personally see any advantage being out of the EU. So for the sake of argument, ill except any evidence of increased sovereignty. But not as a grab all term with no definition. It needs to have some clear element of control of our own laws that we do not have as an EU member.
So for the sake of argument, ill except any evidence of increased sovereignty
For the sake of argument then let’s revisit the immigration question. Under EU (and I assume EFTA) rules we wouldn’t be able to apply an immigration system that applied to everyone equally because we would (and did) have to apply a separate more permissive one for EU citizens. Why should an otherwise equally qualified computer programmer from, let’s say, Peru be at a disadvantage compared to an equally qualified computer programmer from France? Outside the EU we can apply the same rules regardless of where the applicant is from ergo sovereignty, no?
If we need more computer programmers or more lorry drivers or fewer life coaches we are able to flex rules around this so that demand can be filled. If that’s by computer programmers from Peru or lorry drivers from Bulgaria or construction workers from Indonesia that doesn’t matter. So there is that argument.
It’s a proper shame that this government hasn’t published a clear and understandable industrial strategy so that these decisions can be seen in full context for five or more years in the future. Instead what people seem obsessed about is reductions in immigration rather than a more nuanced take on fairness to fill capacity / need.
Except we could. Under the EU each nation has the options to limit entry in an emergency. And just like when the UK was one of the few nations not to make new eastern block members wait until their nation had evened out fiscally. We have never chosen to implement them when others have.
We always had more control over EU imergration then our gov was willing to use. So any more control over that is nothing but a mythical idea we as a nation will not use. (as you yourself said).
So while leaving the EU and EFTA may give us the option to make perminant rules. Doing so is no more realistic than the need to defend ourselves from Dragons.
PS my question was
Then what is the advantage of being out of the EU if we are in the EFTA.
Sovereignty only counts as an argument if we gain it via EEA membership. And these examples don’t. As I said I am biased so don’t see it as an argument to leave the EU.
But my point was, I am willing to accept your original point that the issue is not leaving the EU. But EFTA. If you can prove, we gain it some way as an EEA member.
Sorry for the confusion.
Under the EU each nation has the options to limit entry in an emergency.
Forgive me but that’s not the same as having fair and equal immigration rules for all nations.
The UK: We want to make it so that Peruvian computer programmers go through the same process of immigration as French ones.
The EU: That’s not an emergency, non.
So any more control over that is nothing but a mythical idea we as a nation will not use.
Hasn’t Sunak just exactly done this? He’s exercised control over immigration for the purpose of allowing more construction workers into the country to respond to demand. It doesn’t matter where they are from as lonyas it is on an equal basis and demand based. You couldn’t do that in the EU.
The UK: We want to increase construction workers by 2000 but that’s it.
The EU: Our citizens are free to move as they please, non.
So while leaving the EU and EFTA may give us the option to make perminant rules. Doing so is no more realistic than the need to defend ourselves from Dragons.
Hey you leave the Welsh out of this! 😄
But my point was, I am willing to accept your original point that the issue is not leaving the EU. But EFTA. If you can prove, we gain it some way as an EEA member
Oh sorry I wasn’t arguing about this. I was merely providing an example about your challenge with sovereignty. I agree leaving the EU and joining EFTA won’t achieve this.
Hasn’t Sunak just exactly done this? He’s exercised control over immigration for the purpose of allowing more construction workers into the country to respond to demand. It doesn’t matter where they are from as lonyas it is on an equal basis and demand based. You couldn’t do that in the EU.
No under the EU we had the same legal right to police our borders. We just had to allow EU citizens through.
So EU citizens were not dumb enough to risk their lives. But even now, if you can take a privrate boat from France. You have a right to enter the UK. You just have to radio the coast guard for customs, etc. Nothing Sunak is doing now was more of an issue during EU membership. We were just able to convince France to do some of the work.
We were never part of the Schengen Agreement. How you are legally allowed to enter the nation has always been under UK control.
It’s so, so annoying that people who cheered on Brexit back then are only just now saying that it was the wrong choice - it’s 7 years too late for that, we’re in the thick of it now!
These people must bump into everything with how short-sighted they were.
It’s was the attitude of, “the Tories don’t won’t it, and I don’t like them, and it won’t happen anyway, so I’ll vote for it” that gets on my nerves.
I don’t think they have changed their minds. They are just literally dying off.
deleted by creator
Five to ten more years and then the British sheeps will probably be satisfied with their solution. Just my guess.
