Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The ever-changing reasons why Brexit is a total failure.

I'm sure every sane person in the UK has noticed how the language of Brexit has changed:

In 2016 we were promised "sunlit uplands", "prosperity", and "holding all the cards". We were told the EU would be hammering on our doors DESPERATE to trade with us.

Now that reality has hit (higher prices, red tape, stagnant economy), all that ludicrous optimism has vanished, and much darker language has emerged to replace it.

Hardline Brexiters no longer tell us Brexit was a success. Instead, they tell us it would have been a success if only they weren't "betrayed".

The list of scapegoats grows longer by the day:

First it was the Remoaner Parliament.

Next it was the "obstinate" EU.

Then it was the "Civil Service Blob" or metropolitan elite - convenient, undefined enemies that apparently stopped ministers from doing their jobs.

Or was it COVID, or the war in Ukraine?

Conveniently ignored is the fact that other countries faced the exact same challenges but recovered faster.

Even Farage is joining in. In 2023, Farage admitted on Newsnight that Brexit has failed, but blamed the Conservatives for not doing it "properly". This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: the idea that the only "real" Brexit is a fantasy version not tried yet.

To put it another way, it's the stab in the back myth. It asks us to believe that one of the most powerful governments the UK has had in decades, with a colossal "Get Brexit Done" majority, was somehow frustrated and rendered helpless by a handful of newspaper columnists, civil servants and genuine opponents.

Or is it your fault? Too impatient? After all, one-time Brexit Opportunities Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg once suggested (after the referendum, of course) that we'd have to wait 50 years to see the benefits.

That wasn't on the side of the bus in 2016, now was it?

It's the political equivalent of dog ate my homework. They promised to take back control. Yet now those who led that campaign say they're still helpless victims of global events, secret cabals and "vengeful" Europeans.

Brexit was a disaster, and it's the Brexiters' fault.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I predict many more nation’s realising their folly of trusting in the EU and unelected globalists running the show and withdraw just like brexit..
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Possibly. It has never like asking the views of its own citizens, and popular support for it is patchy but very hard to gauge.

I see it as a potentially good idea wrecked by over-weening ambition. I do not know what are "globalsists" but the EU is run by three sets of people too set in their comfy bureacracy.

They are the elected member of the European "Parliament", which never has time or the knowledge to debate anything properly, so mainly rubber-stamping the proposals from -

The Council of Ministers, politicians elected as members of their own parliaments but chosen at that level to represent their national government in the EU; and -

The European Commission. Supposedly just administrative. The unaccountable body of ex-politians appointed from their governments, surrounded by anonymous "advisory" committees and lobby-groups, who dream up the EU's unending flood of regulations. I have read mInutes of a few EC meetings, and immediately you never know who says what, only which nation says what. So you cannot trace an individual's c.v. to establish his or her experience relevant to the discussion. It's usually safe to assume none!

To be fair some of the regulations are truly international, set by bodies and treaties like the UN, ISO, WHO, MarPol, etc.


My view is we need omly are some basic treaties, mainly for international trade, finance, travel, security and mutual assistance. These operated at national-government level day-to-day, but organised at EU level in meetings perhaps annually or twice-annually, maybe in rotation around the member states; with all the Minutes and audited accounts published freely and openly.

It would be far more efficient, far cheaper to run, not need vast buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg (let alone that idiotic six-monthly swapping from one to the other). It would need fewer support staff, mainly translators, accountants, solicitors and researchers; these based in their own countries apart from meetings in others. The "reseachers" being people knowing how and where to find specialist information on professional-technical matters - agriculture, building, science, transport, engineering, medicine,. etc..


We can but dream but I think the EU as it is, is its own worst enemy, holding the seeds of its own collapse.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@ArishMell Never a good idea to have endless faceless bureaucrats in endless chambers with no accountability to anyone.

All that costs money. Maybe that's what the number on the side of the bus meant.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 Could be. As fasas I know no-one has ever really tried to find why its books would not balance year after year for years. The Commission, including Neil Kinnock at the time, moved fast against her when one of its own auditors did some investigating and tried to present her findings to the European Parliament.