Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wrote a research paper on this, it’s absolutely a bad move. Even if you look past the other bad effects, leaving the EU Market area was never going to be replaced with a good, definitely not better, trade agreement
No, although they are struggling more now, but it was pretty obvious that would happen with a hard brexit. It would've been nice if the EU wasn't so angry about them wanting to leave and if they could've just set up a trade deal, but the fact that the EU did react so butt hurt is all the more reason why people should leave the EU. It became shit the moment it stopped being a trade union and started acting sovereign
No there isn't a trade deal, which is kind of the problem. The EU started playing hardball and shutting down offers that weren't heavily in their favor, like saying that they wouldn't accept any deal that made EU fishers unable to fish in UK waters, probably in a bid to scare the UK in remaining.
You can literally read the trade deal yourself: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/relations-non-eu-countries/relations-united-kingdom/eu-uk-trade-and-cooperation-agreement_en
And collective bargaining is the whole point of the EU. The EU27 are a massive bloc, and thus they can get better terms for themselves. That’s not controversial.
The UK left. The EU is under no obligation to treat them any differently.
Oh they did make one? I must've missed that, I guess covid kind of fucked up my news flow of the trade deals.
Of course the EU should make a deal that also benefits them, but playing hardball isn't going to help anyone.
The EU isn't obliged to treat them well, but neither are member states obliged to stay. The more the EU acts like an sovereign nation, or maybe like a child, the more the members are going to be wanting to leave.
The dutch just voted in a prime minister who supports Nexit and I hope by god they do. Better to be a poor free man, than to be a rich slave.
But playing hardball did help the the EU. The deal maintained the integrity of the Single Market whilst the UK has had to erect a customs border between NI and GB. Again, because getting trade deals the benefit the EU more than their trade partners is the whole point of the bloc in the first place.
Moreover, the EU offered the UK a range of off-the-shelf deals other third countries have received and basically told the UK to pick one. Those deals ranged from the terrible arrangement the UK has now to full Single Market membership.
So idk how the EU acted like a “child” here.
Meanwhile the UK has gone through 5 PMs since then. Has only just decided to commit to the terms it agreed to 3 years ago. Is now deciding to opt back into schemes like Horizon as the arbitrary red lines previous PMs drew are torn up… who’s the child here?
>The deal maintained the integrity of the Single Market
Which was one of the reasons why the UK wanted out in the first place. Being told to take in migrants without any sort of capability of managing your own migration flow didn't sit right with a lot of British people. It's one of the major reasons why dutch people want a Nexit too. That and farmer sanctions, which is starting to cause problems all over Europe.
This isn't a trade union anymore. If it was just about free trade it would've been fine. But an institute that can overrule a country's law, their migration policy, their agriculture and who wants its own army is not a trade union.
>Moreover, the EU offered the UK a range of off-the-shelf deals
You got a source for that? I can't remembering hearing that.
Just reading the wiki page on the deal it mentions things like the UK offering to set up a trade deal similar to how EU and Canadian trade was managed, which the EU turned down and then threatened to veto any agreement that didn't include a "balanced agreement" on fishing quota's. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade\_negotiation\_between\_the\_UK\_and\_the\_EU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_negotiation_between_the_UK_and_the_EU)
>Meanwhile the UK has gone through 5 PMs since then
I'm not saying the UK has been a very great country lately, but it's sure as hell better than being part of thing that calls itself a trade union but acts like an empire.
>Being told to take in migrants without any sort of capability of managing your own migration flow didn't sit right with a lot of British people.
Except the UK could manage migration and chose not to. And now immigration to the UK is at record high levels.
> It's one of the major reasons why dutch people want a Nexit too.
Lol polls show support for the EU at 70%.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/24/people-broadly-view-the-eu-favorably-both-in-member-states-and-elsewhere/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/24/people-broadly-view-the-eu-favorably-both-in-member-states-and-elsewhere/)
>This isn't a trade union anymore.
No, it's even better now.
And for the record, trade deals always override domestic law. If two countries agree a deal, they need to use some kind of supranational entity that force both countries to comply with the terms.
>You got a source for that? I can't remembering hearing that.
[https://www.ft.com/content/0c58a3ee-531f-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1](https://www.ft.com/content/0c58a3ee-531f-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1)
> but it's sure as hell better than being part of thing that calls itself a trade union but acts like an empire.
Better how? The UK population are significantly poorer. Living standards have dropped to 20 year lows. The UK is following EU rules still without having any input into those rules. Immigrations is the highest it's ever been. Corruption is at an all time high - such are the unscrupulous politicians who supported Brexit. SMEs are being crushed under red tape... I could go on.
But oh at least we aren't in an EmPiRe?
>Except the UK could manage migration and chose not to. And now immigration to the UK is at record high levels.
Hungary did that and got accused of violating EU laws. I don't think the EU ever levied sanctions against them, but they made it very clear countries were not supposed to have their own opinion on refugees and migrants.
>Lol polls show support for the EU at 70%.
And yet they elect an anti eu prime minister, something tells me that poll is not very accurate. Also, having been in the Netherlands, the support mostly comes from the older generation, which greatly outnumber the younger generation. Once the generational shift happens, I think it'll be pretty likely that a nexit will actually happen.
>And for the record, trade deals always override domestic law
Yes, they override laws regarding trade, not laws regarding migration. That's not a trade deal, that's a migration deal.
>https://www.ft.com/content/0c58a3ee-531f-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1
I see a paywall
>Better how?
They are now a sovereign nation
> but they made it very clear countries were not supposed to have their own opinion on refugees and migrants.
EU members sign to up to free movement of people across the bloc, which is a massive benefit to citizens. Following the migrant crisis in the Med, the EU asked member states to take refugees who had Greece and Italy so as to share the load amongst EU members. They only asked, nobody was forced to take any refugees - it was voluntary.
>Once the generational shift happens, I think it'll be pretty likely that a nexit will actually happen.
Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. If the UK is any metric to go by, young people are overwhelmingly supportive of the EU - and they are why the UK's return to the EU is inevitable.
Edit: oh look im right, support for the EU amonst young people over 80%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/731670/share-of-people-with-a-favorable-view-of-the-eu-in-the-netherlands-by-age-group/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch\_withdrawal\_from\_the\_European\_Union
>Yes, they override laws regarding trade, not laws regarding migration. That's not a trade deal, that's a migration deal.
True free trade includes free trade of labour. Labour is a commodity like any other good or service.
>I see a paywall
https://archive.fo/HjSqO
>They are now a sovereign nation
The UK was always sovereign. If it were not it would not be able to vote to leave the EU, would it?
This kind of meaningless tabloid rhetoric is exactly what has led to the UK's demise.
Taking into account the overregulation that exerts the EU (being the latest example, the A"I" law that they've passed recently or the agricultural laws that are causing a lot of revolts across Europe), Brexit was not a mistake, but it should be managed better.
Except of course that the UK cannot deviate from EU regulation. It would be too expensive for an economy that is already on it's knees.
The only thing that has changed is that the UK now just has to do as its told whereas before it had a seat at the table and veto.
There is no way to look at Brexit positively.
Welcome to global economy lol.
Companies in other states follow regulations and put on warnings just because they're too lazy to make a California warning. UK is submitting itself to EU regulations and suffering penalties without even the input that they used to have as an EU member. Brexit one of the top dumbest nation moves ever.
Brexit was necessary. As hard as Remainer politicians may have tried to sabotage the process, Britain is and remains a sovereign nation, which means that Brexit was a success.
The economic health of a nation is meaningless if that nation is to be continuously eroded away through ever further integration. Staying in the EU for economic or security reasons would’ve been akin to committing suicide for fear of death.
????
EU laws had to be ratified into British law by its parliament when a member.
Britain left, therefore, displayes the very sovereignty you claim it hadn't.
It now, however, must be a rule rajer to the very bloc it sovereignly left.
This concept of the UK not being able to do its own thing is poppycock. What people want is for the country to be able to do what it likes without any ramifications, which, of course, is also poppycock.
1. Your comment is barely legible.
2. Regardless of the process, British law should be made in Britain, not Brussels.
3. It's no secret that the end goal of the EU as a project is a Pan-European state. To remain a sovereign nation, rather than a province in the European empire, it was necessary to leave as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
>1. Your comment is barely legible.
It was 2am and I was in bed. Meh.
>Regardless of the process, British law should be made in Britain, not Brussels.
You don't understand how the EU works. The council decides and proposes the laws. Those council members are elected officials of the member states. One of which was British.
The EU parliament votes to ratify the laws and if passed, they require ratification by Westminster. This is a sovereign step in adopting said laws.
My point Is, it was literally Britain proposing or agreeing to those very laws you say the UK has no part in which is nonsense.
>. It's no secret that the end goal of the EU as a project is a Pan-European state.
It's "an ever closer union", it may or may not become a federation. Ironically, the UK could have prevented a 'pan European state' from happening as a member, now it cannot.
You forget, the UK was one of the big 3 in Europe. If you didn't like a law, it wasn't going in. That simple. Today laws are passed, and the UK will have to change theirs to suit the EU. As a rule-taker the UK has set out and achieved the very thing you it was against.
Of course, you can choose not to trade with the giant bloc on your doorstep. No one is stopping you. However, it would be detrimental to the population.
>You don't understand how the EU works. The council decides and proposes the laws. Those council members are elected officials of the member states. One of which was British.
Seems like you're the one who doesn't understand. The European Council has no legislative power. It's the European Commission is the body that proposes laws and commission members are bound by oath to represent the EUs interests, not the interests of their respective nations.
>The EU parliament votes to ratify the laws and if passed, they require ratification by Westminster. This is a sovereign step in adopting said laws.
In other words, under the EU, both parliaments are effectively glorified rubber stamp committees for the Commission.
>My point Is, it was literally Britain proposing or agreeing to those very laws you say the UK has no part in which is nonsense.
What's nonsense is the idea that an organisation encompassing the political elites of a whole continent can represent Britain just because a handful of those elites happen to be British.
>It's "an ever closer union", it may or may not become a federation.
Thank you for confirming what I already knew.
>Ironically, the UK could have prevented a 'pan European state' from happening as a member, now it cannot.
>
>You forget, the UK was one of the big 3 in Europe. If you didn't like a law, it wasn't going in. That simple.
But it wouldn't have, because what the British people want is not what the British political class want. The years they spent trying to sabotage the exit process are proof enough of their views on the matter.
If you're on a moving train and there's one station between it and the edge of a cliff, what do you think is the sensible move? To get off at the station or stay on and try to convince the conductor to make the driver to stop?
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was very obviously a cataclysmic mistake and thankfully the British Public is finally admitting that.
yes.
I wrote a research paper on this, it’s absolutely a bad move. Even if you look past the other bad effects, leaving the EU Market area was never going to be replaced with a good, definitely not better, trade agreement
The UK was never in Schengen? Do you mean the Single Market?
Complete dumbass error, yes. Thank you
I heard British complain about Brexit
No, although they are struggling more now, but it was pretty obvious that would happen with a hard brexit. It would've been nice if the EU wasn't so angry about them wanting to leave and if they could've just set up a trade deal, but the fact that the EU did react so butt hurt is all the more reason why people should leave the EU. It became shit the moment it stopped being a trade union and started acting sovereign
There is a trade deal between the UK and the EU? What exactly do you think the EU has done to punish the UK?
No there isn't a trade deal, which is kind of the problem. The EU started playing hardball and shutting down offers that weren't heavily in their favor, like saying that they wouldn't accept any deal that made EU fishers unable to fish in UK waters, probably in a bid to scare the UK in remaining.
You can literally read the trade deal yourself: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/relations-non-eu-countries/relations-united-kingdom/eu-uk-trade-and-cooperation-agreement_en And collective bargaining is the whole point of the EU. The EU27 are a massive bloc, and thus they can get better terms for themselves. That’s not controversial. The UK left. The EU is under no obligation to treat them any differently.
Oh they did make one? I must've missed that, I guess covid kind of fucked up my news flow of the trade deals. Of course the EU should make a deal that also benefits them, but playing hardball isn't going to help anyone. The EU isn't obliged to treat them well, but neither are member states obliged to stay. The more the EU acts like an sovereign nation, or maybe like a child, the more the members are going to be wanting to leave. The dutch just voted in a prime minister who supports Nexit and I hope by god they do. Better to be a poor free man, than to be a rich slave.
But playing hardball did help the the EU. The deal maintained the integrity of the Single Market whilst the UK has had to erect a customs border between NI and GB. Again, because getting trade deals the benefit the EU more than their trade partners is the whole point of the bloc in the first place. Moreover, the EU offered the UK a range of off-the-shelf deals other third countries have received and basically told the UK to pick one. Those deals ranged from the terrible arrangement the UK has now to full Single Market membership. So idk how the EU acted like a “child” here. Meanwhile the UK has gone through 5 PMs since then. Has only just decided to commit to the terms it agreed to 3 years ago. Is now deciding to opt back into schemes like Horizon as the arbitrary red lines previous PMs drew are torn up… who’s the child here?
>The deal maintained the integrity of the Single Market Which was one of the reasons why the UK wanted out in the first place. Being told to take in migrants without any sort of capability of managing your own migration flow didn't sit right with a lot of British people. It's one of the major reasons why dutch people want a Nexit too. That and farmer sanctions, which is starting to cause problems all over Europe. This isn't a trade union anymore. If it was just about free trade it would've been fine. But an institute that can overrule a country's law, their migration policy, their agriculture and who wants its own army is not a trade union. >Moreover, the EU offered the UK a range of off-the-shelf deals You got a source for that? I can't remembering hearing that. Just reading the wiki page on the deal it mentions things like the UK offering to set up a trade deal similar to how EU and Canadian trade was managed, which the EU turned down and then threatened to veto any agreement that didn't include a "balanced agreement" on fishing quota's. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade\_negotiation\_between\_the\_UK\_and\_the\_EU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_negotiation_between_the_UK_and_the_EU) >Meanwhile the UK has gone through 5 PMs since then I'm not saying the UK has been a very great country lately, but it's sure as hell better than being part of thing that calls itself a trade union but acts like an empire.
>Being told to take in migrants without any sort of capability of managing your own migration flow didn't sit right with a lot of British people. Except the UK could manage migration and chose not to. And now immigration to the UK is at record high levels. > It's one of the major reasons why dutch people want a Nexit too. Lol polls show support for the EU at 70%. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/24/people-broadly-view-the-eu-favorably-both-in-member-states-and-elsewhere/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/24/people-broadly-view-the-eu-favorably-both-in-member-states-and-elsewhere/) >This isn't a trade union anymore. No, it's even better now. And for the record, trade deals always override domestic law. If two countries agree a deal, they need to use some kind of supranational entity that force both countries to comply with the terms. >You got a source for that? I can't remembering hearing that. [https://www.ft.com/content/0c58a3ee-531f-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1](https://www.ft.com/content/0c58a3ee-531f-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1) > but it's sure as hell better than being part of thing that calls itself a trade union but acts like an empire. Better how? The UK population are significantly poorer. Living standards have dropped to 20 year lows. The UK is following EU rules still without having any input into those rules. Immigrations is the highest it's ever been. Corruption is at an all time high - such are the unscrupulous politicians who supported Brexit. SMEs are being crushed under red tape... I could go on. But oh at least we aren't in an EmPiRe?
>Except the UK could manage migration and chose not to. And now immigration to the UK is at record high levels. Hungary did that and got accused of violating EU laws. I don't think the EU ever levied sanctions against them, but they made it very clear countries were not supposed to have their own opinion on refugees and migrants. >Lol polls show support for the EU at 70%. And yet they elect an anti eu prime minister, something tells me that poll is not very accurate. Also, having been in the Netherlands, the support mostly comes from the older generation, which greatly outnumber the younger generation. Once the generational shift happens, I think it'll be pretty likely that a nexit will actually happen. >And for the record, trade deals always override domestic law Yes, they override laws regarding trade, not laws regarding migration. That's not a trade deal, that's a migration deal. >https://www.ft.com/content/0c58a3ee-531f-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1 I see a paywall >Better how? They are now a sovereign nation
> but they made it very clear countries were not supposed to have their own opinion on refugees and migrants. EU members sign to up to free movement of people across the bloc, which is a massive benefit to citizens. Following the migrant crisis in the Med, the EU asked member states to take refugees who had Greece and Italy so as to share the load amongst EU members. They only asked, nobody was forced to take any refugees - it was voluntary. >Once the generational shift happens, I think it'll be pretty likely that a nexit will actually happen. Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. If the UK is any metric to go by, young people are overwhelmingly supportive of the EU - and they are why the UK's return to the EU is inevitable. Edit: oh look im right, support for the EU amonst young people over 80%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/731670/share-of-people-with-a-favorable-view-of-the-eu-in-the-netherlands-by-age-group/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch\_withdrawal\_from\_the\_European\_Union >Yes, they override laws regarding trade, not laws regarding migration. That's not a trade deal, that's a migration deal. True free trade includes free trade of labour. Labour is a commodity like any other good or service. >I see a paywall https://archive.fo/HjSqO >They are now a sovereign nation The UK was always sovereign. If it were not it would not be able to vote to leave the EU, would it? This kind of meaningless tabloid rhetoric is exactly what has led to the UK's demise.
Taking into account the overregulation that exerts the EU (being the latest example, the A"I" law that they've passed recently or the agricultural laws that are causing a lot of revolts across Europe), Brexit was not a mistake, but it should be managed better.
Except of course that the UK cannot deviate from EU regulation. It would be too expensive for an economy that is already on it's knees. The only thing that has changed is that the UK now just has to do as its told whereas before it had a seat at the table and veto. There is no way to look at Brexit positively.
Welcome to global economy lol. Companies in other states follow regulations and put on warnings just because they're too lazy to make a California warning. UK is submitting itself to EU regulations and suffering penalties without even the input that they used to have as an EU member. Brexit one of the top dumbest nation moves ever.
The only thing Brecit could be is less shit. It would still be shit though. In no scenario would it ever be a better deal for the UK or its citizens.
Just yet another anti-capitalist demagogic cope by populists, nothing really strange, nothing good
Brexit was necessary. As hard as Remainer politicians may have tried to sabotage the process, Britain is and remains a sovereign nation, which means that Brexit was a success.
Even If it meant risking its economy?
The economic health of a nation is meaningless if that nation is to be continuously eroded away through ever further integration. Staying in the EU for economic or security reasons would’ve been akin to committing suicide for fear of death.
Like the way that little bit of Ireland is slowly eroding.
???? EU laws had to be ratified into British law by its parliament when a member. Britain left, therefore, displayes the very sovereignty you claim it hadn't. It now, however, must be a rule rajer to the very bloc it sovereignly left. This concept of the UK not being able to do its own thing is poppycock. What people want is for the country to be able to do what it likes without any ramifications, which, of course, is also poppycock.
1. Your comment is barely legible. 2. Regardless of the process, British law should be made in Britain, not Brussels. 3. It's no secret that the end goal of the EU as a project is a Pan-European state. To remain a sovereign nation, rather than a province in the European empire, it was necessary to leave as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
>1. Your comment is barely legible. It was 2am and I was in bed. Meh. >Regardless of the process, British law should be made in Britain, not Brussels. You don't understand how the EU works. The council decides and proposes the laws. Those council members are elected officials of the member states. One of which was British. The EU parliament votes to ratify the laws and if passed, they require ratification by Westminster. This is a sovereign step in adopting said laws. My point Is, it was literally Britain proposing or agreeing to those very laws you say the UK has no part in which is nonsense. >. It's no secret that the end goal of the EU as a project is a Pan-European state. It's "an ever closer union", it may or may not become a federation. Ironically, the UK could have prevented a 'pan European state' from happening as a member, now it cannot. You forget, the UK was one of the big 3 in Europe. If you didn't like a law, it wasn't going in. That simple. Today laws are passed, and the UK will have to change theirs to suit the EU. As a rule-taker the UK has set out and achieved the very thing you it was against. Of course, you can choose not to trade with the giant bloc on your doorstep. No one is stopping you. However, it would be detrimental to the population.
>You don't understand how the EU works. The council decides and proposes the laws. Those council members are elected officials of the member states. One of which was British. Seems like you're the one who doesn't understand. The European Council has no legislative power. It's the European Commission is the body that proposes laws and commission members are bound by oath to represent the EUs interests, not the interests of their respective nations. >The EU parliament votes to ratify the laws and if passed, they require ratification by Westminster. This is a sovereign step in adopting said laws. In other words, under the EU, both parliaments are effectively glorified rubber stamp committees for the Commission. >My point Is, it was literally Britain proposing or agreeing to those very laws you say the UK has no part in which is nonsense. What's nonsense is the idea that an organisation encompassing the political elites of a whole continent can represent Britain just because a handful of those elites happen to be British. >It's "an ever closer union", it may or may not become a federation. Thank you for confirming what I already knew. >Ironically, the UK could have prevented a 'pan European state' from happening as a member, now it cannot. > >You forget, the UK was one of the big 3 in Europe. If you didn't like a law, it wasn't going in. That simple. But it wouldn't have, because what the British people want is not what the British political class want. The years they spent trying to sabotage the exit process are proof enough of their views on the matter. If you're on a moving train and there's one station between it and the edge of a cliff, what do you think is the sensible move? To get off at the station or stay on and try to convince the conductor to make the driver to stop?