7 ms·

Brexit: Rejoining EU takes record 14-point lead in latest poll

55 points by mpweiher 4y ago

jfengel 4y ago
They haven't really given Brexit a chance yet. Sure, they've discovered that the party that led them out of the EU is dysfunctional, incompetent, and deceitful. And sure, they've weathered the recent crises worse than the EU has. But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short. I think the EU would have the UK back, but I suspect one of their biggest worries is that public opinion would shift back yet again. Voters are unhappy and want things to go back, but they haven't necessarily learned anything about why they made the wrong choice -- if they did. I can't see them seriously considering the question for another five years, minimum. And when they do, it's going to come with assurances that it won't be fighting that fight again.
- 988747 4y ago
  Also, timing was very bad, since Brexit happened just before the pandemic.
  - rwmj 4y ago
    The decision to do hard Brexit as the pandemic happened (in Dec 2020) was entirely deliberate to try to hide the effects.
    - timellis-smith 4y ago
      Or perhaps its just because Borris had just been elected with a majority to do so and the promise to get it done. Not exciting at that point would arguably have been far more cynical.
      - logifail 4y ago
        Would Boris have won that election if the UK Parliament had not spent quite so long dragging its feet in refusing to support any form of Brexit? "Brexit: No majority for any options after MPs' votes"[0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333
        Lio 4y ago
        I think a large part of people voting for Boris[1] was people getting not wanting to vote for Corbyn. I know several people that disliked Johnson but were scared by the prospect of Corbyn being allowed into power. A curse on both their houses if ask me. 1. We done vote for political leaders in the UK, we vote for our local MP and they choose a party leader to become PM.
        logifail 4y ago
        So 1) MPs declined to support any Brexit proposal at all, because the house was majority Remainers who thought if they refused to act for long enough Brexit might never actually happen? Even the softest of soft Brexit was too much for them to stomach. plus somewhat in parallel 2) the Labour party managed to select Corbyn to lead them Q: is anyone actually surprised how the 2019 election turned out? Seems the UK political elite had several chances, and one after another, blew them all. So the voters sighed, swore, and the UK got Boris's Brexit.
        techdragon 4y ago
        The deeper question is why was the alternative to Boris and the obvious “more of the same please sir” slow spiral of letting the government rot away or selling it that he and the Tory party stand for… why was the alternative to all that considered to be more “scary”? Might it have something to do with an entire class of politically connected “reporters” who make a living being the voice of the already powerful since the UK media environment doesn’t encourage a robust “truth to power” type of confrontational reporting? From the too easy to abuse libel laws, to a system of patronage and gatekeeping that in no small part is leaking out of the way the minor nobility get through life without the large landed estates the major nobles inherit. If your a good friendly journalist you get an interview, say the right things and you get more, say the things they want about other people and they start to like you, you become their “good friend” and you have begun down the path of “media capture” it’s one of Britain’s greatest sicknesses… The reporting and media class is either captured by the conservative and anything else slowly towards the conservatives views in a desperate effort to try and curry their favour, or sinks into the mud and joins the ranks of the tabloid trash no one takes seriously but buys anyway since it’s basically entertainment not really news reporting. At worst Corbyn was a Bernie sanders, he would have shaken things up, rebuilding the social fabric that makes up various safety nets, refunded important social efforts like hospitals, infrastructure, that sort of thing, he might even have built more social housing and raised taxes on rich people that could afford it. That’s not Stalin, that’s not even Marx, it’s just someone who thinks government can genuinely help people by being a strong foundation that everyone gets to benefit from… as far as I can tell, he was scary because he was a “threat” to house prices continued unsustainable rise in value, and the bloated bank balances of rich people and companies who might have had to pay more taxes. But as someone who’s only learned this perspective from remote sources (I live in Australia and follow various UK things with different perspectives) I’d love to add your own perspective on the whole failed social movement that was Jeremy Corbyn.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    Ideally you'd be able to blame everything bad on the pandemic and claim everything good as the Brexit dividend
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short. Funny how imaginary benefits that they promised must take at at least a decade or more to manifest themselves. When the downsides everyone could see before the entire brouhaha started and warned about are already here.
  - eldaisfish 4y ago
    Brexit was an incredibly stupid decision that was made real in an even more stupid way. That said, the UK is globally important country and has Europe’s only truly global city in London. Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does. the UK can indeed go it alone on the global stage and they well may. Their historical connections to the USA and the commonwealth realms are something no other European country has. They will likely struggle for a while but i would not be surprised if they managed to succeed in the longer term. the magnitude of their success would have been better inside the EU but alas…
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      > Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does. Post-WW2 near bankrupt London got where it is today by being the global dirty money laundering capital of the world[1]. Not something to be proud of, although the economic opportunities in London are second to none vs the continental EU, including the tech sector. Brexit heavily benefited the financial industry there as now they'll have more room to launder away form EU regulators. The ones who got screwed were the small and medium businesses who made honest money by selling their products in the EU and the youth cheated away from free study and travel opportunities. They're now shafted. At this pace, the UK economy will turn into a Hunger Games dystopia with the financial elites in the London making insane money along with the service industry catering to the Wolf-of-Wallstreet sharks who work there and to the Saudi royals, Russian and CCP oligarchs who vacation and park their wealth there, while every other business in the rest of the country will be struggling, further eroding whatever is left of the middle class and the already underfunded social services. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE
- tomduncalf 4y ago
  Yeah, I agree with five years at a minimum. The whole ordeal was such a horrible divisive thing… even as someone completely opposed to Brexit, I don’t think we are ready to reopen that can of worms yet. In 5+ years we’ll have much more conclusive evidence of whether it was/was not a successful move economically which might make it a bit more palatable, as you’d be able to compare before and after with cold hard numbers.
- logifail 4y ago
  > they've weathered the recent crises worse than the EU has. Is Covid not a recent crisis? The UK response to Covid, specifically to sourcing vaccines and vaccinating the vulnerable and elderly population, appeared to be significantly more nimble and efficient than that of the EU. Judging by the investigation launched into the EU's vaccine procurement[0] more transparent, too. The UK also dropped restrictions in early 2022 after high vaccination rates and the arrival of Omicron appeared to break the link between infections and hospitalisations. [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-eu-prosecutors-office-opens-investigation-into-covid-vaccine-purchases/ https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-...
  - makomk 4y ago
    A lot of people seem to still believe that the UK has the worst Covid death toll in Europe, even though that isn't remotely true, because ever since Brexit the only comparisons with the rest of Europe that most of the British media make are the ones which make the UK look worse. (I think it may have briefly been true near the start of the pandemic, but all the numbers coming out of Italy were such hot garbage that means extremely little.)
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Economically, the UK's GDP has not yet reached its 2019 level. The major EU countries have long since surpassed theirs.
    - logifail 4y ago
      I'm not sure it's wise to believe the headline claims about UK GDP (or lack of it), particularly if those stories mention Brexit. There's more to it, and there's an awful lot of Brexit-related bias in play. "For 2021 as a whole, UK GDP growth was 7.5%. This was the highest in the G7. The UK had the largest decline in GDP among the G7 in 2020 (-11.0%) and its relatively strong performance in 2021 was to some degree a recovery from weakness in 2020. Please note that headline GDP growth figures across countries are not 100% comparable. For example, the UK takes a different approach to others in calculating output in the education and health sectors. This has resulted in the UK’s GDP growth figures being lower in 2020, and higher in 2021 (as this effect unwound), compared with other G7 economies than they otherwise would have been." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02...
- spamizbad 4y ago
  My understanding was the goal behind Brexit - once you stripped away all the political marketing - was to create a tax and regulatory haven inside of Europe, as a means of competing with places like Dubai. It was never about providing any material benefit to the average Briton. I suppose it's not the dumbest idea. But the conservative party indulged too many eurosceptic cranks, turning it into an "us vs them" sort of deal, alienating would-be European partners who would become clients of such a tax/regulatory haven. Such clients either stick with the EU as a show of solidarity or just park their holdings outside of Europe as to not "take sides" in the messy Brexit ordeal. To make matters worse, the conservative party ultimately lacked the fiscal discipline necessary to make the necessary tax cuts without ballooning debt. They needed the political will to make deep, painful cuts to government services, but instead chose to run against austerity. You can't have it both ways! IMO they should abandon this boondoggle of a political project, rejoin the EU, and give up their extreme tax and regularity plans and go back to providing good public services to citizens.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    > to create a tax and regulatory haven inside of Europe I think you mean "to preserve". In the wake of the GFC the EU adopted much stricter financial transparency laws.
- sbate1987 4y ago
unity1001 4y ago
No way in hell the European countries would let the UK in after all the smears and scorn directed at them over a decade and especially during the Brexit process. Just one country's people rejecting the UK in the obligatory referendum would scuttle the process. And there are many countries which would just do that. Smearing, scorning, talking bad about everyone have become habits in British public discourse, as if they are exempt from the consequences of such conduct and everyone has to 'just take it' without having a reaction. A kind of exceptionalism that looks like a remnant of the old imperial era. Many Brits strongly assert that they do not live in Victorian times, but they sure behave like they do.
- draw_down 4y ago
- pjdemers 4y ago
  The EU may let them back in, but not with all the special deals they had before. First on the list is they would need to drop Pounds for Euros.
  - orf 4y ago
    I expect if you rephrased the asked question to include that the answers would be very, very different. I’d love to rejoin the EU, but dropping the pound to do so? That’s a higher price than you might think.
    - jemmyw 4y ago
      Why? It's just a currency. I'm from the UK, I think I had the same view. But now, having lived in several different countries, it just doesn't matter what currency I use. If I were in the EU then the Euro would be the convenient choice. And if it's about interest rate setting I think as one of the top economies the UK wouldn't have any issues. Don't stick with the pound out of sentimentality. It's a liability.
      - 4y ago
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
Well, the new PM, and all his appointments to date, are very "pro-Leave."
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  The PM with least public involvement in the choice. No public vote, no vote within the party ... just selected among MPs to avoid a general election where they might lose their seats ...
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  I don't think I'd be putting much money on this PM and his appointments making it to the next scheduled GE (early 2025, IIRC?) given the ability of the Tories to rip themselves apart over ideology.
ChemSpider 4y ago
The best short-term solution seems to be "Brexit in name only" => the Norway model. This way the UK can re-add "EU features" step by step.
- foepys 4y ago
  So paying membership fees and having to adhere to all EU regulations and ECJ decisions but without the voting rights? That does not sound like something the UK would accept.
  - derekp7 4y ago
    How much are voting rights worth in practice though, from a single entity? It is only really important if they would have the swing vote, or if something requires unanimous decision.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      Nothing major in the EU has ever been done without consensus. That's why so many exceptions were made for the UK when they were members.
  - cannabis_sam 4y ago
    It’s inevitable. The share of, at best clueless, but more likely spiteful and cruel, old people who ensured the absolutely inane brexit majority decision, before they unceremoniously were reduced to the fate of just dying off, is monotonically shrinking. While the share of young people who weren’t even allowed to have a say in the rest of their future life, is monotonically growing. It’s by far the most crystal clear example of the old desperately trying to eat the young, incontrovertibly to feed their petty greed, but it obviously does not have any effect on the biological realities. A Norway style arrangement, while far worse than the previous deal, is and will always be better than the current quagmire. Unfortunately the psychotic sadist in the ERG still have influence over British politics.
tremarley 4y ago
When the referendum happened, I thought that Brexit was a silly idea, and that remaining was a good choice. Now years later, I'm so thankful Brexit happened. The EU has gotten so much worse since the UK has left, and I can't see a future where the EU will be any better. The UK lost alot of great benefits since we left the EU, but it has gained a lot more sovereignty. We don't have to abide by completely ridiculous laws the EU attempts to implement anymore.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  When your largest market is the EU, you abide by EU's laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/27/sunak-may-deprioritise-brexit-bill-to-switch-off-2400-eu-laws https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/27/sunak-may-deprio... The government seems to want to change those laws anyway, to the frustration of many businesses.
- baq 4y ago
  Worse? Nope.
- btdmaster 4y ago
  Can you give an example of a ridiculous law?
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    I doubt they can give examples. The UK had input into all the EU laws. A great deal of the early EU standards were taken wholesale from UK laws. The papers bring up various laws often, usually out of context, occasionally just made up. There are problematic farming laws (same rings true just about everywhere though). An old colleague of mine used to run a farming operation under greenhouses and sold the business due to EU law changes that would make it unprofitable. This might be ridiculous, or it might be sensible across the whole EU, but he was unhappy about it.
a-dub 4y ago
i suspect they will go back, but probably will lose (or willingly give up) their special "you get to keep your own currency" privileges. doing so would probably be a boon for all of europe and the west. and hopefully a history lesson for the entire west that it's time to finally find a way to solve the yellow journalism/murdochian media problem.
- tobbob 4y ago
  You regard a country having its own currency as a privilege? When the UK was a member state, the EU mercifully ordained that they could have our own central bank? This view/attitude was a big part of why people wanted to leave.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    All countries in the eu are obliged to eventually adopt the euro. But there is no set timeframe. Also all eu countries have central banks, euro or not. So the uk can promise it will join and never do and that will be fine. There is no “ordaining” here, its what the club wants. Like it join it no enjoy tue misery.
    - fmajid 4y ago
      Sweden does it by deliberately missing the convergence criteria. Denmark has an opt-out.
  - ruggeri 4y ago
    The straightforward reading of the gp is that keeping its own currency was “special” in the context of the EU, which requires new members to join the Eurozone eventually. It would be a “privilege” insofar as it is an exception to the EU’s general policy. Of course, the UK is not required to rejoin the EU, even if the EU would consider allowing that. Of course, the EU can set any terms of admission. If the UK doesn’t like the terms, it will stay out of the EU. No one is forcing it. Indignation doesn’t seem like a reasonable reaction here.
Proven 4y ago
rosywoozlechan 4y ago
The gravitational pull of the largest market nearby probably has too high an escape velocity for a struggling economy like UK's to overcome.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  I don't know if this was a reference to the Gravity Model of trade[1], but I think you will be right in the long run. I expect the long run to be at least three decades, though. Maybe seven. I'll be dead. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade Quote: The model has been an empirical success in that it accurately predicts trade flows between countries for many goods and services, but for a long time some scholars believed that there was no theoretical justification for the gravity equation. Lol, it works in practice but not in theory, so many economists choose to believe theory.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    I saw some EU leaders saying they would refuse the turnaround application, so I think you’re right that UK politicians will need to wait For the “right” time. Probably decades of back room negotiating to move forward
Animats 4y ago
Britain no longer meets the economic stability requirements for entry to the EU. Too much inflation and too large a budget deficit. Britain would need too much economic assistance.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  Are you aware inflation is higher in the eu?
  - makomk 4y ago
    Ah. The trick is that most of the time, news articles only compare with France's inflation numbers which are much lower than the rest of Europe - so this makes it seem like only the UK is suffering from this problem. A lot of public enthusiasm to rejoin the EU semes to be based on this kind of completely false, media-constructed belief that they don't have the same problems and therefore the UK wouldn't either if not for Brexit. (France's debt-to-GDP ratio and I think possibly their deficit as well is worse than the UK's and even less compliant with Eurozone rules. This is probably directly linked to their lower inflation since they're reliant on heavily subsidising energy prices to keep that down.)
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      Indeed. I am in favour of rejoining, but only after germany gets a good bitchslap and the eu is reformed, but even so i dont think its fair to hide facts just to for the sake of making the eu sound good. There are serious issues there.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    The criteria for joining don’t apply to members. Bit like Turkey is now scrutinizing whether Finland is really living up to the democracy criteria of NATO. That Turkey isn’t even close is irrelevant.
    - yrgulation 4y ago
      I dont see an issue with that, regardless of how much i want Finland to join asap. Each member has equal rights and so does turkey. I dont agree with turkey but that’s a different issue. So would i agree that east europe demands the uk at least issues an apology for how their citizens have been treated during the brexit campaign if it wants any eu deal. Power now lies outside britain and members are entitled to use it. How they chose to is up to them (within diplomatic civilised parameters of course).
yrgulation 4y ago
Corrupt, inefficient, dominated by germany and strategically irrelevant, the eu is the only way european democracies can survive the coming century. Best to rejoin and reform the holly bureaucracy from the inside. The economic and social incentives are massive.
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  What bureaucracy of comparable size and scope would you consider less dysfunctional? US federal government? China? Russia? India? UN? Microsoft? Efficiency doesn't scale, I think EU is pretty good compared to other bureaucracies.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    The us has the benefit of being a country, has experience in waging wars and a mighty economy but it’s also suffering from potentially destructive internal threats. The eu is still far from where it should and can be. It’s still threatening rebellious member states with expulsion and sanctions in pathetic little displays of power. Large entities that somehow also manage to be efficient are the ones that survive. Just because there are issues in other countries or political blocks it doesnt mean we should lower our expectations. The eu needs to evolve. Its the only way europe can remain relevant. No matter what a few spoiled brats in western europe think, without a united eu its game over for everyone in free europe. We are already again at the mercy of the us, under threat from russia, and in competition with india and china. We either stick ranks of eat their dust.
coutego 4y ago
That ain't happening. EU would not take UK back in, much less with all the exceptions/concessions they had got from EU over the years. They had all the advantages of being in the EU while not being bound by some key obligations. From the UK point of view the prospect of rejoining is even worse. How would anyone explain the UK public that they would be applying again for EU membership? "Hey guys, so we got out of the EU, got all this shit, lost the advantages we had and now we propose to rejoin in worse conditions and with a worse economy because of the economic damage caused by getting out of the EU (who could have expected that?)". That is not a winning argument to convince UK citizens to votes 'yes' on a EU membership application referendum... Failing to rejoin UK could try to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), à la Norway, or even in the EU Customs Union. This would in principle make a lot of economical sense and, in fact, the UK has all along only been interested in the single market and nothing else. But this solution is politically even worse, because it would come with the obligation to follow all the rules of the EU single market without having a saying on them, since they would not be participating in the EU democratic institutions (no seats at the Parliament or in the Council). Norway (and Iceland) doesn't lose a lot by being in the European Economic Area by doing this, since they are a small country and the power they give up is very small. But this is not the case at all for the UK. They are a big country and a big economy. It's not conceivable they would be giving up a significant chunk of sovereignty ir order to joint EU institutions while completely giving up their very significant voting rights. UK is not rejoining the EU at the very least in the next 10 years. And even later than that, the only situation they could rejoin is if the differential of growth between the UK and the big EU economies (France, Germany) make the UK economy to significantly be left behind, which is exactly what happened in the 60s/70s and what forced the UK to joint the EU in the first place. It was obvious at the time that continuing being outside would cause the economy of the UK to continuing underperforming the economies of the EU and that is what is bound to happen now. It's sad that UK left, but it is what it is and now they must find their own way.

55 points by mpweiher 4y ago

They haven't really given Brexit a chance yet. Sure, they've discovered that the party that led them out of the EU is dysfunctional, incompetent, and deceitful. And sure, they've weathered the recent crises worse than the EU has. But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short. I think the EU would have the UK back, but I suspect one of their biggest worries is that public opinion would shift back yet again. Voters are unhappy and want things to go back, but they haven't necessarily learned anything about why they made the wrong choice -- if they did. I can't see them seriously considering the question for another five years, minimum. And when they do, it's going to come with assurances that it won't be fighting that fight again.

988747 4y ago
Also, timing was very bad, since Brexit happened just before the pandemic.
- rwmj 4y ago
  The decision to do hard Brexit as the pandemic happened (in Dec 2020) was entirely deliberate to try to hide the effects.
  - timellis-smith 4y ago
    Or perhaps its just because Borris had just been elected with a majority to do so and the promise to get it done. Not exciting at that point would arguably have been far more cynical.
    - logifail 4y ago
      Would Boris have won that election if the UK Parliament had not spent quite so long dragging its feet in refusing to support any form of Brexit? "Brexit: No majority for any options after MPs' votes"[0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47728333
      - Lio 4y ago
        I think a large part of people voting for Boris[1] was people getting not wanting to vote for Corbyn. I know several people that disliked Johnson but were scared by the prospect of Corbyn being allowed into power. A curse on both their houses if ask me. 1. We done vote for political leaders in the UK, we vote for our local MP and they choose a party leader to become PM.
        logifail 4y ago
        So 1) MPs declined to support any Brexit proposal at all, because the house was majority Remainers who thought if they refused to act for long enough Brexit might never actually happen? Even the softest of soft Brexit was too much for them to stomach. plus somewhat in parallel 2) the Labour party managed to select Corbyn to lead them Q: is anyone actually surprised how the 2019 election turned out? Seems the UK political elite had several chances, and one after another, blew them all. So the voters sighed, swore, and the UK got Boris's Brexit.
        techdragon 4y ago
        The deeper question is why was the alternative to Boris and the obvious “more of the same please sir” slow spiral of letting the government rot away or selling it that he and the Tory party stand for… why was the alternative to all that considered to be more “scary”? Might it have something to do with an entire class of politically connected “reporters” who make a living being the voice of the already powerful since the UK media environment doesn’t encourage a robust “truth to power” type of confrontational reporting? From the too easy to abuse libel laws, to a system of patronage and gatekeeping that in no small part is leaking out of the way the minor nobility get through life without the large landed estates the major nobles inherit. If your a good friendly journalist you get an interview, say the right things and you get more, say the things they want about other people and they start to like you, you become their “good friend” and you have begun down the path of “media capture” it’s one of Britain’s greatest sicknesses… The reporting and media class is either captured by the conservative and anything else slowly towards the conservatives views in a desperate effort to try and curry their favour, or sinks into the mud and joins the ranks of the tabloid trash no one takes seriously but buys anyway since it’s basically entertainment not really news reporting. At worst Corbyn was a Bernie sanders, he would have shaken things up, rebuilding the social fabric that makes up various safety nets, refunded important social efforts like hospitals, infrastructure, that sort of thing, he might even have built more social housing and raised taxes on rich people that could afford it. That’s not Stalin, that’s not even Marx, it’s just someone who thinks government can genuinely help people by being a strong foundation that everyone gets to benefit from… as far as I can tell, he was scary because he was a “threat” to house prices continued unsustainable rise in value, and the bloated bank balances of rich people and companies who might have had to pay more taxes. But as someone who’s only learned this perspective from remote sources (I live in Australia and follow various UK things with different perspectives) I’d love to add your own perspective on the whole failed social movement that was Jeremy Corbyn.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Ideally you'd be able to blame everything bad on the pandemic and claim everything good as the Brexit dividend
dmitriid 4y ago
> But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short. Funny how imaginary benefits that they promised must take at at least a decade or more to manifest themselves. When the downsides everyone could see before the entire brouhaha started and warned about are already here.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  Brexit was an incredibly stupid decision that was made real in an even more stupid way. That said, the UK is globally important country and has Europe’s only truly global city in London. Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does. the UK can indeed go it alone on the global stage and they well may. Their historical connections to the USA and the commonwealth realms are something no other European country has. They will likely struggle for a while but i would not be surprised if they managed to succeed in the longer term. the magnitude of their success would have been better inside the EU but alas…
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    > Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does. Post-WW2 near bankrupt London got where it is today by being the global dirty money laundering capital of the world[1]. Not something to be proud of, although the economic opportunities in London are second to none vs the continental EU, including the tech sector. Brexit heavily benefited the financial industry there as now they'll have more room to launder away form EU regulators. The ones who got screwed were the small and medium businesses who made honest money by selling their products in the EU and the youth cheated away from free study and travel opportunities. They're now shafted. At this pace, the UK economy will turn into a Hunger Games dystopia with the financial elites in the London making insane money along with the service industry catering to the Wolf-of-Wallstreet sharks who work there and to the Saudi royals, Russian and CCP oligarchs who vacation and park their wealth there, while every other business in the rest of the country will be struggling, further eroding whatever is left of the middle class and the already underfunded social services. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE
tomduncalf 4y ago
Yeah, I agree with five years at a minimum. The whole ordeal was such a horrible divisive thing… even as someone completely opposed to Brexit, I don’t think we are ready to reopen that can of worms yet. In 5+ years we’ll have much more conclusive evidence of whether it was/was not a successful move economically which might make it a bit more palatable, as you’d be able to compare before and after with cold hard numbers.
logifail 4y ago
> they've weathered the recent crises worse than the EU has. Is Covid not a recent crisis? The UK response to Covid, specifically to sourcing vaccines and vaccinating the vulnerable and elderly population, appeared to be significantly more nimble and efficient than that of the EU. Judging by the investigation launched into the EU's vaccine procurement[0] more transparent, too. The UK also dropped restrictions in early 2022 after high vaccination rates and the arrival of Omicron appeared to break the link between infections and hospitalisations. [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-eu-prosecutors-office-opens-investigation-into-covid-vaccine-purchases/ https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-...
- makomk 4y ago
  A lot of people seem to still believe that the UK has the worst Covid death toll in Europe, even though that isn't remotely true, because ever since Brexit the only comparisons with the rest of Europe that most of the British media make are the ones which make the UK look worse. (I think it may have briefly been true near the start of the pandemic, but all the numbers coming out of Italy were such hot garbage that means extremely little.)
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Economically, the UK's GDP has not yet reached its 2019 level. The major EU countries have long since surpassed theirs.
  - logifail 4y ago
    I'm not sure it's wise to believe the headline claims about UK GDP (or lack of it), particularly if those stories mention Brexit. There's more to it, and there's an awful lot of Brexit-related bias in play. "For 2021 as a whole, UK GDP growth was 7.5%. This was the highest in the G7. The UK had the largest decline in GDP among the G7 in 2020 (-11.0%) and its relatively strong performance in 2021 was to some degree a recovery from weakness in 2020. Please note that headline GDP growth figures across countries are not 100% comparable. For example, the UK takes a different approach to others in calculating output in the education and health sectors. This has resulted in the UK’s GDP growth figures being lower in 2020, and higher in 2021 (as this effect unwound), compared with other G7 economies than they otherwise would have been." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02...
spamizbad 4y ago
My understanding was the goal behind Brexit - once you stripped away all the political marketing - was to create a tax and regulatory haven inside of Europe, as a means of competing with places like Dubai. It was never about providing any material benefit to the average Briton. I suppose it's not the dumbest idea. But the conservative party indulged too many eurosceptic cranks, turning it into an "us vs them" sort of deal, alienating would-be European partners who would become clients of such a tax/regulatory haven. Such clients either stick with the EU as a show of solidarity or just park their holdings outside of Europe as to not "take sides" in the messy Brexit ordeal. To make matters worse, the conservative party ultimately lacked the fiscal discipline necessary to make the necessary tax cuts without ballooning debt. They needed the political will to make deep, painful cuts to government services, but instead chose to run against austerity. You can't have it both ways! IMO they should abandon this boondoggle of a political project, rejoin the EU, and give up their extreme tax and regularity plans and go back to providing good public services to citizens.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  > to create a tax and regulatory haven inside of Europe I think you mean "to preserve". In the wake of the GFC the EU adopted much stricter financial transparency laws.
sbate1987 4y ago

unity1001 4y ago

No way in hell the European countries would let the UK in after all the smears and scorn directed at them over a decade and especially during the Brexit process. Just one country's people rejecting the UK in the obligatory referendum would scuttle the process. And there are many countries which would just do that. Smearing, scorning, talking bad about everyone have become habits in British public discourse, as if they are exempt from the consequences of such conduct and everyone has to 'just take it' without having a reaction. A kind of exceptionalism that looks like a remnant of the old imperial era. Many Brits strongly assert that they do not live in Victorian times, but they sure behave like they do.

draw_down 4y ago
pjdemers 4y ago
The EU may let them back in, but not with all the special deals they had before. First on the list is they would need to drop Pounds for Euros.
- orf 4y ago
  I expect if you rephrased the asked question to include that the answers would be very, very different. I’d love to rejoin the EU, but dropping the pound to do so? That’s a higher price than you might think.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    Why? It's just a currency. I'm from the UK, I think I had the same view. But now, having lived in several different countries, it just doesn't matter what currency I use. If I were in the EU then the Euro would be the convenient choice. And if it's about interest rate setting I think as one of the top economies the UK wouldn't have any issues. Don't stick with the pound out of sentimentality. It's a liability.
    - 4y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

Well, the new PM, and all his appointments to date, are very "pro-Leave."

johannes1234321 4y ago
The PM with least public involvement in the choice. No public vote, no vote within the party ... just selected among MPs to avoid a general election where they might lose their seats ...
zimpenfish 4y ago
I don't think I'd be putting much money on this PM and his appointments making it to the next scheduled GE (early 2025, IIRC?) given the ability of the Tories to rip themselves apart over ideology.

ChemSpider 4y ago

The best short-term solution seems to be "Brexit in name only" => the Norway model. This way the UK can re-add "EU features" step by step.

foepys 4y ago
So paying membership fees and having to adhere to all EU regulations and ECJ decisions but without the voting rights? That does not sound like something the UK would accept.
- derekp7 4y ago
  How much are voting rights worth in practice though, from a single entity? It is only really important if they would have the swing vote, or if something requires unanimous decision.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Nothing major in the EU has ever been done without consensus. That's why so many exceptions were made for the UK when they were members.
- cannabis_sam 4y ago
  It’s inevitable. The share of, at best clueless, but more likely spiteful and cruel, old people who ensured the absolutely inane brexit majority decision, before they unceremoniously were reduced to the fate of just dying off, is monotonically shrinking. While the share of young people who weren’t even allowed to have a say in the rest of their future life, is monotonically growing. It’s by far the most crystal clear example of the old desperately trying to eat the young, incontrovertibly to feed their petty greed, but it obviously does not have any effect on the biological realities. A Norway style arrangement, while far worse than the previous deal, is and will always be better than the current quagmire. Unfortunately the psychotic sadist in the ERG still have influence over British politics.

tremarley 4y ago

When the referendum happened, I thought that Brexit was a silly idea, and that remaining was a good choice. Now years later, I'm so thankful Brexit happened. The EU has gotten so much worse since the UK has left, and I can't see a future where the EU will be any better. The UK lost alot of great benefits since we left the EU, but it has gained a lot more sovereignty. We don't have to abide by completely ridiculous laws the EU attempts to implement anymore.

dmitriid 4y ago
When your largest market is the EU, you abide by EU's laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
- Symbiote 4y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/27/sunak-may-deprioritise-brexit-bill-to-switch-off-2400-eu-laws https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/27/sunak-may-deprio... The government seems to want to change those laws anyway, to the frustration of many businesses.
baq 4y ago
Worse? Nope.
btdmaster 4y ago
Can you give an example of a ridiculous law?
- jemmyw 4y ago
  I doubt they can give examples. The UK had input into all the EU laws. A great deal of the early EU standards were taken wholesale from UK laws. The papers bring up various laws often, usually out of context, occasionally just made up. There are problematic farming laws (same rings true just about everywhere though). An old colleague of mine used to run a farming operation under greenhouses and sold the business due to EU law changes that would make it unprofitable. This might be ridiculous, or it might be sensible across the whole EU, but he was unhappy about it.

a-dub 4y ago

i suspect they will go back, but probably will lose (or willingly give up) their special "you get to keep your own currency" privileges. doing so would probably be a boon for all of europe and the west. and hopefully a history lesson for the entire west that it's time to finally find a way to solve the yellow journalism/murdochian media problem.

tobbob 4y ago
You regard a country having its own currency as a privilege? When the UK was a member state, the EU mercifully ordained that they could have our own central bank? This view/attitude was a big part of why people wanted to leave.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  All countries in the eu are obliged to eventually adopt the euro. But there is no set timeframe. Also all eu countries have central banks, euro or not. So the uk can promise it will join and never do and that will be fine. There is no “ordaining” here, its what the club wants. Like it join it no enjoy tue misery.
  - fmajid 4y ago
    Sweden does it by deliberately missing the convergence criteria. Denmark has an opt-out.
- ruggeri 4y ago
  The straightforward reading of the gp is that keeping its own currency was “special” in the context of the EU, which requires new members to join the Eurozone eventually. It would be a “privilege” insofar as it is an exception to the EU’s general policy. Of course, the UK is not required to rejoin the EU, even if the EU would consider allowing that. Of course, the EU can set any terms of admission. If the UK doesn’t like the terms, it will stay out of the EU. No one is forcing it. Indignation doesn’t seem like a reasonable reaction here.

Proven 4y ago

rosywoozlechan 4y ago

The gravitational pull of the largest market nearby probably has too high an escape velocity for a struggling economy like UK's to overcome.

tuatoru 4y ago
I don't know if this was a reference to the Gravity Model of trade[1], but I think you will be right in the long run. I expect the long run to be at least three decades, though. Maybe seven. I'll be dead. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade Quote: The model has been an empirical success in that it accurately predicts trade flows between countries for many goods and services, but for a long time some scholars believed that there was no theoretical justification for the gravity equation. Lol, it works in practice but not in theory, so many economists choose to believe theory.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  I saw some EU leaders saying they would refuse the turnaround application, so I think you’re right that UK politicians will need to wait For the “right” time. Probably decades of back room negotiating to move forward

Animats 4y ago

Britain no longer meets the economic stability requirements for entry to the EU. Too much inflation and too large a budget deficit. Britain would need too much economic assistance.

yrgulation 4y ago
Are you aware inflation is higher in the eu?
- makomk 4y ago
  Ah. The trick is that most of the time, news articles only compare with France's inflation numbers which are much lower than the rest of Europe - so this makes it seem like only the UK is suffering from this problem. A lot of public enthusiasm to rejoin the EU semes to be based on this kind of completely false, media-constructed belief that they don't have the same problems and therefore the UK wouldn't either if not for Brexit. (France's debt-to-GDP ratio and I think possibly their deficit as well is worse than the UK's and even less compliant with Eurozone rules. This is probably directly linked to their lower inflation since they're reliant on heavily subsidising energy prices to keep that down.)
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    Indeed. I am in favour of rejoining, but only after germany gets a good bitchslap and the eu is reformed, but even so i dont think its fair to hide facts just to for the sake of making the eu sound good. There are serious issues there.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  The criteria for joining don’t apply to members. Bit like Turkey is now scrutinizing whether Finland is really living up to the democracy criteria of NATO. That Turkey isn’t even close is irrelevant.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    I dont see an issue with that, regardless of how much i want Finland to join asap. Each member has equal rights and so does turkey. I dont agree with turkey but that’s a different issue. So would i agree that east europe demands the uk at least issues an apology for how their citizens have been treated during the brexit campaign if it wants any eu deal. Power now lies outside britain and members are entitled to use it. How they chose to is up to them (within diplomatic civilised parameters of course).

yrgulation 4y ago

Corrupt, inefficient, dominated by germany and strategically irrelevant, the eu is the only way european democracies can survive the coming century. Best to rejoin and reform the holly bureaucracy from the inside. The economic and social incentives are massive.

rich_sasha 4y ago
What bureaucracy of comparable size and scope would you consider less dysfunctional? US federal government? China? Russia? India? UN? Microsoft? Efficiency doesn't scale, I think EU is pretty good compared to other bureaucracies.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  The us has the benefit of being a country, has experience in waging wars and a mighty economy but it’s also suffering from potentially destructive internal threats. The eu is still far from where it should and can be. It’s still threatening rebellious member states with expulsion and sanctions in pathetic little displays of power. Large entities that somehow also manage to be efficient are the ones that survive. Just because there are issues in other countries or political blocks it doesnt mean we should lower our expectations. The eu needs to evolve. Its the only way europe can remain relevant. No matter what a few spoiled brats in western europe think, without a united eu its game over for everyone in free europe. We are already again at the mercy of the us, under threat from russia, and in competition with india and china. We either stick ranks of eat their dust.

coutego 4y ago

That ain't happening. EU would not take UK back in, much less with all the exceptions/concessions they had got from EU over the years. They had all the advantages of being in the EU while not being bound by some key obligations. From the UK point of view the prospect of rejoining is even worse. How would anyone explain the UK public that they would be applying again for EU membership? "Hey guys, so we got out of the EU, got all this shit, lost the advantages we had and now we propose to rejoin in worse conditions and with a worse economy because of the economic damage caused by getting out of the EU (who could have expected that?)". That is not a winning argument to convince UK citizens to votes 'yes' on a EU membership application referendum... Failing to rejoin UK could try to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), à la Norway, or even in the EU Customs Union. This would in principle make a lot of economical sense and, in fact, the UK has all along only been interested in the single market and nothing else. But this solution is politically even worse, because it would come with the obligation to follow all the rules of the EU single market without having a saying on them, since they would not be participating in the EU democratic institutions (no seats at the Parliament or in the Council). Norway (and Iceland) doesn't lose a lot by being in the European Economic Area by doing this, since they are a small country and the power they give up is very small. But this is not the case at all for the UK. They are a big country and a big economy. It's not conceivable they would be giving up a significant chunk of sovereignty ir order to joint EU institutions while completely giving up their very significant voting rights. UK is not rejoining the EU at the very least in the next 10 years. And even later than that, the only situation they could rejoin is if the differential of growth between the UK and the big EU economies (France, Germany) make the UK economy to significantly be left behind, which is exactly what happened in the 60s/70s and what forced the UK to joint the EU in the first place. It was obvious at the time that continuing being outside would cause the economy of the UK to continuing underperforming the economies of the EU and that is what is bound to happen now. It's sad that UK left, but it is what it is and now they must find their own way.