• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    53
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage thinks Brexit has failed.

    After months of lying to the British people, screwing over GB and becoming a meme, reactionary fuck Farage thinks he might have been wrong. But it gets better:

    The former Brexit Party leader told the BBC in May that the U.K. had not benefited economically from leaving the bloc, blaming the ruling Conservatives for having “let us down very, very badly.”

    So, no. He wasn’t wrong. How could he ever be wrong?! Like a wise man with a funny voice once said: It wasn’t me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      262 years ago

      If you click the link to the article about him saying it failed, he says:

      Asked if the U.K. would have been better off remaining in the EU Farage insisted he didn’t “think that for a moment.”

      So I think he’s sticking to his guns that leaving was better than staying. The situation sucks for everyone in the UK :(

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Well, he made so many contradicting promises. It would be impossible to implement his Brexit. Pretty sure tha was his plan. When he offered full control over our trade, laws and migration. While also claiming we could be like EEA nations.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        Bingo. It’s a typical populist tactic. Over promise, then blame it on the person who gets stuck implementing their shitty plan.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    892 years ago

    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…

    • oce 🐆
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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 .

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      232 years ago

      UK public is too divided to revolt in any way. They’re perpetually on the back foot reacting to “scandals”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      382 years ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 years ago

        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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          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.

    • platysalty
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      Imagine if that actually happens within the next few years.

      Then we have another call for brexit in another fifteen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      292 years ago

      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.

      • jecxjo
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        I kind of wonder if the UK completely broke up and each country joined it might happen faster.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        16
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            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)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              32 years ago

              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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            7
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              62 years ago

              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…

          • HobbitFoot
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Democracy is a lie. It cannot work under conservatism. It does not work within a capitalist economy. It does not work in a vertical hierarchy. People do not function as people in a vertical hierarchy. Of course Brexit failed, just like the British Empire, and just like every single political entity ever has and will fail. Even if they seem to succeed for a while, they will always fail, and they will always fail humanity.

    Our socioeconomic structures are not so different from any other animal’s. Though the answer is right there in front of us, our emotionally manipulated, fearful existences have trapped us in these ridiculous concepts and arguments.

    If we want people to be human and not scared and trapped animals, we have to take away the thing that keeps us animalistic, which is the need to lean on something “greater” than ourselves.

    All we currently seem to be are clusters of endless daddy issues; religion, nationalism, success, wealth, value: hierarchies of daddy issues.

  • Not your sycophant
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -72 years ago

    So the UK should become part of the EU again. BUT the EU need to take away some veto rights, namely from France, Italy and even Germany.

    For instance, France has been cockblocking a trade agreement with South America, citing “environmental concerns”. Fact is it would introduce competition against some of Frances industries - effectively screwing European growth.

    Maybe Schengen countries should step in to mediate the situation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      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.

      • Not your sycophant
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -42 years ago

        Every member has a veto right and it is more important for small members than big countries like France and Germany.

        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.

        If they want to, they should join the EU and thus be bound by any treaties the EU signs.

        So that France can stop our trade deals? No thanks. We’d rather pay for priveliges than do that. So we won’t join, and the UK won’t come back.

        Simple as.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          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.

          • Not your sycophant
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -12 years ago

            And you fail to see the problem. When the French powers game the system for their own selfish needs, why even join? It reminds way to much about how the US does politics and probably proves once more that giant federations are inherently problematic due to centralisation of power.

            Other giant federations; the US, China, Russia.

            “But the EU is not a federation, it’s an union”.

            That line loses meaning by each passing year. So yeah, me and my family will still be against joining the EU. It’s just way to big of a risk.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              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?

              • Not your sycophant
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -12 years ago

                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.

                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.

                “But you can leave”… worked really well for the Brits, didn’t it? Again: no thanks.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    77
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    What was it actually supposed to accomplish? I mean, I’m an American who mostly followed the whole thing via UK chat and panel shows so I’m sure I missed a ton of detail, but I don’t remember there being an over-arching goal, just a lot of little nebulous promises like somehow generating an extra 350 million a week for the NHS, but with no actual plan for how any of that was actually going to happen. It seemed like the whole point was to let xenophobic shit disturbers flick the Vs at Europe, and the vague notion that once Brexit was done it’d finally be open season on “those bloody immigrants.”

    • WatTyler
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1772 years ago

      OK, so…

      Political necessity?

      The reason why it happened is that the Conservative Party government was wildly unpopular in 2013-2014 with all of the indications being that Ed Miliband’s Labour Party were going to storm the Conservatives at the 2015 General Election. Furthermore, ever since the Thatcher governments of the 1980s, the Conservatives were weakened by the ‘Eurosceptic’ branch of their party often being vocal, disruptive, difficult to work with, and harming the ‘Not the Nasty Party’ narrative Conservative Party Central HQ (CCHQ) had often tried to push in the 90s and the 00s.

      Offering a referendum on the European Union therefore had two advantages:

      • It was a substantial, concrete policy idea that would be easy to implement and massively popular with a certain portion of the populace, not massively unpopular with the other portions, and which Labour would never offer.
      • By having a popular ‘stamp of approval’ on the European Union, CCHQ believed it would permanently weaken and weaken the difficult Eurosceptic portion of their party.

      This is of course on the assumption that the referendum passed. And never let anyone tell you otherwise, David Cameron (then-PM) and George Osbourne (then-Chancellor; finance secretary and 2nd most important cabinet member) absolutely would not have proposed the referendum if they believed it had any chance of failing.

      Furthermore, they assumed they’d be out of government and the referendum would never see the light of day. To the arrogant, and out-of-touch Cameron and Osbourne the policy was all upside.

      As it happens, for a variety of reasons, the Conservatives actually won the 2015 General Election with a majority (whereas they were in a coalition before). And, as promised, a referendum was planned.

      Ideological basis

      For a substantial period of time (late 18th-century to mid-20th century), Britain was unquestionably the most powerful empire in the world. This is within living memory. The culture and expectation of Britain being a 1st rate world power is something that has only begun to fade within the past couple of generations. But a significant number of older people (people who vote) were raised and educated with the fair understanding that Britain was a superpower. For example, all of my grandparents and most of great Uncles and Aunts were being educated at a time when Britain still held all of India and most of Africa.

      Since the Second World War, Britain’s place in the world has unquestionably declined. We no longer have the Empire. We racked up tremendous amounts of debt to the United States. For periods in the 1970s, Britain was widely considered the ‘sick man’ of Europe. The feel good moments of the 1990s and Cool Britannia were quickly doused by the War in Iraq, where Tony Blair was universally seen as a puppet of the Bush administration.

      Since the 1980s in-particular, life has changed for many in the United Kingdom beyond recognition. Trade unions were razed. Income disparity has skyrocketed. Town centres have become neglected. Internal tourism has been decimated. Cities like Leicester started becoming majority-minority. 2008 and the Great Recession tumbled the New Labour government and brought in a Conservative government. All parties at the 2010 general election bought into the consensus that the only way the country would survive would be to gut public sector spending. Healthcare would worsen. Education would worsen. Adult social care would worsen. Local government services would worsen.

      A very large number of people came to the rational conclusion that, at least for them, their lives had gotten worse and would continue to get worse. But how does one consolidate this very clear observation with:

      • The Queen
      • Rule Britannia
      • Two World Wars; One World Cup
      • Largest empire ever known to man
      • The Second World War in-general, and the Battle of Britain in-particular

      A lot of the media attempted to bridge this issue with a scapegoat: the European Union.

      Euroscepticism

      Euroscepticism first found a voice with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. She often disagreed with a significant number of the leaders on the continent and didn’t appreciate being limited in how she could act.

      Thoughout the 1990s and the 2000s, the whole media knew they could gather attention by blaming various problems on the European Union. A notable young journalist, Boris Johnson, was particularly renowned for the ludicrous and inaccurate stories he wrote on European Union directives.

      The European Union was an outstanding scapegoat:

      • It was ‘foreign’
      • It was ‘undemocratic’
      • It was ‘bureaucratic’

      It had something for everyone. Before the result of the referendum, you’d never hear anyone defend the EU. It was seen by most of its defenders as a necessary evil in a world we could no longer rule, and isn’t it nice you don’t need a visa to go to Spain? No positive case was ever put forward by anyone. There was little point to. There was never any risk of us leaving.

      Now, the European Union is an imperfect project. However, thanks to the economic and cultural connections brought about by the EU, Western Europe is at the lowest risk of internal armed conflict in millennia of history. Europeans are more familiar with one another than they’ve ever been before. Smaller states such as Ireland remain independent and sovereign but now have defenders, and allies, and representatives that allow them to assert themselves globally.

      These arguments hold much less weight on an island nation, that hasn’t known armed conflict within its borders since the Glorious Revolution (excluding Ireland), who within living memory had the power and the influence to dominate half the globe.

      No one appreciated the EU until it was already too late. And all of the rich newspaper editors who made bank on peddling lies about this foreign government to a lost, and disaffected public thought it’d be consequence free.

      Conclusion

      What was it supposed to accomplish? Nothing. The referendum was never supposed to happen, and if it did, it was never meant to pass. No one with any power or influence had any idea on what to do. What Brexit would look like. What some fringe politicians had promised was an emotional return to self-government, wealth, power, influence, independence. A turning back of the clock.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        132 years ago

        What some fringe politicians had promised was an emotional return to self-government, wealth, power, influence, independence.

        And what they delivered instead was essentially Britain becoming a de-facto US-client state.

        Gee, it’s almost as if you can’t trust right-wingers these days.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        This is a great post but I would say that there were some people who were absolutely dedicated to achieving Brexit and in large part their participation can be explained by the proposed financial transaction tax.

        The idea that a supra-national entity might be able to impose a tax that could be difficult to mitigate was absolutely intolerable to various millionaires and billionaires e.g. The Telegraph owning Barclay Brothers. Any downsides from the resulting chaos, which in any case would only affect the working and lower middle classes, would be more than offset by the ability to bank offshore and retain their profits untaxed.

        • WatTyler
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          You’re absolutely correct and if there’s one thing I wish I included it would’ve been a ‘charitable’ description of the possibilities of Brexit. The reason why it wasn’t included is that I think the actual motivations of the arch-Brexiteers within parliament and the media aren’t a contributing factor to why Brexit happened. They certainly had a vision for a potential Brexit but I don’t think that played any role in the decision to hold a referendum, and I believe only a very small subset of the 52% voted Leave did so because they shared the ‘Singapore with worse weather’ vision of the Brexit elite.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Yes, I agree. I just wanted to point out that Brexit wouldn’t have happened without some fairly serious money being put behind it (UKIP’s funding had to come from somewhere and there were not one but two pro-Brexit campaigns Vote Leave and LeaveEU) and that money had to spent with a purpose.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        332 years ago

        Excellent post. If there is an equivalent of /r/bestof this would be worthy. It is super telling that rather than stick around and deal with the ramifications of the referendum, Cameron immediately resigned. Another point of context is that Cameron had gambled his political life previously on a different referendum (Scottish Independence) and that one worked out fine, so what is the harm in trying that gambit one more time?

        • WatTyler
          link
          fedilink
          English
          162 years ago

          Wow, thank you :) that’s an amazing compliment. Brexit has the dangerous combination of tremendous emotional investment and piquing my interest in domestic politics. Hence the rant 😂

      • MrSangrief
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        As a “foreigner” from the continent, thank you so much for taking the time to so clearly summarise this complex situation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago
      • The campaign talked of frictionless trade deals with Europe, but while it looked good on paper the small print came littered with problems that made trade slightly harder than it had been as a member. The new customs processes has seen haulers transporting goods needing to fill out extra paperwork while new infrastructure has been needed to deal with queues.

      • The UK adopted a new points based immigration system, a promise of the Vote Leave campaign, in January 2021. This removed the right for EU workers to come to the UK without a visa and implemented the target to cut immigration to the tens of thousands. The target does appear unlikely, given the number of residence visas issued was higher in the year ending June 2022 than in any year since records began - with 1.2 million issued. Meanwhile, Brexit has created a shortage of 330,000 workers in UK.

      • Kichae
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        This is some of the rhetoric the Leave campaign used to garner votes, but none of it is what it was supposed to accomplish.

        The architects of Brexit were proponents of William Reese-Mogg’s ideology of the Sovereign Individual, which basically states that the wealthy should be above the law and outside the pervue of the state. It also calls for the collapse of democracy, via the withholding of the rich’s wealth from the state via tax immunity.

        It’s still unclear whether the Sovereign Individualists will succeed in their goals, but they haven’t failed yet, and Brexit was a necessity hurdle on their journey.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        I watched a DW video about some woman who voted for Brexit running a shellfish farm and with all the new regulations she’s dealing with very short shelf life seafood that has to get to the EU with a bunch more red tape. She is losing money and might have to sell her side business because of all the excessive fees she now has to pay to get her seafood out of the country. Totally a leopards ate my face party member.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      362 years ago

      Remain “More of the same but we will try make it better”

      Brexit “the current situation is shit and everyone’s giving you the same old arguments again don’t trust them. If you vote Brexit we can have all your dreams come true”

      Remain was one option. Brexit was about 5 different options depending on who was pushing it. So Brexit offered a lot more options in a sort of Schrodinger’s paradox.

      Basically what was being offered was more freedom to make our own choices and not have the EU pulling us down. Not having to have the stupid EU rules and not having to pay the stupid EU money, we could keep all our fish and be rich. It offered power, freedom, growth, wealth. (In reality we had great veto powers, we could help form rules, the EU membership was a bargain, who gives a fuck about fish).

      Also Boris Johnson is a massive [can we swear here?]. And would sell his own children for his own personal gain, but for some reason is loved by the British, seen it as a way to make a name for himself by going against the grain and pushing for something no logical person would vote for. When that unexpectedly came true he hid in a fridge and ran away for a few months (actually true).

      It was an absolute shower and just shows how uneducated the British public is. It’s their own God damn fault all the info was out there, someone just said what they wanted to hear and they believed it.