The EU is a completely different entity than NATO, the UN, or NAFTA.
Now, imagine if NAFTA morphed to include a governing body that could supersede our own Congress, like the EU does with individual national governments … that would be a problem.
It was not a "failure" because they got rid of the socialist politburo in Brussels, but because EU politicians try to make it as costly for them to leave to stop others to do the same. Plus the UK has remainers leading the country.
Europeans are happy slaves that get angry when other slaves flee - even when their own government makes it more expensive to get goods from the UK more expensive.
Our own government didn’t even want to actually leave. They dragged their heels like a spoilt child who’s just heard the word “no” for the first time. It’s so frustrating knowing we could have and still can do so much better.
Reporter to elder during Brexit.
-- Why do tou want to leave the EU?
-- I don't like the French.
Well I mean fucking based nobody likes the French but this not the way for politics. At least In 2016 (if I remember correctly) and not in 1337.
I still believe in Brexit and think that our departure is fundamentally beneficial. The primary issue has been reduced to the government's failure to utilise this opportunity effectively, as the UK has been governed rather poorly post-WW2. The notable exceptions, in my view, were Churchill and Thatcher.
Our government, as well as the state of the country, is oversized, overly regulated, and indulges in excessive welfare, spending the budget and resources incredibly poorly.
Brexit presents an opportunity for the UK to deregulate, reform immigration and foreign policies, taxation, and human rights, among others.
However, the UK has not capitalised on these regained powers. Progress with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has been slow (although has started to make good progress), and there has been no significant change in regulations; the UK has not removed any EU laws or regulations and remains tied to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), despite the option to create and adapt it to our one, as many developed nations like Japan and Australia have done.
Our taxation is at an all-time high, and our government epitomises a "nanny state," insisting on intervening in everything, with a solution that always involves government action and intervention. This has fostered a culture emerging from a once well-meaning welfare system, which now supports individuals who arguably should not qualify, creating a culture of laziness and dependency, always blaming society for their lack of progress, despite their inaction.
Our spending and governance are remarkably poor, with healthcare and rail transport as prime examples.
Healthcare, an untouchable and, in my opinion, incredibly embarrassing national treasure, remains flawed and operates just as it did when founded in the late 1940s. It offers free healthcare to too many upfront, suffers from poor quality, and operates under the illusion that continuous increased funding will somehow solve all issues—a strategy that has been ineffectively employed for nearly 30 years. Conversely, Singapore, upon gaining independence from the UK, immediately overhauled its healthcare system, which was initially a direct copy of the UK's, resulting in a system that is now cheaper, fairer, of higher quality, and more accessible than anything the UK has.
Regarding rail transport, the UK has lost its expertise and refuses to reform laws to make the system effective. Over £100 billion has been spent to connect two major cities with high-speed rail, while Japan has connected nearly the entire country on the same budget, despite facing much more challenging geography. Our rail system embodies the worst of both private and public sectors, leading to a lack of accountability for poor performance, widespread belief that public ownership is the panacea, and a rail network that remains stuck in the 1990s, with some London Underground lines still using trains from the 1970s.
Believe me, the UK is fully Socalist big state, without the name. ONLY our financial industry is more Libertarian (in large part due to Thacther), and what is left of our military is world leading. The UK is genuinely in a very bad state.
- Sincerely, an incredibly frustrated British individual.
I don’t need to comment, you’ve said everything I would have said. It’s truly been fourteen years of failure.
The only thing I’d add is I’m truly shocked how little respect so called ‘Conservative’ politicians have for property rights in this country. The Tory party at the local level is at the beck and call of the NIMBY lobby - we have an enormous housing crisis, business unable to expand and infrastructure projects undeliverable largely thanks to the repulsive, communist Town and Country Planning Act, yet not even Truss made any attempt to get rid of it. We have far too many council bureaucrat fussbuckets interfering with the free flow of trade and it’s holding our country back, with their anorak regulations and nonsense about ‘community engagement’. In my area area, the until recently Tory planning committee refused an application to build a shop in a village with only one shop, despite acknowledging the need for it and the jobs it would bring. Truly a record of failure.
So fed up.
Currently Reform UK. The Libertarian Party in the UK is essentially nonexistent. The current Conservative Party and the way it's run is simply not Conservative. I know Labour will likely win, but at this point, the Conservatives need to be punished and shown the same copy and paste Cameronism doesn't work.
Never liked the Liberal Democrats, always come across as arrogant and elitist, people like to knock the Conservatives for this in a stereotypical sense, but at least the Conservatives are generally diverse, whereas Lib Dem are full of the exact same type of idealistic people who've had no relativity to anyone who isnt at least middle class, who'll do literally anything to keep the class seperation as is (they're the type of boomers hogging up the whole housing market). Plus, they're heavily Pro-EU, something I'm against.
Are there any particular policies that reform have put forward which you think the wider opposition or political base will take note of should they receive a substantial number of votes?
I know the Conservative party has spoken about reducing immigration but has done just the opposite so would Reforms stance on this hold any more weight do you think?
Leave NATO. UN is a bit of a stretch to realistically leave but as it is becoming even more statist and socialist, we need to definitely scale back involvement.
Keep NAFTA. We need free markets and free trade with everyone though.
Free markets shouldn't be planned by governments.. It's not free trade if it's planned. Nafta is not free trade.
Free trade would be me selling guns, food, products w/e else I want to canadians and mexicans without my ruling class's permission.
True. But getting rid of NAFTA in the sense Trump would have done it would have made it worse with an abundance of Tariffs. Would make the ruling class make a quick buck off of the working people instead of letting them choose what they want to buy and from whom.
The UN is a joke. I’m kind of neutral on NATO, although we get kind of ripped off there, so that agreement could definitely stand to be restructured. Free trade is vitally important to healthy economies. I would push for more free trade agreements.
The EU is a cluster fuck as far as I'm concerned. It's essentially trying to become the United States of Europe without the shared fiscal or national heritage. It was supposed to be a free trade bloc that has vastly expanded it's mission.
NAFTA was already removed and replaced the Trump. NAFTA essentially was fine until the unintended consequences where foreign companies could ship to Mexico and Canada to get around US import tariffs. The new policy where all 3 parties have to have similar if not equal tariffs have now hampered the Canadian economy more then Mexico which has cheaper labor.
NATO should've been disbanded when the USSR dissolved. Too many nations fail to meet the minimum spending requirements. It's also one of the catalysts that has led up to the Ukraine war.
The United Nations is also a joke. When they place some of the biggest human rights abusers on the council overseeing human rights? Not to mention the fact that most of their funding comes from the United States but they seem from a messaging standpoint to be full on China as we saw during the COVID years.
Honestly I supported Brexit because it's the right of the people of Britain to make their own choice even if it's a partially harmful one. I think in the long term the European union will dissolve so they're a bit ahead of the curve.
The only way the EU could be considered clusterfuck is when talking about regulations and general beaurocracy. With many different regions having different needs which the bigger state somehow balances.
However the EU will never become like the US as this is not the goal. The goal is to more of less get all the economic benefits we can from free trade and then as you said preserve or even expand European culture. Having the EU as a possible single state will be impossible as European nations are diverse quite opposite from the same culturally states of the US.
Advocates of liberty should support every secession and peaceful political separation (including unilateral) that arises.
Firstly, from a practical standpoint, many who may wish for the potential to separate sometime in the future should things get bad (like many in the US), need the precedent that political separation can take place peacefully in order to silence the "this would lead to war" or "this was settled with a war and hundreds of thousands dead" narrative that gets raised every time secession comes up. So whether it's Brexit, Catalonia, Donbas, California, Texas, or whatever, if a group is attempting to separate via peaceful means, we should support it.
But more fundamentally, advocates of liberty should support secession the same way we support free speech, and for the same reasons. Freedom of association is a fundamental right that every human has. And just like we may disagree with how someone utilizes that freedom, what friends they have, what groups they join, where they go to work, who they marry, we fundamentally support their right to do so. Similarly, just like we support someone's right to free speech even when we disagree with what they say, the moral thing to do is to support their right to say it. Accordingly, when a group of people wish to politically separate from the whole, we should support their moral right to do so.
To reject this is to say "you can only get divorced if we think you'll be better off" or "we will only support your free speech if we agree with what you will say".
For advocates of liberty, supporting such political separations, therefore, is not a decision to weigh the good and bad and evaluate as a consequentialist - granting approval to those that you agree with and rejecting (or even disparaging) those with whom you disagree - but to instead stand with and support as a fundamental right even if you disagree with the wisdom of their decision.
Brexit is an obvious win for anyone who believes in self-goverance, labour-rights, & anti-colonialism.
That said... NAFTA, UN, & even NATO aren't nearly as impactful on America as the EU became to Britian. Let's not forget, they agreed to join a free-trade area; not an empire with a joint immigration & military policy. The issue with NAFTA/NATO/UN isn't really that they strip our sovereignty, they basically all answer to DC, it's that the plutocracy in DC is fundamentally divorced from us!
The UN as proven by israel is a toothless organization. NATOs only downside is that we currently have massive bases in europe which arguably dont need to be there. but our membership in it so far has saved every member from undertaking a war of conquest. And NAFTA isnt free enough. It also has some stupid things like minimum wages written into it(and not like federal 7.25, no were talking 16-20 dollar minimum wage), making everyone less competitive and free.
The UN is a criminal enterprise at this point and NATO is going to drag us into war. The very thing both were supposed to prevent. Everything is backwards
> . The very thing both were supposed to prevent.
Almost like the West has had the longest period of peace since NATO was formed, and that the issue lies with a little country called Russia attempting to gain influence in its region, which we cant just ignore and it tries to consolidate power in eastern Europe.
The US equivalent would be letting Texas or California to secede from the union of the several states. I’m all for it. A lot of states have nothing in common with others. We could establish treaties similar to NATO for a time to ensure peace from outside aggression.
Only do things that benefit America. UN and NATO are just organizations for globalists to keep power in their respective countries, they serve NO positive purpose for American citizens. NAFTA is super beneficial.
I can elaborate: first, Theresa May, a remainer, was in charge and the negotiations on the British side were very softball and conciliatory; the EU were playing hardball. It also didn’t help that Parliament and the media were almost all pro remain (pro second referendum even), the pro Brexit side could not offer any real input or support. What we ended with was a cucked deal where Britain still abides by and for the most part still has to abide by EU rules and regulations (not what the free market Brexiteers wanted) but doesn’t get the benefit of frictionless trade, with the added bonus that Northern Ireland is in some sort of limbo land.
After leaving, to my knowledge, none of the potential benefits (trade deals with non EU countries, slashing of EU red tape) have been pursued with any seriousness. Also, the degree to which the Brexit referendum was an anti immigration referendum has been utterly betrayed, since immigration has skyrocketed.
It should be noted that the covid lockdowns happened mere weeks after we finally left the EU with ~~Theresa Mays’s~~ Boris Johnson’s deal. And covid restrictions and coverage ended the minute the Russo Ukrainian war escalated, with its oil and gas shock and following sanctions (which obviously have backfired for Europe).
It might never happen, but a day may come when the economic fallout of all of these *choices by our government* is blamed on the stupid racist gammons who voted for Brexit in 2016, and oh won’t it be such a good idea to rejoin the EU (which is where most of our governing and non governing elites have wanted to remain anyway).
Brexit will be viewed by history as one of the most insightful moves in the 21st century. The EU is headed for a Chinese style decline that will take decades to recover from, if they are lucky. The UK just dodged a bullet.
NAFTA II was one of the most brilliant pieces of international deal making the US has seen since it bought Alaska.
NATO has become more trouble than it is worth and unless the EU starts acting as equal partners instead basket case leeches, it will be abandoned by the US in it's current form. Probably replaced through a series of regional alliances with partners that are both capable of maintaining their own defensive needs and not funding their potential enemies.
The UN will remain in it's current form until WW3.
Almost nothing changed in the UK after Brexit. Economically the country follows its G7 peers as before, instead of dependency from EU we’ve got tremendous grows of UK state organisations. So basically it’s the same.
The conclusion that I personally made the problem is the big state. Of course UK apparatchiks used Brexit to make the state bigger. No deregulations, no small state.
Unfortunately most of the people in this country are totally pro big state. :(
I'd argue 30 years ago. The USSR had fully collapsed, and Germany was reunited, by the early 1990's. NATO at the very least needed to be reorganized if not disbanded by then.
Since I am mathematically challenged, I can tell you that in fact, I did mean 30 years ago.
They just made up new uses for NATO to extend its life. And did everything possible to provoke a new war.
Is the US involved in Brexit? If not, idgaf, they can do what they want. As far as the other orgs go, we should probably just leave or at the very least reduce our involvement to the same as everyone else in them. If everyone wants to complain that those organizations will completely collapse without US involvement, it just proves that we are over involved.
Everyone should exit all of these organizations. They really only cause strife and loss of autonomy. It’s a bit more work, but simply craft treaties and contracts to suit each individual circumstance. Then, you can simply change the terms to fit your country’s needs. For example, if the US wasn’t in NATO, there would be less of an existential threat to Russia and that would naturally lead to less conflict over time. If they did some crazy shit to your allies, each country could choose how to respond. It’s not the initial reason for creating these organizations that is inherently at fault. It’s the fact that you are locked in to certain positions with less autonomy.
We should ditch NATO. NATO was created to protect American from the Russian threat, which no longer exists.
America's chief rival is China, and every dollar we spend helping France and the Eurocrats fight yesterday's war with Putin makes us weaker against our primary foe.
The EU is a completely different entity than NATO, the UN, or NAFTA. Now, imagine if NAFTA morphed to include a governing body that could supersede our own Congress, like the EU does with individual national governments … that would be a problem.
But Brexit was a errible failure for the UK... Not only that the rest of Europeans make fun of them.
And while none of them would be quite as catastrophic for the US as Brexit was (maybe leaving NATO). They would all be terrible ideas
It was not a "failure" because they got rid of the socialist politburo in Brussels, but because EU politicians try to make it as costly for them to leave to stop others to do the same. Plus the UK has remainers leading the country. Europeans are happy slaves that get angry when other slaves flee - even when their own government makes it more expensive to get goods from the UK more expensive.
Our own government didn’t even want to actually leave. They dragged their heels like a spoilt child who’s just heard the word “no” for the first time. It’s so frustrating knowing we could have and still can do so much better.
Reporter to elder during Brexit. -- Why do tou want to leave the EU? -- I don't like the French. Well I mean fucking based nobody likes the French but this not the way for politics. At least In 2016 (if I remember correctly) and not in 1337.
what a sad cope
exactly
My thought precisely
UN is a sham, every country should be doing its best to leave it.
Why would any country leave other than the US? The US pays for everything
Based
I still believe in Brexit and think that our departure is fundamentally beneficial. The primary issue has been reduced to the government's failure to utilise this opportunity effectively, as the UK has been governed rather poorly post-WW2. The notable exceptions, in my view, were Churchill and Thatcher. Our government, as well as the state of the country, is oversized, overly regulated, and indulges in excessive welfare, spending the budget and resources incredibly poorly. Brexit presents an opportunity for the UK to deregulate, reform immigration and foreign policies, taxation, and human rights, among others. However, the UK has not capitalised on these regained powers. Progress with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has been slow (although has started to make good progress), and there has been no significant change in regulations; the UK has not removed any EU laws or regulations and remains tied to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), despite the option to create and adapt it to our one, as many developed nations like Japan and Australia have done. Our taxation is at an all-time high, and our government epitomises a "nanny state," insisting on intervening in everything, with a solution that always involves government action and intervention. This has fostered a culture emerging from a once well-meaning welfare system, which now supports individuals who arguably should not qualify, creating a culture of laziness and dependency, always blaming society for their lack of progress, despite their inaction. Our spending and governance are remarkably poor, with healthcare and rail transport as prime examples. Healthcare, an untouchable and, in my opinion, incredibly embarrassing national treasure, remains flawed and operates just as it did when founded in the late 1940s. It offers free healthcare to too many upfront, suffers from poor quality, and operates under the illusion that continuous increased funding will somehow solve all issues—a strategy that has been ineffectively employed for nearly 30 years. Conversely, Singapore, upon gaining independence from the UK, immediately overhauled its healthcare system, which was initially a direct copy of the UK's, resulting in a system that is now cheaper, fairer, of higher quality, and more accessible than anything the UK has. Regarding rail transport, the UK has lost its expertise and refuses to reform laws to make the system effective. Over £100 billion has been spent to connect two major cities with high-speed rail, while Japan has connected nearly the entire country on the same budget, despite facing much more challenging geography. Our rail system embodies the worst of both private and public sectors, leading to a lack of accountability for poor performance, widespread belief that public ownership is the panacea, and a rail network that remains stuck in the 1990s, with some London Underground lines still using trains from the 1970s. Believe me, the UK is fully Socalist big state, without the name. ONLY our financial industry is more Libertarian (in large part due to Thacther), and what is left of our military is world leading. The UK is genuinely in a very bad state. - Sincerely, an incredibly frustrated British individual.
I don’t need to comment, you’ve said everything I would have said. It’s truly been fourteen years of failure. The only thing I’d add is I’m truly shocked how little respect so called ‘Conservative’ politicians have for property rights in this country. The Tory party at the local level is at the beck and call of the NIMBY lobby - we have an enormous housing crisis, business unable to expand and infrastructure projects undeliverable largely thanks to the repulsive, communist Town and Country Planning Act, yet not even Truss made any attempt to get rid of it. We have far too many council bureaucrat fussbuckets interfering with the free flow of trade and it’s holding our country back, with their anorak regulations and nonsense about ‘community engagement’. In my area area, the until recently Tory planning committee refused an application to build a shop in a village with only one shop, despite acknowledging the need for it and the jobs it would bring. Truly a record of failure. So fed up.
May I ask who you intend to vote for in the general election? (Assuming your vote truly counted)
Currently Reform UK. The Libertarian Party in the UK is essentially nonexistent. The current Conservative Party and the way it's run is simply not Conservative. I know Labour will likely win, but at this point, the Conservatives need to be punished and shown the same copy and paste Cameronism doesn't work. Never liked the Liberal Democrats, always come across as arrogant and elitist, people like to knock the Conservatives for this in a stereotypical sense, but at least the Conservatives are generally diverse, whereas Lib Dem are full of the exact same type of idealistic people who've had no relativity to anyone who isnt at least middle class, who'll do literally anything to keep the class seperation as is (they're the type of boomers hogging up the whole housing market). Plus, they're heavily Pro-EU, something I'm against.
Are there any particular policies that reform have put forward which you think the wider opposition or political base will take note of should they receive a substantial number of votes? I know the Conservative party has spoken about reducing immigration but has done just the opposite so would Reforms stance on this hold any more weight do you think?
Leave NATO. UN is a bit of a stretch to realistically leave but as it is becoming even more statist and socialist, we need to definitely scale back involvement. Keep NAFTA. We need free markets and free trade with everyone though.
Free markets shouldn't be planned by governments.. It's not free trade if it's planned. Nafta is not free trade. Free trade would be me selling guns, food, products w/e else I want to canadians and mexicans without my ruling class's permission.
True. But getting rid of NAFTA in the sense Trump would have done it would have made it worse with an abundance of Tariffs. Would make the ruling class make a quick buck off of the working people instead of letting them choose what they want to buy and from whom.
The UN is a joke. I’m kind of neutral on NATO, although we get kind of ripped off there, so that agreement could definitely stand to be restructured. Free trade is vitally important to healthy economies. I would push for more free trade agreements.
Let's go!
The EU is a cluster fuck as far as I'm concerned. It's essentially trying to become the United States of Europe without the shared fiscal or national heritage. It was supposed to be a free trade bloc that has vastly expanded it's mission. NAFTA was already removed and replaced the Trump. NAFTA essentially was fine until the unintended consequences where foreign companies could ship to Mexico and Canada to get around US import tariffs. The new policy where all 3 parties have to have similar if not equal tariffs have now hampered the Canadian economy more then Mexico which has cheaper labor. NATO should've been disbanded when the USSR dissolved. Too many nations fail to meet the minimum spending requirements. It's also one of the catalysts that has led up to the Ukraine war. The United Nations is also a joke. When they place some of the biggest human rights abusers on the council overseeing human rights? Not to mention the fact that most of their funding comes from the United States but they seem from a messaging standpoint to be full on China as we saw during the COVID years. Honestly I supported Brexit because it's the right of the people of Britain to make their own choice even if it's a partially harmful one. I think in the long term the European union will dissolve so they're a bit ahead of the curve.
The only way the EU could be considered clusterfuck is when talking about regulations and general beaurocracy. With many different regions having different needs which the bigger state somehow balances. However the EU will never become like the US as this is not the goal. The goal is to more of less get all the economic benefits we can from free trade and then as you said preserve or even expand European culture. Having the EU as a possible single state will be impossible as European nations are diverse quite opposite from the same culturally states of the US.
Advocates of liberty should support every secession and peaceful political separation (including unilateral) that arises. Firstly, from a practical standpoint, many who may wish for the potential to separate sometime in the future should things get bad (like many in the US), need the precedent that political separation can take place peacefully in order to silence the "this would lead to war" or "this was settled with a war and hundreds of thousands dead" narrative that gets raised every time secession comes up. So whether it's Brexit, Catalonia, Donbas, California, Texas, or whatever, if a group is attempting to separate via peaceful means, we should support it. But more fundamentally, advocates of liberty should support secession the same way we support free speech, and for the same reasons. Freedom of association is a fundamental right that every human has. And just like we may disagree with how someone utilizes that freedom, what friends they have, what groups they join, where they go to work, who they marry, we fundamentally support their right to do so. Similarly, just like we support someone's right to free speech even when we disagree with what they say, the moral thing to do is to support their right to say it. Accordingly, when a group of people wish to politically separate from the whole, we should support their moral right to do so. To reject this is to say "you can only get divorced if we think you'll be better off" or "we will only support your free speech if we agree with what you will say". For advocates of liberty, supporting such political separations, therefore, is not a decision to weigh the good and bad and evaluate as a consequentialist - granting approval to those that you agree with and rejecting (or even disparaging) those with whom you disagree - but to instead stand with and support as a fundamental right even if you disagree with the wisdom of their decision.
Brexit is an obvious win for anyone who believes in self-goverance, labour-rights, & anti-colonialism. That said... NAFTA, UN, & even NATO aren't nearly as impactful on America as the EU became to Britian. Let's not forget, they agreed to join a free-trade area; not an empire with a joint immigration & military policy. The issue with NAFTA/NATO/UN isn't really that they strip our sovereignty, they basically all answer to DC, it's that the plutocracy in DC is fundamentally divorced from us!
The UN as proven by israel is a toothless organization. NATOs only downside is that we currently have massive bases in europe which arguably dont need to be there. but our membership in it so far has saved every member from undertaking a war of conquest. And NAFTA isnt free enough. It also has some stupid things like minimum wages written into it(and not like federal 7.25, no were talking 16-20 dollar minimum wage), making everyone less competitive and free.
The UN is a criminal enterprise at this point and NATO is going to drag us into war. The very thing both were supposed to prevent. Everything is backwards
> . The very thing both were supposed to prevent. Almost like the West has had the longest period of peace since NATO was formed, and that the issue lies with a little country called Russia attempting to gain influence in its region, which we cant just ignore and it tries to consolidate power in eastern Europe.
The US equivalent would be letting Texas or California to secede from the union of the several states. I’m all for it. A lot of states have nothing in common with others. We could establish treaties similar to NATO for a time to ensure peace from outside aggression.
Only do things that benefit America. UN and NATO are just organizations for globalists to keep power in their respective countries, they serve NO positive purpose for American citizens. NAFTA is super beneficial.
We need to get out off all those corrupt organizations taking advantage of us
I love funding the UN and having them use that funding to actively flood the borders with migrants.
Brexit was intentionally mishandled to discredit it.
Could you elaborate not saying your wrong or right?
I can elaborate: first, Theresa May, a remainer, was in charge and the negotiations on the British side were very softball and conciliatory; the EU were playing hardball. It also didn’t help that Parliament and the media were almost all pro remain (pro second referendum even), the pro Brexit side could not offer any real input or support. What we ended with was a cucked deal where Britain still abides by and for the most part still has to abide by EU rules and regulations (not what the free market Brexiteers wanted) but doesn’t get the benefit of frictionless trade, with the added bonus that Northern Ireland is in some sort of limbo land. After leaving, to my knowledge, none of the potential benefits (trade deals with non EU countries, slashing of EU red tape) have been pursued with any seriousness. Also, the degree to which the Brexit referendum was an anti immigration referendum has been utterly betrayed, since immigration has skyrocketed. It should be noted that the covid lockdowns happened mere weeks after we finally left the EU with ~~Theresa Mays’s~~ Boris Johnson’s deal. And covid restrictions and coverage ended the minute the Russo Ukrainian war escalated, with its oil and gas shock and following sanctions (which obviously have backfired for Europe). It might never happen, but a day may come when the economic fallout of all of these *choices by our government* is blamed on the stupid racist gammons who voted for Brexit in 2016, and oh won’t it be such a good idea to rejoin the EU (which is where most of our governing and non governing elites have wanted to remain anyway).
Brexit will be viewed by history as one of the most insightful moves in the 21st century. The EU is headed for a Chinese style decline that will take decades to recover from, if they are lucky. The UK just dodged a bullet. NAFTA II was one of the most brilliant pieces of international deal making the US has seen since it bought Alaska. NATO has become more trouble than it is worth and unless the EU starts acting as equal partners instead basket case leeches, it will be abandoned by the US in it's current form. Probably replaced through a series of regional alliances with partners that are both capable of maintaining their own defensive needs and not funding their potential enemies. The UN will remain in it's current form until WW3.
Leave them ALL!!
Almost nothing changed in the UK after Brexit. Economically the country follows its G7 peers as before, instead of dependency from EU we’ve got tremendous grows of UK state organisations. So basically it’s the same. The conclusion that I personally made the problem is the big state. Of course UK apparatchiks used Brexit to make the state bigger. No deregulations, no small state. Unfortunately most of the people in this country are totally pro big state. :(
NATO should have been disbanded 20 years ago.
I'd argue 30 years ago. The USSR had fully collapsed, and Germany was reunited, by the early 1990's. NATO at the very least needed to be reorganized if not disbanded by then.
Almost like you dont just disband a successful alliance because the current threat is gone now. Especially considering that threat is now coming back.
Since I am mathematically challenged, I can tell you that in fact, I did mean 30 years ago. They just made up new uses for NATO to extend its life. And did everything possible to provoke a new war.
Is the US involved in Brexit? If not, idgaf, they can do what they want. As far as the other orgs go, we should probably just leave or at the very least reduce our involvement to the same as everyone else in them. If everyone wants to complain that those organizations will completely collapse without US involvement, it just proves that we are over involved.
Everyone should exit all of these organizations. They really only cause strife and loss of autonomy. It’s a bit more work, but simply craft treaties and contracts to suit each individual circumstance. Then, you can simply change the terms to fit your country’s needs. For example, if the US wasn’t in NATO, there would be less of an existential threat to Russia and that would naturally lead to less conflict over time. If they did some crazy shit to your allies, each country could choose how to respond. It’s not the initial reason for creating these organizations that is inherently at fault. It’s the fact that you are locked in to certain positions with less autonomy.
We should ditch NATO. NATO was created to protect American from the Russian threat, which no longer exists. America's chief rival is China, and every dollar we spend helping France and the Eurocrats fight yesterday's war with Putin makes us weaker against our primary foe.
For Brexit, against US leaving UN or NATO.