- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like polls have been saying that since before Brexit was even finalised :') the only good I ever thought might come of Brexit was it might make things so bad in Britain that it might help spark some kind of revolution…
As soon as the fuzzy “imagine anything you want” of the referendum collapsed into “you must pick one and come up with a plan to mitigate the consequences” of May’s government!
Any specific result would always have had a minority - the ‘majority’ vote was made up of people wanting opposite things.
Yeah. That’s the issue isn’t it. There was one version of remain but dozens of versions of leave but people only got to choose between two options.
Then when the government realised that there were so many different opinions of what leave meant they spent more than a year with no progress.
More like 4 years, right?
Well, after about a year they came out of a meeting at Chequers with a bold plan…… that was almost like being in the EU and got shot down by parliament immediately.
You could argue that coming up with that plan is progress. It was just in the wrong direction.
I’m just hoping that after a few decades of maturation (hopefully before it turns blue), they will come back as full members and as one of the main leaders of EU as they should always have been .
UK public is too divided to revolt in any way. They’re perpetually on the back foot reacting to “scandals”.
Briturn when?
Honestly. Not any time soon.
To many brexit voters think it was done wrong. Rather then a bad idea in the first place. So any attempt to rejoin will constantly face a fair and balanced news media. Presenting people who will outright lie about what is possible
The whole of the UK has to accept that the version of Brexit they got was the version they asked for. That the promises of all the benefits of trade. With no restrictions in rules. Do not exist. Any trade we do anywhere in the world requires products to meet that nation’s standards. Borderless trade will require us to follow the rules of that trade area. Any trade where that is not a fact. Will require some form of customs check to ensure the products being imported meet their rules. Not our own.
Until the nation is willing to accept that. We cannot be a nation the EU will want back.
That’s the paradox. The people too stupid to understand it’s a bad idea are also stupid enough to believe when people tell them it wasn’t the idea’s fault
Agreed. But 30plus years of the UK government falsely blaming the EU and tabloids supporting it. Really does not help. More so as both side of the house did it. So no one was really selling the truth until the end.
Imagine if that actually happens within the next few years.
Then we have another call for brexit in another fifteen.
Regardless of butthurt feelings on either side, it can’t happen. The EU doesn’t do special treatments anymore, so Britain would be forced to adopt the Euro, and would not benefit from any of the special “opt-out” clauses it had negotiated before leaving. This is unacceptable to everyone who voted for Brexit, as well as to the moderate pro-Europe crowd. i.e. completely politically untenable.
For better and (mostly) for worse, Britain will spend the next few decades isolated on the European level. Best case scenario would be, in a decade or two, for the UK to join the EEA, but that’s still a huge downgrade in every way compared to full membership as British companies would be subject to all the rules of the European Single Market without getting a vote in any of them, in exchange for getting access back to the EU market.
Just wait until the next currency crisis hits and the Pound falls below Euro parity. Since the introduction of the Euro in 2000 the Pound has already lost almost 30% of its value in a direct comparison and could not recover since the Brexit vote.
Regardless of (arguable) merit, the UK will never switch to the Euro. For all that the British Empire has fallen from glory, the GBP is over 1200 years old which makes it the oldest currency still in use, and it is still a respected & stable currency.
They would never get rid of it for a currency controlled by the ECB, it would be political suicide to even propose such a thing.They might in the future. The exchange rate used to be 5 USD to 1 GBP. The pound seems like it will continue its slide, and I can see the remainers living through this and deciding it is worth giving up the pound for EU membership.
The name is 1200 years old. But the pound of the 800s was only similar to now in name. Not just decimalization. But we were on the gold standard then. Heck, even pence has changed to new pence.
In the unlikely event, we are ever willing and welcome to join the EU again. If we are forced to accept the Euro. The EU is very likely to allow us to print our own. And name it as we like. So options can exist.
As or it being ECB controlled. The idea that any nation has full control over its currency is becoming less logical. As decisions by other nations have too much effect. Back in empire days when the UK had the buying power to effect other nations. The logic existed. But now the events in the US more and more so ECU nations and china. Effect the value of our currency more than actions BOE. Heck, even PM lettuce head was unable to change its value as much as US bank investments in 2008.
If our buying power continues to drop. There will eventually become a point where the idea of a larger group of nations buying power will appeal. More so as the generation raised in EU membership becomes the elderly voters of today.
The US Dollar moved off the gold standard at about the same time as the British Pound. Yet you can still use a 200 year old dollar bill in the US if you so wish (you just can’t redeem it at a bank for gold anymore). Of course if you show up with a 500 year old British Pound and try to pay a fine with it, you’ll get turned away, but the point is that it’s been in continuous use, so I think it’s fair to say it’s the same currency.
Of course those old coins are practically irrelevant to today’s fiat currency, but switching from the GBP to the Euro doesn’t just mean “yeah fuck it it’s all the same anyway”. The currency being controlled by the ECB matters a whole fucking lot because the ECB sets (among other things) interest rates. Recent events should put in perspective how important that is: the ECB’s 2022/2023 method for raising its interest rates to combat inflation has been “raise them as high as we dare to while not immediately bankrupting Italy because they have a lot of debt”. That’s a very real fundamental control that the BOE would be relinquishing by switching to the Euro. Having a currency pegged to the Euro still has those concerns, and also I’m not sure the EU would let the UK do that.
But besides that, I think people do care simply because they like the GBP. Remember that the passport color was somehow a huge thing in the lead-up to Brexit, so I really don’t think replacing all those pictures of QEII and KCIII by pictures of fake bridges would go over so well, to say the least.
Even in my country, one of the most pro-European, pro-Eurozone countries, with a previously tiny currency that no-one else used, lots of reactionaries/conservatives STILL think switching to the Euro was a mistake. And everyone old enough at the time will rant and rant about how “everybody” took opportunity of the currency change to jack up prices.I mean sure, if the British economy falls down so far as to become Eastern European tier, then we might see the tides change. But first of all you still have a long way down to go, and second of all I’m not sure the EU would be willing to welcome the UK back in at that point…
I didn’t realize the pound was the oldest currency still in use. Does that mean you could use coins minted in the 800s as legal tender? (Regardless of the fact that they’d be worth far more than their face value due to their age)
As of 2020, the oldest circulating coins in the UK are the 1p and 2p copper coins introduced in 1971. No other coins from before 1982 are in circulation. Prior to the withdrawal from circulation in 1992, the oldest circulating coins usually dated from 1947: although older coins were still legal tender, inflation meant that their silver content was worth more than their face value, so they tended to be removed from circulation and hoarded. Before decimalisation in 1971, a handful of change might have contained coins over 100 years old, bearing any of five monarchs’ heads, especially in the copper coins.
There is a continuous history for the GBP from the 800s up to now, but that doesn’t make it legal tender. The good news is that they’re all worth way more simply because the value of silver is higher than the face value of the coin.
Britannia waives the rules.
This must be the most underrated pun I’ve seen on Lemmy.
Spoiler: a play of Britannia rules the waves which was a common saying a hundred years ago
I can’t take credit for it, sadly.
Task failed successfully!
James Acaster’s great analogy is always relevant here!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=DDGsMeP5au4&t=275
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Technically, it didn’t fail. It happened exactly the way anyone sane expected it to. That’s why people said it’s a stupid fucking idea.
Their fantasies didn’t materialize and now the Brexiteers are disappointed and claim their wishful thinking just “failed” instead of realizing it was always garbage.
The majority of the pro-brexit voters main goal was to ‘deport all them foreigners’, which was impossible with freedom of movement. When brexit ‘got done’ and it turned out those brown people they saw at the doctor were actually third generation brits, but the nice white couple down the street were actually non-brits and were forced to leave, many changed their mind.
But the Tories and new-new labor won’t even consider a re-vote. Heck, after 12 by-election losses, Tories won’t even consider a general until statue forces them.
and new-new labor won’t even consider a re-vote.
Especially bizarre after Sir Kid Starver was the one at the front of the “Peoples Vote” campaign to have a referendum on the final deal!
Literally everyone saw this coming but they didn’t listen. If only more of the people who wanted to remain went out to vote back then…
Now do climate change.
Propaganda is a powerful drug. They didn’t listen because Rupert didn’t want them to.
And many people were too lazy to go vote.
Robert Mercer (and thus Russia) is to blame. Also Dominic Cummings and his “Vote leave” smear campaign.
Everyone who didn’t should see Brexit - The Uncivil War
As an European who clearly was anti-Brexit and saw Britain leave with great sadness, what’s the point of these kind of polls or keep saying “Brexit failed!”?
I mean, yeah, it looks like it failed… are you going to do anything about it? Are you asking back in? You can’t take it back, can you?
I don’t know. At some point you need to admit that you screwed up, and move on. Yes, maybe post-Brexit UK is not ideal, but try to do the best you can in this situation and try to lessen the impact as much as you can, don’t you think?
I like Brits, you’re very smart. I think you’re capable enough to handle the situation and make the most out of it. The EU likes you. Nobody wanted you to leave. And even then, the EU wants you near. We can keep cooperating and we should try to have the best possible relationship. You are still a European country, even if you’re not part of the EU.
I hope we all can make things work. Cheers.
I think the point is to make sure everyone else aware that Brexit failed, in case any other country starts thinking about copying it
That’s a very valid point.
I mean, yeah, it looks like it failed… are you going to do anything about it? Are you asking back in? You can’t take it back, can you?
Inevitably, in the coming years brits will be working towards “reducing red tape” to “improve trade with EU” which basically means re-joining the EU without actually having to say that’s what you’re doing.
So yeah, I think things are being done about it, and this sort of expression of public sentiment can only enhance that process.
Cheers mate, try to tell that to Sunak and co. They don’t care. Will of the people. Etc.
I like Brits, you’re very smart
As Brexit should have taught you: no, no we are not.
I hate the “will of the people” bollocks. They keep saying that about stopping the boats but I really don’t think that their solution of sending them to Rwanda is really the “will of the people”.
Not smart and easily manipulated you say? We Americans have entered the chat.
It’s has been truly bizarre watching that country commit to communal suicide even as an American. You out Murica’d America.
It’s such a weird question because it presumes we agree there was a consensus goal.
I’m not a Britt, but that guy deserves some jail time for vote manipulation and all the loss that both UK and EU had because of the political shitshow called the Brexit.
The majority of people who are paying the price for Brexit are the ones who didn’t vote for it…
The problem is that far too many people think there’s a way to fix it. By getting rid of every single immigrant, for example.
Give it a few years and conservatives will spin it into “Refugees voted us out of the EU!”
Who could have seen this coming except every single semi informed person.
Problem is: almost everyone thinks he is well informed while almost none ist.
I don’t know why you are being downvoted, it’s not like Dunning-Krueger doesn’t exist
Explains itself.
deleted by creator
Every member has a veto right and it is more important for small members than big countries like France and Germany.
Non EU Schengen states should not have a say in the EU signing treaties. If they want to, they should join the EU and thus be bound by any treaties the EU signs.
deleted by creator
There should at least be a path to a more democratic vote, where each country gets a certain amount of votes to equalise each other out.
Like the European parliament? The reason for the veto is because the EU is not a country nor are it’s people a single nation.
Smaller nations would not joined if it meant everything would get decided by a few large countries.
So that France can stop our trade deals? No thanks. We’d rather pay for priveliges than do that.
France usually doesn’t need the veto. They are big population wise and have a lot of influence being rich.
So we won’t join, and the UK won’t come back.
I don’t know who are you speaking for but it’s ok, if you don’t like the terms you don’t have to join. Just like it’s not fair to change the terms on those that have already joined.
Same for the UK. They caused enough drama all these years.
deleted by creator
The EU is not a federal state like the US or China or Russia. It’s a federation of sovereign states. Truly sovereign and de independent states not de jure like US states or Wales etc.
They can even leave if they want.
I also don’t understand how you can be against centralization of power and yet be against the veto, the best tool against centralization.
You don’t have to join. Where are you from anyways?
deleted by creator
Look, if France can cockblock many other countries because they’ll lose a little bit of money in the process while lying about it saying it’s because of “environmental issues” when really it’s just protectionism on their part, hurting relations between Europe and South America and preventing other countries in Europe from benefiting from that… that is a centralised form of power. The decision becomes theirs because it has to be unanimous. It’s also anti-democratic
Sounds convincing if you ignore veto not being a France power. It can be literally be used by any country in the EU. Unanimity is the opposite of centralization. Plain majority democracy is more centralized than unanimity.
I’m from the Schengen area… and I’ll still be against joining the EU, because EU regulations shows its more than just an economic union. Laws have to be changed and liberalism has to be turned up to 11, borders have to be opened completely and laws have to be changed, costing lots and lots of money and time, as well as taking away sovereignty by taking away autonomy.
Did you have to do much research? The treaties say that members states surrender competencies to the EU. The 00s treaties say it out loud that the EU is not just an economic organization. You didn’t discover any secret nor are you blowing anyone’s mind with your revelations.
I also do not like how liberal the EU is but you probably think liberal means left wing.
“But you can leave”… worked really well for the Brits, didn’t it? Again: no thanks.
I didn’t say that to convince you to join. I said that because that’s not possible in federal states such as the US or Russia.
I wish the EU would stop sharing Schengen with non members as well as stop having EEA members. These kind of agreements require alignment with EU law without EU representation thus eventually leading to bad relations.
