comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
Pretend Brexit never happened.
Go back to the way it was before it.
Never listen to conservative idiots ever again. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that"
] |
>
“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again."
] |
>
This should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool"
] |
>
The power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order! | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong"
] |
>
Another successful campaign by Putin. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!"
] |
>
Why you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin."
] |
>
no surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.
i am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.
well a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me"
] |
>
What an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country."
] |
>
Remember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back."
] |
>
Fish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol"
] |
>
Labour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material.
Starmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you! | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right."
] |
>
Lot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!"
] |
>
Not only that, but Labour Brexiteers are so deeply rooted in their beliefs, that they voted Tory in 2019. Absolute madness, people up North who know Westminster never have, or never will, give a shit about them, voting them in because of absolutely no sane reason.
Hurts the soul this stuff... | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!",
">\n\nLot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy."
] |
>
Labour Brexiters that went on to also vote Tory and tore down the red wall are the fucking worst. They should know better, but doubled down instead.
They were filled with so much hate and spite they threw their lot in with the scumbags that ruined their families and so many communities in the midlands. None of them can ever complain about Thatcher ever again, they got exactly what they voted for and deserve. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!",
">\n\nLot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy.",
">\n\nNot only that, but Labour Brexiteers are so deeply rooted in their beliefs, that they voted Tory in 2019. Absolute madness, people up North who know Westminster never have, or never will, give a shit about them, voting them in because of absolutely no sane reason. \nHurts the soul this stuff..."
] |
>
Not for the tories who did it so they could keep 'legally' laundering money and the morons that vote for him have no clue how they took their freedom back. | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!",
">\n\nLot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy.",
">\n\nNot only that, but Labour Brexiteers are so deeply rooted in their beliefs, that they voted Tory in 2019. Absolute madness, people up North who know Westminster never have, or never will, give a shit about them, voting them in because of absolutely no sane reason. \nHurts the soul this stuff...",
">\n\nLabour Brexiters that went on to also vote Tory and tore down the red wall are the fucking worst. They should know better, but doubled down instead. \nThey were filled with so much hate and spite they threw their lot in with the scumbags that ruined their families and so many communities in the midlands. None of them can ever complain about Thatcher ever again, they got exactly what they voted for and deserve."
] |
>
Put that on your bus and smoke it | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!",
">\n\nLot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy.",
">\n\nNot only that, but Labour Brexiteers are so deeply rooted in their beliefs, that they voted Tory in 2019. Absolute madness, people up North who know Westminster never have, or never will, give a shit about them, voting them in because of absolutely no sane reason. \nHurts the soul this stuff...",
">\n\nLabour Brexiters that went on to also vote Tory and tore down the red wall are the fucking worst. They should know better, but doubled down instead. \nThey were filled with so much hate and spite they threw their lot in with the scumbags that ruined their families and so many communities in the midlands. None of them can ever complain about Thatcher ever again, they got exactly what they voted for and deserve.",
">\n\nNot for the tories who did it so they could keep 'legally' laundering money and the morons that vote for him have no clue how they took their freedom back."
] |
>
How much is that in Euros? | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!",
">\n\nLot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy.",
">\n\nNot only that, but Labour Brexiteers are so deeply rooted in their beliefs, that they voted Tory in 2019. Absolute madness, people up North who know Westminster never have, or never will, give a shit about them, voting them in because of absolutely no sane reason. \nHurts the soul this stuff...",
">\n\nLabour Brexiters that went on to also vote Tory and tore down the red wall are the fucking worst. They should know better, but doubled down instead. \nThey were filled with so much hate and spite they threw their lot in with the scumbags that ruined their families and so many communities in the midlands. None of them can ever complain about Thatcher ever again, they got exactly what they voted for and deserve.",
">\n\nNot for the tories who did it so they could keep 'legally' laundering money and the morons that vote for him have no clue how they took their freedom back.",
">\n\nPut that on your bus and smoke it"
] |
> | [
"Where’s old mate Nigel Farrage?",
">\n\nThat was the Best part. He led them out and then just quit like \"not my problem anymore\".",
">\n\nHe's vocal on Twitter about the problems we are facing, the problems he had a huge hand in creating. He's such a fucking dick.",
">\n\nHAHAHAHAHA thats fucking rich. so how does Nigel frame his displeasure??\n\"I can't believe the stupidity of this government! Why do we have no trade agreements yet? who would think BREXIT was a good idea?? I was never pro-BREXIT. I voted to stay\"",
">\n\nNo he seems to have settled into the 'well the government haven't done Brexit right' argument. If he had been in charge it would have been done properly. \nThe man's a cunt. In fact, I'd go as far as to say he is the ultimate expression of the British cunt.",
">\n\nMy apprehension against simply bestowing him the title of \"Ultimate Expression of the British Cunt\" is not due to a lacking resume, but due to all the competition he faces.",
">\n\nAye, Normal Island has a fuckin cavalcade of cunts to pick from. Just an endless rotation of the most rubbish bastards imaginable.",
">\n\nCavalcade of Cunts new band name called it!",
">\n\nBritain struggling under trade sanctions applied by Britain.",
">\n\nThe only country in human history to democratically vote to impose economic sanctions on itself.",
">\n\nIt's kind of worse than that, since it was a referendum and not actually a legally binding vote.\nEdit: Ok, I'm getting a lot of replies asking things like, \"What if the vote margin was bigger?\" or \"Should the government ignore the will of the people?\" Here is my reply to those kinds of questions.\nA non-binding referendum is, legally speaking, not binding. It can therefore be assumed that such a referendum must have some utility beyond a mandate made to the government. Can we layfolk think of one? What about a process to solicit feedback in the form of personal responses to a spitball proposal? What about a way to ask the public if it's worthwhile committing to research into a particular proposal when said research would utilize significant government resources and incur significant costs (to be covered by taxpayers)?\nWe folk who choose not to govern should, I think, have the expectation of those among us who do choose to govern that they... well... govern. As such, I, a voter, should be able to confidently assume that a non-binding referendum really ought not result in government action. Why? Because this is a non-binding referendum and pointedly not a policy vote. I should be able to distill from this that if \"leave\" wins (indicating a slight interest among the populace to change the status quo), that the government should proceed by committing resources toward the production of a report--a report which is designed to provide educating details on the expected impact of such a deviation from the status quo on the people and on the government. I should expect to see some period of time, probably lasting months, wherein the government conducts substantial research, then hands the culmination of that research over to the media. I should see reports about that research on the news, online, in the papers. It should be the talk of the town.\nFollowing a period of perhaps even up to an entire year after the publication of such a report, I expect a decision from the government. Either present a policy vote if the matter is a true toss-up and could be at least equal parts good and bad in general or, if the general feeling of the report is either massively beneficial to everyone involved or massively detrimental, hand off a policy vote to the legislature (if good) or run a massive ad campaign about how absolutely batshit crazy of an idea it actually turns out to be and do nothing.\nThe government is built on the concept of law. A voter absolutely should not expect a referendum that is blatantly designated not binding to be acted on by the government, not by any margin, and especially not be a three point margin. And the leaders of the government, who, by the way, are the leaders of one of the most powerful governments and organizations in the entire world, should be trusted, at least to the extent that it applies to the prospect of national suicide, to do the right thing and step back from the ledge after looking and seeing exactly how far the fall actually is.\nWhat actually happened was an absolutely pathetic and miserable abdication of duty. The government did not function whatsoever. It fell into the trap of bureaucracy and did what the referendum dictated despite not being bound by the results just because a slight margin said to do it, with nowhere near a complete appreciation for the actual consequences or even how deep the UK's fingers really were in the EU cookie jar. The buffoons rubber stamped Brexit.\nYou might as well pack up the entire government and call it quits when the government starts rubber stamping decisions with international implications and nothing but bad implications for their own freaking country and economy. THEY are in charge. THEY are responsible for running the show. And THEYYYYY are the ones who drafted and submitted a NON-BINDING referendum. Dear Lord, THEY should have known and leveraged the non-binding nature of it because if they presume to be bound by it, what is the point of explicitly indicating the referendum is non-binding?",
">\n\nCorrect. As a Swiss citizen who is familiar with direct democracy, I know too well that our politicians bend the rules in their favor as much as possible if the people voted for something really stupid.\nIf this had happened in Switzerland, nobody would have given two flying fcks about a glorified opinion poll (which is what the Brexit referendum exactly was) and would have moved on, waiting until the people found something else to complain about.",
">\n\nIn Ireland, we had a similar case with the Lisbon treaty. It was rejected by a narrow margin so the referendum was held again with some refinement. It's madness to enact something with such a small margin when in any election you'll get something like 5% protest voting.",
">\n\nIn Irish referendums we vote on the specific language that is proposed to amend our constitution. The Brexit vote was: pick smiley EU face or sad EU face. Cameron could have avoided all of this by offering the public the choice of type of exit, none of the options would have won a majority, and remain would have won the plurality. He fucked up so bad. Their last string of PMs have destroyed the country.",
">\n\nTories, eh. Last time they were in power this long was Thatcher years, and everyone I know either pretends those years never happened or talks about it like the dark days, especially the repercussions on now.",
">\n\nThatcher is the UK's Reagan lol.\nbunch of bags of evil",
">\n\nI don't think the parallels are a coincidence, both parties pretend to be about the economy but they just mean the wealthy and since that line doesn't play well with the masses, they throw in racism and religion. Unfortunately Russia is very good at influencing the wealthy with money and then spamming the media with the help of Murdoch. Brexit and Trump seem to be symptoms of the same disease.",
">\n\nany time you see \"the economy\" replace it with \"rich people's yacht money\" and marvel at how accurate it is",
">\n\nBut the NHS got better right? /s",
">\n\nYep that 350million extra is paying dividends right now...\n/s",
">\n\nNobody ever talks about this. The NHS is rapidly falling apart and not one politician in this country has ever asked where the £350m went.\nBrexit is the elephant in the room that no one can ever mention. It was an unmitigated disaster in every possible way yet everyone is too afraid to mention it in a negative light.\nA lot of people - maybe a majority, gave the extra money for the NHS as their reason for voting to leave and now they bury their heads in the sand. Couple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.",
">\n\n\nCouple this with the fact that the death of the NHS is a deliberate aim of the Tory party and there's no hope for improvement.\n\nWhat is it with conservatives hating health care? I'm in the U.S., and conservatives here have taught their followers to fight against affordable healthcare. Even just the phrase \"affordable healthcare\" sends conservatives in the US into a full rage. It's insane.",
">\n\nIts because of the freedom having free healthcare provides.\nIf like in the US your healthcare is directly tied to your employer.... as a worker you are tied to the work.\nIf you want to leave for a different job or God forbid try to create a business or work for yourself, you will have no healthcare.\nIt's about control and eroding the power of the working class.\nEven just a little bit more control over the worker allows the businesses to use that power to gain more power etc etc.",
">\n\nYes, we understand why the elites oppose it.\nBy why the fuck does Joe down the street fall inline with it, it's asinine!",
">\n\nBecause they don’t want to pay taxes and are actively stupid.",
">\n\nAnd they're temporarily poor. One day, they'll be rich like that.",
">\n\nFry, why are you cheering? You aren't rich.\nTrue, but someday I might be, and then people like me better watch their step.",
">\n\nI remember when Bernie Sanders was running a few years ago and it was insane catching young people, across the whole spectrum, professional adults, middle class, saying \"taxing the rich 1% seems a bit too much, if I was rich I wouldn't like it\".\nGenerational brainwashing working perfectly.",
">\n\nBrexit had already cost the country more inside 3 years of the vote, than the entirety of our payments into the EU over our 45 year membership.\nInterestingly, the blackhole in the finances discussed last year was around the same as the estimated losses to the wider economy through Brexit. \nWhat a wonderful time we've been having. Entering adulthood in 2008 and experiencing all these 'once-in-a-lifetime' events that have seen me and my generation, and those that will come after me, horrifically hobbled by incompetence, idiocy, and robber barons in government.",
">\n\nThe silver lining is of course that the entire shitshow put an effective end to any and all leaving the EU ideas. \nBe it France, Italy or elsewhere, the entire sentiment just disappeared - it just doesn't make any sense and even the dimmest clown at the party noticed as much. \nI guess EU citizens have to thank the UK for that one at least!",
">\n\nShit, you're right. The \"leave\" movement is dead here in Baguetteland O_o\nThanks for your unjust sacrifice, pals :(",
">\n\nI'm only half joking when I ask, please can you and your fellow Baguettians teach we flaccid wet-rock dwelling Roast-Beefs how to protest against our government effectively please?\nSo many of us secretly, or not so secretly, are in awe of the French ability to grind the country to a halt unapologetically any time the government dicks around. Or even mentions it might be planning to dick around.\nAll we do here is moan and open the fridge every few hours in case any unaffordable new food has magically appeared inside it.",
">\n\nSame in Canada. We just apologize for everything and hope for the best.",
">\n\nYeah but you're not taking into account the 365 gazillion pounds they save for the NHS every year, right? Think that's how much it was? Saw it on a bus once.",
">\n\n£350 million a week. Which is about £18 billion a year. So we're saving... oh, dang.",
">\n\nHow do they come up with these numbers?",
">\n\nIt was all the money that the UK was sending the EU parliament but they completely ignored all the money coming the other way.",
">\n\nThat bus will go down in history as an example of false campaigning changing the course of history. \nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.",
">\n\n\nI had friends who would have voted Remain, but saw things like that and believed it meant we would fund the NHS better which most Britains want.\n\nI'm sorry but your friend is a gullible fool.\nWhat has confused me most about Brexit is who look as Farage, Johnson, et al and thinks \"yes, yes these people seem trustworthy and like they have my interests at heart\". They're all caricature snake oil salesmen.",
">\n\nI’ll get downvoted for saying it, but ultimately every single person I know who voted Leave did it for racist reasons. Some were more subtle than others and blamed ‘immigration’, but then you have my brother who did it to ‘get rid of all the [racist slur for Middle Eastern Asians].’ He could not comprehend that the people he wanted to go were UK citizens and wouldn’t be deported, and their relatives weren’t even in the EU and so wouldn’t be affected by brexit. \nMy dad, who also voted leave because of ‘immigration’ had the audacity to complain when the two Romanian lads working for him left the uk. By his own admission, they were the best workers he has ever had. It’s honestly fucking baffling how stupid these people are.",
">\n\nMy favourite was the owner of a trucking company who voted to leave and then was shocked at loosing a ton of business on EU freight. I mean, they really didnt things through did they?",
">\n\nOr the fisherman who voted leave complaining their fish was going rotten sitting in trucks at the border or that lots of their catch is sold to the EU because Brits don't eat it. But now they can't find buyers because of EU laws for non EU members",
">\n\nAs an American I was confused by this. I saw an article from the UK where someone said how unfair it was for the EU to enforce its policies since the EU benefitted more from trade with the UK than the other way around. I felt like it was a matter of this person wanted the benefit without any of the requirements.",
">\n\nGood guy UK, showing to the less intelligent EU citizens why the EU matters. \nA sacrifice we will not forget.",
">\n\nAs if anti EU people would even accept that as an example.\nIt's never about what was proven right by actual fact. Those people only argue based on the most shallow understanding of the topic and an unwillingness to learn.\nIf \"But if my country pays more to the EU than it receives so it's a bad deal\" is the epitome of somebodies ability to understand global issues then it won't help. Heck the pro brexit people still wait for the reduced payments to the EU to fix all issues over night.",
">\n\nThe Brexit shitshow has been accompanied by a notable decline in anti-EU rhetoric in other countries. I highly doubt that’s a coincidence.",
">\n\nIt's like those guys complaining about leaving their wives. Until one of them does and quickly realizes how much his wife was holding up. The other guys take note and complain a little less.",
">\n\nThe UK is the 40something old overweight guy, who's left his wife to get a \"better deal\", and is now single living in a bedsit and lonely.",
">\n\n“Hey Europe, I sleep in a racing car, do you?”\n“I sleep in a big bed with my wife.”",
">\n\nI like the idea of the European Union as some kind of big single-market orgy.",
">\n\nThe UK left the orgy and realized it has to get itself off all on its own now",
">\n\nI was wondering how they worked out the gap. From the article:\n\nHowever, it is clear that UK economic performance started to diverge from the rest of the Group of Seven following the 2016 vote to leave the EU, and has widened since. \nThe underperformance is partly explained by business investment as firms put spending decisions on hold because of uncertainty about what life outside the EU would mean. Though some of that caution is dissipating, the UK has a long way to go to close the gap with its major peers. At about 9% of GDP, business investment lags the Group of Seven average of 13%.",
">\n\nThe BBC reported this morning that the IMF is predicting that the UK is the only G7 country to have its economy shrink in 2023. Astonishing.",
">\n\nIt's even more grim, Russia will do better than the UK!",
">\n\nAdmittedly this is on a year by year percentage basis. Their economy tanked so much last year its starting from a much lower bar. Also there's not much left to sanction other than fuel, which Europe still can't do without.",
">\n\nThis has got to be the best example of an own goal in all of history. Unbelievable.",
">\n\nWell, not for everyone. A few people are giggling into their brandy snifters right now.",
">\n\nI've been watching \"the Crown\" with my wife, lately.\nIt's really shocking to see how little the UK has changed, if you look at the ruling class. There really is a different \"class\", wether you are in the Tories or in Labour.\nI mean, I live in the Netherlands, and sure, we have also \"the haves and the have-nots\", but nothing like the way it is taken voor granted like in the UK.\nIt is really, well, desturbing to watch Rishi Sunak explain why the wages really cannot go up...",
">\n\nThe Netherlands never really had a pronounced aristocracy. They were there of course, but they weren't as intertwined with politics as they are in the UK.\nI believe it has much to do with the fact that for the majority of Dutch history, people have had political parties dedicated to keep away aristocracy from politics (Staatsgezinden), ironically succeeding by giving the aristocrats a monarchy and a representative government within the span of 15 years.\nThe Staatsgezinden also had aristocrats as part of their ranks, but at least they shared a view that power should go to those best qualified.\nI also believe a lot of it caused our flattened hierarchy in the workspace and a cultural aversion to any form of authority.",
">\n\nThe funny thing is though, in recent years when I've been paying attention, the house of Lords has almost been a last line defence not passing some of the tories more extreme laws. I hate the concept of them, but I don't hate them",
">\n\nI'm actually kind of fine with the concept of a second house that isn't completely beholden to the popular vote in theory - but the seats shouldn't be inherited and ideally the people we're making Lords and Ladies would be leaders in their particular field/experts, not some dude who happened to write a few good musicals years ago.",
">\n\nI think a tenured second chamber is a good choice for doing what it needs to do.\nI also think hereditary privilege is horrible, and crony-stuffing the lords is too. \nI've often though the trick would be 3 selection streams:\n\n\nAppointment through professional bodies. E.g. the Law Society, the GMC, etc. Maybe also religious bodies, or other organisations sufficiently impactful. (So the Church of England could have a \"lord\", but so would the Muslim Council)\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street. Maybe with an 'opt in' of some kind. \n\n\nAppointment via some sort of proportional representation from the political parties. So whilst a 'fringe' party might never have influence in the Commons, they would still have some political voice. \n\n\nSay a third from each, with a ten-year tenure, appointed on a rolling basis (10% per year maybe?)",
">\n\n\nAppointment by jury selection. Literally random person off the street\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\nAppointment through the professional bodies would be good, however think we'd need some kind of system in place to ensure they don't essentially become lobbyists with actual power - I wouldn't exactly trust a bunch of CEO's to vote on say a financial expert who knows what he's doing but is in favour of closing loopholes/taxing corporations more over a useful idiot who'll go along with their interests for a fancy title and payday, y;know?",
">\n\n\nDefinitely not a fan of this one. Voting is already meant to be our form of representation, and tbh I wouldn't trust most randomers to be informed enough to actually make the decisions (and I include myself in that).\n\nI am a big fan of sortition despite being under no illusions about how stupid the average person can be. IMO the trick is to decide what the actual responsibilities of each chamber are.\nHaving random people isn't bad if their main purpose is to be a sanity check.\nPlus, I think more positions in government should also be filled somewhat randomly (though from qualified applicants) to reduce their attractiveness to people addicted to power and popularity.",
">\n\nHow sad is it that Brexit is soo bad, all the anti-EU platforms across Europe suddenly went quiet.🤦🏾♂️",
">\n\nBrexit is the seriously best outcome for the EU. The UK would have remained a destabilizing factor and lots if right and left wing nutcases would be able to keep threatening to leave. All that is gone now thanks to the chaos Brexit created. And there’s a good chance the UK will align itself more with Europe, or at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.",
">\n\n\nor at least pieces of it if England is too stubborn to bend.\n\nI've got to defend the average English person here and I'll preface this with I'm a Scottish independence supporter so I'm not particularly enamoured to the U.K as an institution these days.\nBar a couple of counties the majority of English people would probably vote themselves back in tomorrow if they could. \nThe issue is Westminster and the people that generally end up leading it, sure the Brexit vote itself happened primarily because of English votes but most of those have either learnt their lesson or are no longer around.",
">\n\nEven if the UK voted tomorrow to say they wanted back in, would the EU let them? Seems like a risk they could just turn around and do this again once a few years have passed and the next Farage comes around.",
">\n\nI imagine that option will be there eventually, but probably not for a long time. Leaving was a huge timesink for both the UK and EU - countries can't be led to believe that they can just hop out to test the waters then rejoin if it doesn't work out.\nOf course, we will almost certainly have to join under the same terms as everyone else and will probably have to make a sincere commitment to adopt the Euro, which might actually be enough to put voters off... Depending on how bad things get between now and the opportunity to rejoin",
">\n\nWhat exactly is wrong w switching to the Euro? Foreigner asking",
">\n\nNothing, just people won't want to make concessions to the EU.",
">\n\n‘Are ya winning, lad?’",
">\n\n\"are ya winning son?\"\n\"no dad, your entire generation made sure of that\"",
">\n\nNot sure if I should laugh or cry.",
">\n\nDont worry lads, Commonwealth also means Commondebt.",
">\n\nAnd the Queen will hold the Commonwealth together... Oh",
">\n\nQueen consort Camela?",
">\n\nNo, Freddy Mercury",
">\n\nHonestly would not mind Freddy being queen",
">\n\nShould have just cancelled Brexit, given me 1 billion and saved 99.",
">\n\nA billion a year every year!",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year, with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nThe Bloomberg study acknowledges that calculating how much output has been lost due to Brexit is neither \"Easy nor precise,\" not least because leaving the EU coincided with the seismic disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.\nThe UK economy continues to be blighted by shortages of workers - and Brexit has played no small part.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Brexit^#1 trade^#2 economy^#3 leave^#4 workers^#5",
">\n\nShould never have been a 50%+1 vote for something so serious.\nAn extensive criminal investigation of global proportions should be undertaken. Cambridge Analytica, Nigel Farage et al.",
">\n\nA non-binding referendum should never have been made into national policy.",
">\n\nTo be fair, it wasn't so much the referendum that made it real, it was the 2019 Tory landslide. \nIt elevated some of the most stupid, unserious, incapable, and corrupt people to the forefront of politics off the back of pure populism, and in the midst of some unique electoral circumstances — including an incompetent and unpopular opposition, the recent purging of every sane-ish Tory from the party, and a chaotic Parliament that, while I think portrayed the House at its very best, appeared to most voters as being an utter shambles.\nI think referendums are bad and our constitution is ill-suited to their use, but my bigger concern would always be focused on never allowing the circumstances of 2019 to ever happen again.",
">\n\nAdd to that the Tory cronyism that in 2016 was laying the groundwork for such things as the right-wing takeover of the BBC, who to this day barely mention the B-word or its negatives in any of its media.",
">\n\nTory cronyism and incompetence has eaten away at all our public institutions. From Cameron's abolition of the quangos through Truss's perversion of the EHRC and on to Johnson's insidious impact on Parliament, on Government, on the police forces, courts, the NHS, DfID, and seemingly every public institution, the Tories' destructive influence can be seen everywhere.\nI mean, seriously, can anyone point to a public institution that's in good shape? Even the one that appeals to their main priority, the Border Force, seems in a dangerous state of mismanagement.",
">\n\nI thought this was always the plan (by foreign powers); to destabilize any and all Western unity and power.",
">\n\nTrue, iirc Brexit had a lot of Russian backing",
">\n\nLook, I know I agree with some of your sentiment here but as someone in the UK I want to make this massive fucking distinction right now. Of course Russia had a part to play, we know that. But this cannot be wiped away as some evil genius Russian plot that caught out Britian unaware. \nRussia used very well established avenues of corruption to make sure this happened. British, 100 percent full british people, politicians and commentators gladly spurted this nonsense, not KGB agents. \nBoris Johnson is playing Churchill in his former runs to Kiev but he took the money, he knew who Putin, Russia and others were and what they did and he gladly took the money and him and his cronies will still fight tooth and nail for Brexit due to how it personally benefitted them. That's the root of the issue, how easy it was for Russia to influence it not the fact that they did. \nBritian is corrupt and full of horrible, evil, self serving politicians who were in bed with Russia until February, no doubt part of the reason for the strong anti Russian stance outwardly. \nJust like Trump this was not a perfectly executed evil plot that caught the west unaware. This was a well researched plot that was willingly gobbled up by people on the other side. \nI make this distinction because it is important to know the grasps of fascism in western nations and not to sweep these incidents under the tug as a one off",
">\n\nI am very aware, as a fellow British citizen, but with the amount of control the tories have over the press not to mention the 40% of the population who barely think for themselves and blindly vote for them, I don't see how we can truly change short of mass rioting. They're even trying to stop peaceful protests with these new anti protest laws, leaving violence as the only option, but that's not going to happen because as a nation we are content to sit back and let someone else handle it, which always ends in failure and corruption. Brexit is just the best example of Britain's incompetency in the last 40 odd years.",
">\n\nExtra £350m/week promised, extra -£1,923m/week delivered. \nGood fkn job Boris and his band of bozos.",
">\n\nThey made a lot of money off of it, I'm sure.",
">\n\nRead this story for free, as a thanks to Redditors discussing our article on r/worldnews \nBy Andrew Atkinson\nBrexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year ($124 billion), with the effects spanning everything from business investment to the ability of companies to hire workers.\nAn analysis by Bloomberg Economics three years after Britain left the European Union paints a bleak picture of the damage done by the way the split has been implemented by the Conservative government. \nEconomists Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson reckon the economy is 4% smaller than it might have been, with business investment lagging significantly and the shortfall in EU workers widening.",
">\n\nA book called Mindf*ck by Christopher Wiley details the Russian hack of Brexit and the Trump election. There were massive hearings from whistle-blowers that built the system, but it is so embarrassing for the UK and US to admit being hacked and devastated by Russia that nobody will ever know or pay and nothing will get fixed.",
">\n\nPrint that on a bus!",
">\n\nPaid for by the NHS",
">\n\nI guess a few disaster capitalists are doing really well out of it, there was even a book written about how to make money out of such turbulent times, it was written by some chap called Mogg, apparently his son is some kind of politician.",
">\n\nI heard that Mogg chap runs an Irish investment firm.\nHe can't be a politician otherwise we'd have a sizable conflict of interest!?",
">\n\nYeah but we're saving 350m a week, per year that's... Oh wait nevermind",
">\n\nIs anyone surprised? Brexit was fueled by dishonesty and many Brits were fooled into voting for it. \nI still can’t figure out why the British right wingers pushed so hard for Brexit, are they that stupid that they thought they’d be better off? Are they that stupid to honestly believe they wouldn’t need workers from other countries? Did they want to hurt their own economy? \nI know here in the US the right wing touts similar stupidity, but I never really thought any of the leaders believed it, but maybe those at the top are just that stupid.",
">\n\nThey've been lying about and fear mongering over immigrants as a cover for tax cuts for rich people for so long that the people meant to be bamboozled by it have all grown up and now are leaders in conservatism. They were never meant to believe such preposterous lies, but now they do, because current conservative leaders learned it supposedly in good faith from their leaders. The smart ones picked up on the scam and exploited it, and the stupid ones believed it and now govern based on it. Now it's like an AI humanity accidentally created and set into the world. It can't be controlled and can't be shut down, but it can tear apart geopolitical alliances. It's creators can only look on helplessly and hope their profits were worth it.",
">\n\nThe Republicans in the US have also been almost completely taken over by people who are high on their own supply.",
">\n\nThe people who want this are benefiting from backroom deals. What they want from government is for it to do nothing and keep out of the way. Stupid and weird politicians are perfect for this.",
">\n\nBlue passports though!",
">\n\nGot mine recently and it’s black.",
">\n\nLike the future!",
">\n\nEveryone I know who is pro-brexit has already made their money (I.e. retired). Shows you how selfish the decision was made… l",
">\n\nBoth of my grandfathers voted to leave. They then both died 2 years before we actually left.",
">\n\nIve had three grandparents who voted leave and died in an underfunded NHS hospital. The system is dumb",
">\n\nof course it’s conservatives. a bunch of wankers, ill informed morons on every continent",
">\n\nTory arseholes treating the country like it’s their own business, cunts.",
">\n\nFailing business run by failed capitalists",
">\n\nConservative ideas not working in practice? Well, that is surprising.",
">\n\nKeep voting for tories lads. It’s working out just fine….",
">\n\nThis is what happens when people let conservatives get the public whipped up into such a frenzy that they vote against their own interests.",
">\n\nThe unfortunate truth is that humans are fundamentally emotional creatures. Conservatives know this, and leverage it successfully.",
">\n\nDoes anyone know what's the public opinion of the British on Brexit at the moment?",
">\n\nI'm British and while there are a subset of the population who will never, ever believe it was a mistake (the UKs equivalent of the fake news crowd that read stuff like the Telegraph and The Daily Mail) the vast majority of people in my experience either feel intense regret or anger at the whole thing. It's really awful.\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say. They have long overstayed their welcome but there's no way to force an early election that is palatable to the general public. \nThe desire to protest was beaten out of us in the 70's by the conservatives and even as the government pass constant over reaching legislation that gives them unreasonable power and control over people. Including anti protest, anti Union and surveillance legislation and legislation designed to limit people's ability to vote we just sit and take it over and over.\nI can't tell if we've lost the ability to tell what is normal or reasonable or if we're just all defeated with 12 years of falling living standards and austerity.",
">\n\n\nI'm confident if we could undo it or even just further align ourselves with the EU to minimise the damage we would. But we have a corrupt and sleeze filled party in government who outright refuse to do anything or give the public a say.\n\nBut I can't help but wonder: why would they take us back? We were a shitty member who threatened to throw our toys out the pram whenever we didn't get our own way, the only reason we were tolerated was because we balanced France and Germany and had a lot of financial power houses.\nWell it turns out that the EU isn't so unbalanced without us anyway and the Netherlands can take all London's banks no problem. So they don't need a flakey nation state that won't accept the Euro and is probably going to lose half its territory to secession anyway.",
">\n\nWe were a net contributor while in the EU. While we whined and complained we ultimately did still provide a lot for the EU and strengthened it just like many countries do.\nIt would only be a boost for EU and UK if we rejoined but if we did somehow rejoin we'd never have the privileges we enjoyed and had as a member before. We'd likely be just like any other country that joins and have to join the Euro unless we somehow convinced them that sticking with the £ was a positive for them too (£ is somehow still a fairly strong reserve currency in several countries)",
">\n\nWe also did a lot of damage to other countries in the EU (including ourselves) while being a member - for example by blocking EU efforts to tariff chinese steel. Which ultimately led to almost a collapse of european (and british) steel production. Yes, of course, in pure monetary terms we were a net contributor, but it's not like we didn't have an immensely favourable deal and got \"more back\" than we invested. We were not \"the good guys\" in the EU. \nAnd of course it's not just \"not likely\", it's absolutely guaranteed that we'd not get the same/similar terms that we had before if we'd rejoin.",
">\n\nPutin's plan worked wonders in USA and UK. It is also working fine in the Balkans - see Serbia, Montenegro, and the Croatian president saying Crimea is Russian. \nSocial media does wonders if you are enough of a manipulative fascist cunt.",
">\n\nI feel bad for all the Brits that voted against Brexit and were helpless when it happened anyway.",
">\n\nThanks, it's nice to see people remember that 49% of us aren't braindead",
">\n\nHow do they calculate that",
">\n\n\n\nPretend Brexit never happened.\n\n\nGo back to the way it was before it.\n\n\nNever listen to conservative idiots ever again.",
">\n\n“Save our NHS” they said loooooooooooool",
">\n\nThis should be posted in r/whatcouldgowrong",
">\n\nThe power of propaganda, racism and hubris. What a performance, humornfonthe highest order!",
">\n\nAnother successful campaign by Putin.",
">\n\nWhy you don't already have Boris' and Nigel's heads on pikes is a mystery to me",
">\n\nno surprise there. one of the most common asked question related to buying stuff from outside of my country is about buying from UK.. every other day i see questions about it both on our reddit and our biggest tech forum.\ni am from croatia and prices here are higher then in UK, Germany, Norway and so on, and its not unusual for us to buy things from other EU countries because even with shipping its still much cheaper.\nwell a lot of people are scared to buy from UK now because UK is no longer in EU, and buying from non EU countries always comes with a bunch of additional charges and its often so much that it ends up being more expensive then buying in our own country.",
">\n\nWhat an incredible surprise that absolutely no one predicted would happen./s Reap what you sow UK. I feel really bad for the intelligent ones trapped there. The conservatives are holding humanity back.",
">\n\nRemember when trump congratulated UK for leaving the EU? Lol",
">\n\nFish swim, birds fly, Conservative policies are a disaster. Sounds about right.",
">\n\nLabour should plaster this on every billboard in every Tory held constituency as a friend reminder with a QR code to the source material. \nStarmer would need to get his head out his ass about it too mind you!",
">\n\nLot of Labour voters weren't/aren't pro-EU and voted for brexit. I'm not sure a 'told you so' campaign, when many prominent Labour politicians were pretty neutral on the matter at the time, would be a winning strategy.",
">\n\nNot only that, but Labour Brexiteers are so deeply rooted in their beliefs, that they voted Tory in 2019. Absolute madness, people up North who know Westminster never have, or never will, give a shit about them, voting them in because of absolutely no sane reason. \nHurts the soul this stuff...",
">\n\nLabour Brexiters that went on to also vote Tory and tore down the red wall are the fucking worst. They should know better, but doubled down instead. \nThey were filled with so much hate and spite they threw their lot in with the scumbags that ruined their families and so many communities in the midlands. None of them can ever complain about Thatcher ever again, they got exactly what they voted for and deserve.",
">\n\nNot for the tories who did it so they could keep 'legally' laundering money and the morons that vote for him have no clue how they took their freedom back.",
">\n\nPut that on your bus and smoke it",
">\n\nHow much is that in Euros?"
] |
I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.
In logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:
Statement 1: All As are Bs.
Statement 2: C is an A
Conclusion: Therefore, C is a B.
A logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.
Statement 1: What people believe to be true is true
Statement 2: People believe the world is round
Conclusion: Therefore, the world is round.
Statement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically "argument to popularity." Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.
Now, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.
So, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.
So yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.
The existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious. | [] |
>
I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.
In defense of OP, the term "slippery slope" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: "when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false"
Maybe we're saying the same thing. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious."
] |
>
Sure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, "it could happen" or "its happened before" isn't an argument that it will happen this time. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing."
] |
>
The point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.
But even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.
But you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say "well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: "why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version! | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time."
] |
>
What I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.
In answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).
The fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't "it's easier to legally argue now" | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!"
] |
>
In answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).
So... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious? | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\""
] |
>
No, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?"
] |
>
It really doesn't though.
Before gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.
After gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.
You could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen."
] |
>
Unfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue."
] |
>
Unfortunately it is a lot higher then zero
Zero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.
And again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?
If not, then there is no slippery slope here. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal."
] |
>
Not every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):
The fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.
From: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)
So it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.
For example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here."
] |
>
So it isn't a slippery slope when people say "They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!"?
Yes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.
But the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y."
] |
>
But the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.
No it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.
The consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.
* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings! | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy."
] |
>
I think you misunderstand my point.
A fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.
OP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!"
] |
>
Can you give an example of any situation/behaviour in society which is not a slippery slope in your opinion? | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!",
">\n\nI think you misunderstand my point.\nA fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.\nOP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X."
] |
>
An example of it as fallacy is euthanasia.
In Canada we recently passed legislation that allows for euthanasia. We also have an established single payer Healthcare system.
One of the slippery slope arguments was that legalization of euthanasia would be the beginning of a slippery slope to "death panels" - and I'd argue that's asinine.
In this case it's a logically fallacy to argue one is a slippery slope to the other.
What are the possible outcomes that lead us from an act of mercy to an act of murder?
No one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!",
">\n\nI think you misunderstand my point.\nA fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.\nOP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X.",
">\n\nCan you give an example of any situation/behaviour in society which is not a slippery slope in your opinion?"
] |
>
No one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between
Immediate thought?
Step 1. Legalize euthanasia
Step 2. It becomes socially acceptable to pressure the elderly to kill themselves for the financial benefit of their children.
Step 3. Death panels are used in the upcoming population crisis as a way to deal with insufficient resources.
To be clear, I do NOT think step 3 will happen, it's just a conspiracy theory. But step 2 already happens and legalization will make it happen more so there is that.
(I support euthanasia to be clear, just playing devil's advocate here) | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!",
">\n\nI think you misunderstand my point.\nA fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.\nOP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X.",
">\n\nCan you give an example of any situation/behaviour in society which is not a slippery slope in your opinion?",
">\n\nAn example of it as fallacy is euthanasia. \nIn Canada we recently passed legislation that allows for euthanasia. We also have an established single payer Healthcare system. \nOne of the slippery slope arguments was that legalization of euthanasia would be the beginning of a slippery slope to \"death panels\" - and I'd argue that's asinine. \nIn this case it's a logically fallacy to argue one is a slippery slope to the other. \nWhat are the possible outcomes that lead us from an act of mercy to an act of murder? \nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between"
] |
>
The chasm between your step 1 and 2 is staggering.
Legal euthanasia is intended for support to the chronically ill. It is not an assisted suicide scheme.
Yours too is part of the fallacy of slippery slope.
There certainly are area for slippery slope to apply. But the statement "never a fallacy" is absurd | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!",
">\n\nI think you misunderstand my point.\nA fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.\nOP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X.",
">\n\nCan you give an example of any situation/behaviour in society which is not a slippery slope in your opinion?",
">\n\nAn example of it as fallacy is euthanasia. \nIn Canada we recently passed legislation that allows for euthanasia. We also have an established single payer Healthcare system. \nOne of the slippery slope arguments was that legalization of euthanasia would be the beginning of a slippery slope to \"death panels\" - and I'd argue that's asinine. \nIn this case it's a logically fallacy to argue one is a slippery slope to the other. \nWhat are the possible outcomes that lead us from an act of mercy to an act of murder? \nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between",
">\n\n\nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between \n\nImmediate thought?\nStep 1. Legalize euthanasia\nStep 2. It becomes socially acceptable to pressure the elderly to kill themselves for the financial benefit of their children.\nStep 3. Death panels are used in the upcoming population crisis as a way to deal with insufficient resources.\nTo be clear, I do NOT think step 3 will happen, it's just a conspiracy theory. But step 2 already happens and legalization will make it happen more so there is that.\n(I support euthanasia to be clear, just playing devil's advocate here)"
] |
>
The essential nature of a fallacious slippery slope argument is that it overstates the probability of a chain of events or consequences occurring given an initial state or cause. In the strictest sense of the term, a slippery slope fallacy is incorrectly treating the chain as logically certain or proven, but it is often used in a more general sense as well.
The important thing about this distinction is that slippery slope is not a fallacy when the chain is viewed objectively or realistically. Even if you're recognising that the probability of a given chain occurring is very low but stating that it occurring is sufficiently disastrous that even a low probability is unacceptable, that's not fallacious. But that fact doesn't stop it from being a fallacy if you're instead going on about how A is definitely going to cause B which is certain to cause C blah blah blah so Z is guaranteed to happen. | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!",
">\n\nI think you misunderstand my point.\nA fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.\nOP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X.",
">\n\nCan you give an example of any situation/behaviour in society which is not a slippery slope in your opinion?",
">\n\nAn example of it as fallacy is euthanasia. \nIn Canada we recently passed legislation that allows for euthanasia. We also have an established single payer Healthcare system. \nOne of the slippery slope arguments was that legalization of euthanasia would be the beginning of a slippery slope to \"death panels\" - and I'd argue that's asinine. \nIn this case it's a logically fallacy to argue one is a slippery slope to the other. \nWhat are the possible outcomes that lead us from an act of mercy to an act of murder? \nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between",
">\n\n\nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between \n\nImmediate thought?\nStep 1. Legalize euthanasia\nStep 2. It becomes socially acceptable to pressure the elderly to kill themselves for the financial benefit of their children.\nStep 3. Death panels are used in the upcoming population crisis as a way to deal with insufficient resources.\nTo be clear, I do NOT think step 3 will happen, it's just a conspiracy theory. But step 2 already happens and legalization will make it happen more so there is that.\n(I support euthanasia to be clear, just playing devil's advocate here)",
">\n\nThe chasm between your step 1 and 2 is staggering. \nLegal euthanasia is intended for support to the chronically ill. It is not an assisted suicide scheme. \nYours too is part of the fallacy of slippery slope. \nThere certainly are area for slippery slope to apply. But the statement \"never a fallacy\" is absurd"
] |
> | [
"I think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\nIn logical arguments, you are attempting to prove something through a series of logical statements like:\nStatement 1: All As are Bs.\nStatement 2: C is an A\nConclusion: Therefore, C is a B.\nA logical fallacy is when you make a statement but that statement is not demonstrably true in all cases. We have specific names for the types of arguments/statements that may appear to be true, but are actually not universally true when evaluated. Those are called logical fallacies. So, for example.\nStatement 1: What people believe to be true is true\nStatement 2: People believe the world is round\nConclusion: Therefore, the world is round.\nStatement 1 is a logical fallacy - specifically \"argument to popularity.\" Things are not true just because everyone believes them to be true. Statement 1 is not a logically valid argument, so the conclusion is not proven true from the arguments provided.\nNow, I chose this example for a specific reason - simply demonstrating a fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion is not proven true via the arguments provided. It may very well be true, but your argument doesn't show that. To the example, the world is round, but you can't prove that simply because people believe it so; you need different, non-fallacious arguments.\n\nSo, what does that have to do with this CMV. Well, the slippery slope fallacy is arguing that because a series of events have led to events in the past, further events will happen in the future. That is a fallacy because those serise of events could always stop - the fact that something has continued does not mean that it will continue in every case. The events may very well continue, but you can't prove that conclusively simply based on past events.\nSo yes, to one of your examples, the Patriot Act has been used as a precedent to lead to other freedoms being taken away, but that isn't proof that every law or every legal precedent will continue to be used in increasingly broad ways going forward. Hell, case in point, the precedent of Roe vs. Wade was just overturned - not only will it not be used for increasing freedoms going forward, but some of the freedoms it was used to create may be removed. A precedent was reduced, not expanded. The courts can - and often do - step in to stop the expansion of law to new areas.\nThe existence of a precedent does not prove that precedent will be expanded, nor does any expansion of that precedent in the past. Any attempt to argue that it does is fallacious.",
">\n\n\nI think you may be misinterpreting what the slippery slope fallacy is.\n\nIn defense of OP, the term \"slippery slope\" in a legal context, in my mind, refers to a commonly observed pattern of events, not so much a logical construct. So I read the view like this: \"when one refers to slippery slope, they're referring to something real and significant, not something that should be consider false\"\nMaybe we're saying the same thing.",
">\n\nSure, but even then, the pattern of events isn't evidence that that pattern will be repeated. You need to address any specific law or precedent and argue why the nature of that law/precedent creates a risk of overuse. Simply saying, \"it could happen\" or \"its happened before\" isn't an argument that it will happen this time.",
">\n\nThe point you're making is that some slopes are slippery. This is true! Ice is real and you should be careful on hills in the winter.\nBut even in law, not all slopes are slippery. You can certainly make compelling points about precedent and argue why you think one law / ruling will lead to another. That's not fallacious, just as you can talk about what actually happens to a car on an icy hill.\nBut you need to actually make the argument! You can't just say \"well, of you legalize gay marriage, what's next, people marrying their dogs?\" Because there's some pretty obvious points where the evolution of the law is not going to make that transition. It's fair to pose the question: \"why isn't this a case of a slippery slope?\", but if you get an answer to that question, you've got to actually engage with the argument. If you just dig your heels in with this precedent argument but don't actually make a compelling case for how you get from A to B, then you are doing the fallacious version!",
">\n\nWhat I said what that slippery slope is always a valid argument when it comes to the law, not that the rest of their arguments aren't bs, just that you cannot dismiss the argument of slippery slope.\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen). \nThe fact that if you change the definition of marriage once makes it easier to do again isn't relevant, they aren't going to make animal marriage legal for many reasons that aren't \"it's easier to legally argue now\"",
">\n\n\nIn answer to your example of expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage leading to legalizing marrying animals, there are a LOT of great arguments against that (the easiest being that in order to do that you would need to recognize animals as human which will not happen).\n\nSo... doesn't that show that this particular slippery slope argument was a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore at least some slippery slope arguments related to law are fallacious?",
">\n\nNo, it would make it easier to make marrying animals easier, there just are numerous other reasons it won't happen.",
">\n\nIt really doesn't though.\nBefore gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nAfter gay marriage was legalized, approximately zero people (with maybe a small margin of error) wanted to legalize animal marriage.\nYou could make the extreme hypothetical argument that maybe some imaginary level of support might materialize in the future for animal marriage because people are more open to changing laws about marriage since it's already happened once. But you could just as easily make an equally strong (as in, both arguments are astoundingly weak) argument that due to the fact that the law has been changed once, people are less likely to want to change it again. Neither argument has much basis in reality with this specific issue.",
">\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero but I agree that the fact that it's so wildly unpopular is another good reason that they won't make animal marriage legal.",
">\n\n\nUnfortunately it is a lot higher then zero \n\nZero within the margin of error. As in, if you polled a large group of people, your results would probably be zero.\nAnd again, the point is that whatever the number is, isn't higher now than it was before, is it? Do you have anything to suggest that it is?\nIf not, then there is no slippery slope here.",
">\n\nNot every slippery slope is a fallacy. It does however become a fallacy if someone claims that a specific consequence is inevitable (without reasonable justification):\n\n\nThe fallacy is that of supposing that a single step in a particular direction must inevitably and irresistibly lead to the whole distance being covered. There are cases in which one step leads to another, and cases where it does not. It is not a fallacy to suppose that after the first stride, further steps might be taken towards unpleasant consequences, but it is usually an error to suppose that they must.\n\n\nFrom: How to Win Every Argument (Madsen Pirie, 2006)\nSo it is not fallacious to say that Y may follow chronologically after X. It is only fallacious when the suggestion is that Y will necessarily and causally follow from X, without providing further reasoning. Especially when Y is used to dissuade people from accepting X.\nFor example, when the first same-sex unions were introduced, opponents started suggesting all kinds of dire consequences: it will lead to people marrying their pets, toasters, children etc. We're already 30+ years on, and nothing like that has gained any serious ground in those countries. And even if something like that were introduced now, it would be difficult to argue that that is still only the effect of introducing equality for same-sex couples in Europe in the late 80s. Even if a prediction happens, it doesn't automatically mean that the slippery slope was justified. You would also need to exclude confounding factors, such as accidental/spurious correlations, and common causes that affected both X and Y.",
">\n\nSo it isn't a slippery slope when people say \"They made same sex marriage legal, next they'll make it legal to marry pets and kids!\"?\nYes, the law does mean that a precedent can set a new standard which has consequences.\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences. If those specific consequences are not logically inevitable or at least likely from the precedent, it's still a slippery slope fallacy.",
">\n\n\nBut the nature of a slippery slope fallacy is that it argues for the likelihood or inevitability of SPECIFIC consequences.\n\nNo it doesn't. The nature of the argument is cause and effect. The fallacious aspect only enters when the supposed effect (or consequence) doesn't Logically follow from the premise.\nThe consequence being specifically outlined or a random construct doesn't matter - it's the understanding of the syllogism that makes it fallacious or not.\n* Downvote all the correct Logic understandings!",
">\n\nI think you misunderstand my point.\nA fallacious slippery slope is when someone argues that X will either necessarily lead to Y or will run a particular level of risk of leading to Y AND there is not a logical justification for why that particular X must (or is highly likely to) lead to Y.\nOP argues that in law, for a given X, it can lead to other things and so it can't be fallacious to claim a slippery slope. But it matters crucially in a slippery slope fallacy whether that particular claimed outcome is logically supported, not just whether SOME future outcomes will come from X.",
">\n\nCan you give an example of any situation/behaviour in society which is not a slippery slope in your opinion?",
">\n\nAn example of it as fallacy is euthanasia. \nIn Canada we recently passed legislation that allows for euthanasia. We also have an established single payer Healthcare system. \nOne of the slippery slope arguments was that legalization of euthanasia would be the beginning of a slippery slope to \"death panels\" - and I'd argue that's asinine. \nIn this case it's a logically fallacy to argue one is a slippery slope to the other. \nWhat are the possible outcomes that lead us from an act of mercy to an act of murder? \nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between",
">\n\n\nNo one ever provided evidence or even a scenario of how we get a to b. And I feel like there's about 26 steps between \n\nImmediate thought?\nStep 1. Legalize euthanasia\nStep 2. It becomes socially acceptable to pressure the elderly to kill themselves for the financial benefit of their children.\nStep 3. Death panels are used in the upcoming population crisis as a way to deal with insufficient resources.\nTo be clear, I do NOT think step 3 will happen, it's just a conspiracy theory. But step 2 already happens and legalization will make it happen more so there is that.\n(I support euthanasia to be clear, just playing devil's advocate here)",
">\n\nThe chasm between your step 1 and 2 is staggering. \nLegal euthanasia is intended for support to the chronically ill. It is not an assisted suicide scheme. \nYours too is part of the fallacy of slippery slope. \nThere certainly are area for slippery slope to apply. But the statement \"never a fallacy\" is absurd",
">\n\nThe essential nature of a fallacious slippery slope argument is that it overstates the probability of a chain of events or consequences occurring given an initial state or cause. In the strictest sense of the term, a slippery slope fallacy is incorrectly treating the chain as logically certain or proven, but it is often used in a more general sense as well.\nThe important thing about this distinction is that slippery slope is not a fallacy when the chain is viewed objectively or realistically. Even if you're recognising that the probability of a given chain occurring is very low but stating that it occurring is sufficiently disastrous that even a low probability is unacceptable, that's not fallacious. But that fact doesn't stop it from being a fallacy if you're instead going on about how A is definitely going to cause B which is certain to cause C blah blah blah so Z is guaranteed to happen."
] |
The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.
The purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war.
We all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever | [] |
>
What's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western "wonder weapons". | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever"
] |
>
Didn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.
Or was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\"."
] |
>
He said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements."
] |
>
No he definitely said in early January. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut."
] |
>
This video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January."
] |
>
I was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics."
] |
>
You don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?
Just because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.
Reading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it."
] |
>
Of course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving."
] |
>
I also post misinformation for uptoots.
But yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something."
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
Ukraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.
Despite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.
Ukraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5 | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise"
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
Ukraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.
Despite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.
Ukraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5 | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5"
] |
>
It's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works? | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5"
] |
>
That's not a useful statement, and it isn't true either. War is not some straight line where you get up every day and do the same thing over and over again. There are phases, an ebb-and-flow, days of big battles, weeks of trench defense, moments of maneuvers and movement, weeks of bolstering logistics and so on.
The statement here is credible because the 24th will be a symbolic date of 1 year after the war. There will def be lots of unrest and protests in Russia for having lost a year over something that was promoted as 3 days easy-peasy. So Putin wants a big win on the 24th to use as political ammunition and stifle critics. | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nIt's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works?"
] |
>
Is this guy using internet explorer? It happened 11 months ago Feb 24 🙄 | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nIt's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works?",
">\n\nThat's not a useful statement, and it isn't true either. War is not some straight line where you get up every day and do the same thing over and over again. There are phases, an ebb-and-flow, days of big battles, weeks of trench defense, moments of maneuvers and movement, weeks of bolstering logistics and so on.\nThe statement here is credible because the 24th will be a symbolic date of 1 year after the war. There will def be lots of unrest and protests in Russia for having lost a year over something that was promoted as 3 days easy-peasy. So Putin wants a big win on the 24th to use as political ammunition and stifle critics."
] |
>
Are you being sarcastic? | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nIt's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works?",
">\n\nThat's not a useful statement, and it isn't true either. War is not some straight line where you get up every day and do the same thing over and over again. There are phases, an ebb-and-flow, days of big battles, weeks of trench defense, moments of maneuvers and movement, weeks of bolstering logistics and so on.\nThe statement here is credible because the 24th will be a symbolic date of 1 year after the war. There will def be lots of unrest and protests in Russia for having lost a year over something that was promoted as 3 days easy-peasy. So Putin wants a big win on the 24th to use as political ammunition and stifle critics.",
">\n\nIs this guy using internet explorer? It happened 11 months ago Feb 24 🙄"
] |
>
Yeah | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nIt's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works?",
">\n\nThat's not a useful statement, and it isn't true either. War is not some straight line where you get up every day and do the same thing over and over again. There are phases, an ebb-and-flow, days of big battles, weeks of trench defense, moments of maneuvers and movement, weeks of bolstering logistics and so on.\nThe statement here is credible because the 24th will be a symbolic date of 1 year after the war. There will def be lots of unrest and protests in Russia for having lost a year over something that was promoted as 3 days easy-peasy. So Putin wants a big win on the 24th to use as political ammunition and stifle critics.",
">\n\nIs this guy using internet explorer? It happened 11 months ago Feb 24 🙄",
">\n\nAre you being sarcastic?"
] |
>
Ok lol | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nIt's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works?",
">\n\nThat's not a useful statement, and it isn't true either. War is not some straight line where you get up every day and do the same thing over and over again. There are phases, an ebb-and-flow, days of big battles, weeks of trench defense, moments of maneuvers and movement, weeks of bolstering logistics and so on.\nThe statement here is credible because the 24th will be a symbolic date of 1 year after the war. There will def be lots of unrest and protests in Russia for having lost a year over something that was promoted as 3 days easy-peasy. So Putin wants a big win on the 24th to use as political ammunition and stifle critics.",
">\n\nIs this guy using internet explorer? It happened 11 months ago Feb 24 🙄",
">\n\nAre you being sarcastic?",
">\n\nYeah"
] |
> | [
"The Russian tactic for this war is to be slow, constant, and predictable. That’s why there are weekly missile attacks at the same day/time and the same suicide attacks at the front every day.\nThe purpose is to demoralize Ukraine and message that Russia’s overwhelming force will inevitably win. That’s why there probably will be a renewed offensive at the 1 year anniversary of the war. \nWe all know Russia is putting up a facade though. The internal cracks are showing and the cash/food reserves for their troops won’t be there forever",
">\n\nWhat's showing by all accounts is that Bakhmut is about to be encircled by the Russians; despite the western \"wonder weapons\".",
">\n\nDidn't he say that would happen in January? I think this news is more directed at scaring Russians than it actually is reliable information.\nOr was that a new mobilization. Anyway don't trust these announcements.",
">\n\nHe said it’s likely to come in February or at best March but most source’s I’ve heard say March or later. Either way the Russians did attack recently and have been taking towns such as Soledar and now Bahkmut.",
">\n\nNo he definitely said in early January.",
">\n\nThis video says nothing about an offensive in January. It says they will begin another round of mobilizations in January . Those are two completely different topics.",
">\n\nI was referring to the supposed mobilization he said would come in early January and didn't. I will not believe anything from him until I see it.",
">\n\nYou don't think that Russia could have heard Ukraines message and delayed mobilization to discredit them?\nJust because Ukraine has Intel that indicates one thing in particular, doesn't mean it's going to happen exactly as they believe it will.\nReading your comments. It really does appear that you were referring to an offensive. Since that's what we were all talking about, that's what the article is about and you said nothing about changing the topic to mobilization. The goalposts are moving.",
">\n\nOf course, maybe a bit. But not for 25 days. In my book he doesn't have to much credibility, i'll wait until American or British intelligence tells me something.",
">\n\nI also post misinformation for uptoots.\nBut yeah this post came up five separate times allover r/worldnews i think its a russian bot like who announces the actual day of attack its like giving up the element of surprise",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nUkraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.\nDespite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.\nUkraine's Deputy Defence Minster Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 troops^#2 Russian^#3 Reznikov^#4 Try^#5",
">\n\nIt's a war, morons. They're planning an offensive every frickin' day. How else do you think this works?",
">\n\nThat's not a useful statement, and it isn't true either. War is not some straight line where you get up every day and do the same thing over and over again. There are phases, an ebb-and-flow, days of big battles, weeks of trench defense, moments of maneuvers and movement, weeks of bolstering logistics and so on.\nThe statement here is credible because the 24th will be a symbolic date of 1 year after the war. There will def be lots of unrest and protests in Russia for having lost a year over something that was promoted as 3 days easy-peasy. So Putin wants a big win on the 24th to use as political ammunition and stifle critics.",
">\n\nIs this guy using internet explorer? It happened 11 months ago Feb 24 🙄",
">\n\nAre you being sarcastic?",
">\n\nYeah",
">\n\nOk lol"
] |
To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.
That said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns. | [] |
>
An additional £160 billion in profits that Norway wouldn't have made if the war wasn't happening.
Norway should prove to the world that it would rather the war end than make profit from the continuation of the war.
They could buy 12,000 Leopard 2 tanks with that profit. | [
"To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.\nThat said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns."
] |
>
I mean, yes, obviously they wouldn't be profiting that much if the war wasn't happening, but I can't remember the last time a country contributed all of its profits from a foreign war to help the side that they like better, can you?
Would this even be a question if it were a poor nation profiting and not one of the objectively wealthiest in the world? Norway doesn't exactly need more money, but if they built all of the infrastructure and assumed all of the risk involved with selling a commodity, why shouldn't they be reaping the benefit?
What if they made the money from a war that Norwegian citizens didn't care much about, but one in which the same dynamics (i.e., large and powerful autocratic country beats up on and bullies its small, democratizing neighbor) were at play? Still wrong for them to keep the money? Because I guarantee you, they would. | [
"To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.\nThat said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns.",
">\n\nAn additional £160 billion in profits that Norway wouldn't have made if the war wasn't happening.\nNorway should prove to the world that it would rather the war end than make profit from the continuation of the war.\nThey could buy 12,000 Leopard 2 tanks with that profit."
] |
>
Compared with original estimates, Oslo’s state budget projected an additional €180bn (£160bn) in oil and gas income for 2022 and 2023, the signatories wrote, adding that the government’s public pledges of support for Ukraine over the same period amounted to just €1.27bn.
Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has dismissed any suggestion that the country was profiteering from the war. “It’s a notion I flatly refuse”, Støre told AFP on Tuesday, adding that a major “multi-year support package” would be announced in the coming days. | [
"To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.\nThat said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns.",
">\n\nAn additional £160 billion in profits that Norway wouldn't have made if the war wasn't happening.\nNorway should prove to the world that it would rather the war end than make profit from the continuation of the war.\nThey could buy 12,000 Leopard 2 tanks with that profit.",
">\n\nI mean, yes, obviously they wouldn't be profiting that much if the war wasn't happening, but I can't remember the last time a country contributed all of its profits from a foreign war to help the side that they like better, can you?\nWould this even be a question if it were a poor nation profiting and not one of the objectively wealthiest in the world? Norway doesn't exactly need more money, but if they built all of the infrastructure and assumed all of the risk involved with selling a commodity, why shouldn't they be reaping the benefit?\nWhat if they made the money from a war that Norwegian citizens didn't care much about, but one in which the same dynamics (i.e., large and powerful autocratic country beats up on and bullies its small, democratizing neighbor) were at play? Still wrong for them to keep the money? Because I guarantee you, they would."
] |
>
We are currently experiencing an unprecedented energy crisis in Norway (that started even before the war) due to increased electricity costs. Greedy ass energy companies turn up the prices during winter because "cold = people have to heat their homes no matter how expensive".
Then the war happened and prices kept increasing as the energy companies exported more and more to EU. The government doesnt regulate prices and wont do shit because they take a percentage of the cut, and also earn enough money to not have to care about electricity prices. People have been protesting for over a year to no avail.
I agree that support should be stepped up but just know that the "extra money" everyone is talking about is pocketed from people who cant afford it and are literally dying because of it.
And keep in mind that the main people who profit off this is not even the government, its the old ass rich fucks who run the energy companies, and they have no intentions of supporting anything except their own bank accounts. | [
"To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.\nThat said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns.",
">\n\nAn additional £160 billion in profits that Norway wouldn't have made if the war wasn't happening.\nNorway should prove to the world that it would rather the war end than make profit from the continuation of the war.\nThey could buy 12,000 Leopard 2 tanks with that profit.",
">\n\nI mean, yes, obviously they wouldn't be profiting that much if the war wasn't happening, but I can't remember the last time a country contributed all of its profits from a foreign war to help the side that they like better, can you?\nWould this even be a question if it were a poor nation profiting and not one of the objectively wealthiest in the world? Norway doesn't exactly need more money, but if they built all of the infrastructure and assumed all of the risk involved with selling a commodity, why shouldn't they be reaping the benefit?\nWhat if they made the money from a war that Norwegian citizens didn't care much about, but one in which the same dynamics (i.e., large and powerful autocratic country beats up on and bullies its small, democratizing neighbor) were at play? Still wrong for them to keep the money? Because I guarantee you, they would.",
">\n\n\nCompared with original estimates, Oslo’s state budget projected an additional €180bn (£160bn) in oil and gas income for 2022 and 2023, the signatories wrote, adding that the government’s public pledges of support for Ukraine over the same period amounted to just €1.27bn.\nNorway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has dismissed any suggestion that the country was profiteering from the war. “It’s a notion I flatly refuse”, Støre told AFP on Tuesday, adding that a major “multi-year support package” would be announced in the coming days."
] |
>
Your electricity comes almost entirely from hydroelectric dams.
The profits that are being talked about here are gas and oil. Nothing to do with each other. | [
"To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.\nThat said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns.",
">\n\nAn additional £160 billion in profits that Norway wouldn't have made if the war wasn't happening.\nNorway should prove to the world that it would rather the war end than make profit from the continuation of the war.\nThey could buy 12,000 Leopard 2 tanks with that profit.",
">\n\nI mean, yes, obviously they wouldn't be profiting that much if the war wasn't happening, but I can't remember the last time a country contributed all of its profits from a foreign war to help the side that they like better, can you?\nWould this even be a question if it were a poor nation profiting and not one of the objectively wealthiest in the world? Norway doesn't exactly need more money, but if they built all of the infrastructure and assumed all of the risk involved with selling a commodity, why shouldn't they be reaping the benefit?\nWhat if they made the money from a war that Norwegian citizens didn't care much about, but one in which the same dynamics (i.e., large and powerful autocratic country beats up on and bullies its small, democratizing neighbor) were at play? Still wrong for them to keep the money? Because I guarantee you, they would.",
">\n\n\nCompared with original estimates, Oslo’s state budget projected an additional €180bn (£160bn) in oil and gas income for 2022 and 2023, the signatories wrote, adding that the government’s public pledges of support for Ukraine over the same period amounted to just €1.27bn.\nNorway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has dismissed any suggestion that the country was profiteering from the war. “It’s a notion I flatly refuse”, Støre told AFP on Tuesday, adding that a major “multi-year support package” would be announced in the coming days.",
">\n\nWe are currently experiencing an unprecedented energy crisis in Norway (that started even before the war) due to increased electricity costs. Greedy ass energy companies turn up the prices during winter because \"cold = people have to heat their homes no matter how expensive\". \nThen the war happened and prices kept increasing as the energy companies exported more and more to EU. The government doesnt regulate prices and wont do shit because they take a percentage of the cut, and also earn enough money to not have to care about electricity prices. People have been protesting for over a year to no avail. \nI agree that support should be stepped up but just know that the \"extra money\" everyone is talking about is pocketed from people who cant afford it and are literally dying because of it. \nAnd keep in mind that the main people who profit off this is not even the government, its the old ass rich fucks who run the energy companies, and they have no intentions of supporting anything except their own bank accounts."
] |
> | [
"To argue that Norway is not contributing enough to the war effort is one thing, but I don't think additional income from energy should be a factor in the decision. Countries profit from war all the time, accidentally and intentionally, directly and indirectly. They're right -- Oslo didn't set the prices, this is just how free market economies work. Decrease in supply in one place means an increase in price elsewhere. Norway just happens to be the beneficiary.\nThat said, it is cool to see that the effort to pressure Oslo to do more is a domestic one and clearly an altruistic one. If the government is really announcing a new and presumably larger aid package to Ukraine, perhaps that will assuage their concerns.",
">\n\nAn additional £160 billion in profits that Norway wouldn't have made if the war wasn't happening.\nNorway should prove to the world that it would rather the war end than make profit from the continuation of the war.\nThey could buy 12,000 Leopard 2 tanks with that profit.",
">\n\nI mean, yes, obviously they wouldn't be profiting that much if the war wasn't happening, but I can't remember the last time a country contributed all of its profits from a foreign war to help the side that they like better, can you?\nWould this even be a question if it were a poor nation profiting and not one of the objectively wealthiest in the world? Norway doesn't exactly need more money, but if they built all of the infrastructure and assumed all of the risk involved with selling a commodity, why shouldn't they be reaping the benefit?\nWhat if they made the money from a war that Norwegian citizens didn't care much about, but one in which the same dynamics (i.e., large and powerful autocratic country beats up on and bullies its small, democratizing neighbor) were at play? Still wrong for them to keep the money? Because I guarantee you, they would.",
">\n\n\nCompared with original estimates, Oslo’s state budget projected an additional €180bn (£160bn) in oil and gas income for 2022 and 2023, the signatories wrote, adding that the government’s public pledges of support for Ukraine over the same period amounted to just €1.27bn.\nNorway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, has dismissed any suggestion that the country was profiteering from the war. “It’s a notion I flatly refuse”, Støre told AFP on Tuesday, adding that a major “multi-year support package” would be announced in the coming days.",
">\n\nWe are currently experiencing an unprecedented energy crisis in Norway (that started even before the war) due to increased electricity costs. Greedy ass energy companies turn up the prices during winter because \"cold = people have to heat their homes no matter how expensive\". \nThen the war happened and prices kept increasing as the energy companies exported more and more to EU. The government doesnt regulate prices and wont do shit because they take a percentage of the cut, and also earn enough money to not have to care about electricity prices. People have been protesting for over a year to no avail. \nI agree that support should be stepped up but just know that the \"extra money\" everyone is talking about is pocketed from people who cant afford it and are literally dying because of it. \nAnd keep in mind that the main people who profit off this is not even the government, its the old ass rich fucks who run the energy companies, and they have no intentions of supporting anything except their own bank accounts.",
">\n\nYour electricity comes almost entirely from hydroelectric dams. \nThe profits that are being talked about here are gas and oil. Nothing to do with each other."
] |
I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are. | [] |
>
Looks like she acquired about 11,000 cases. I dont know for sure bow many are in a case, google says probably 280 to 360(??). If we said “300” then this would be around 3.3 million wings.
I guess they think the wings are worth around $0.45/each. | [
"I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are."
] |
>
Isn't that something like 10 semi truck loads? If yes, how could somebody, like maybe the cook, not notice? | [
"I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are.",
">\n\nLooks like she acquired about 11,000 cases. I dont know for sure bow many are in a case, google says probably 280 to 360(??). If we said “300” then this would be around 3.3 million wings. \nI guess they think the wings are worth around $0.45/each."
] |
>
It's more they bought it from the manufacturer with school funds than outright theft. | [
"I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are.",
">\n\nLooks like she acquired about 11,000 cases. I dont know for sure bow many are in a case, google says probably 280 to 360(??). If we said “300” then this would be around 3.3 million wings. \nI guess they think the wings are worth around $0.45/each.",
">\n\nIsn't that something like 10 semi truck loads? If yes, how could somebody, like maybe the cook, not notice?"
] |
>
Big deal someone stole a 12 piece | [
"I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are.",
">\n\nLooks like she acquired about 11,000 cases. I dont know for sure bow many are in a case, google says probably 280 to 360(??). If we said “300” then this would be around 3.3 million wings. \nI guess they think the wings are worth around $0.45/each.",
">\n\nIsn't that something like 10 semi truck loads? If yes, how could somebody, like maybe the cook, not notice?",
">\n\nIt's more they bought it from the manufacturer with school funds than outright theft."
] |
>
That's like 3 meals at Buffalo Wild Wings. | [
"I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are.",
">\n\nLooks like she acquired about 11,000 cases. I dont know for sure bow many are in a case, google says probably 280 to 360(??). If we said “300” then this would be around 3.3 million wings. \nI guess they think the wings are worth around $0.45/each.",
">\n\nIsn't that something like 10 semi truck loads? If yes, how could somebody, like maybe the cook, not notice?",
">\n\nIt's more they bought it from the manufacturer with school funds than outright theft.",
">\n\nBig deal someone stole a 12 piece"
] |
> | [
"I don't think they stole 12500000 chicken wings. They can't spend more than 12¢ with how terrible they are.",
">\n\nLooks like she acquired about 11,000 cases. I dont know for sure bow many are in a case, google says probably 280 to 360(??). If we said “300” then this would be around 3.3 million wings. \nI guess they think the wings are worth around $0.45/each.",
">\n\nIsn't that something like 10 semi truck loads? If yes, how could somebody, like maybe the cook, not notice?",
">\n\nIt's more they bought it from the manufacturer with school funds than outright theft.",
">\n\nBig deal someone stole a 12 piece",
">\n\nThat's like 3 meals at Buffalo Wild Wings."
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. | [] |
>
I really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
>
I also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me"
] |
>
Maybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why."
] |
>
Yeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit."
] |
>
I’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season."
] |
>
I’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess."
] |
>
I hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.
That 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of "self absorbed naive teenager". | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha"
] |
>
From my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable.
The only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.
I know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\"."
] |
>
Outside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates."
] |
>
They can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show."
] |
>
Its casting is also farther from anything good.
I mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.
You can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s."
] |
>
I feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts."
] |
>
Topher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery."
] |
>
Both statements are true, my friend. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic."
] |
>
I was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend."
] |
>
Congrats, it means youre in your 70's | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's."
] |
>
Help with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now? | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's"
] |
>
Oh, you said "You were born in" I thought you said "You are boringgggggg" | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?"
] |
>
Same thing, I guess. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\""
] |
>
It's ok grampa, time to go to bed. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess."
] |
>
I just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed."
] |
>
It' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way."
] |
>
But your father can't sleep until he gives it to me. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way.",
">\n\nIt' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them."
] |
>
I've only seen a trailer for this show. Aside from the smoking, the trailer felt so disney. Is that a fair assessment? Or am I misjudging it? | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way.",
">\n\nIt' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them.",
">\n\nBut your father can't sleep until he gives it to me."
] |
>
It does have a Mighty Ducks: Game Changer vibe to it. Also, Girl Meets World. Trying SO hard to recreate the formula for a show that worked in the 90s but would never really succeed currently. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way.",
">\n\nIt' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them.",
">\n\nBut your father can't sleep until he gives it to me.",
">\n\nI've only seen a trailer for this show. Aside from the smoking, the trailer felt so disney. Is that a fair assessment? Or am I misjudging it?"
] |
>
Yeah, I figured. And I'm not certain on this one... but I feel like there's a tiny chance that red and kitty are a tad different??? I mean, in a way where they still do have the same lines and maybe quirks, but in more of a homage to the original series? Idk, I don't feel confident in this one, but thinking there's a chance. Just tell me if I hit the nail on the head or not. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way.",
">\n\nIt' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them.",
">\n\nBut your father can't sleep until he gives it to me.",
">\n\nI've only seen a trailer for this show. Aside from the smoking, the trailer felt so disney. Is that a fair assessment? Or am I misjudging it?",
">\n\nIt does have a Mighty Ducks: Game Changer vibe to it. Also, Girl Meets World. Trying SO hard to recreate the formula for a show that worked in the 90s but would never really succeed currently."
] |
>
Yep, there's a chance. If anything, it'll be Red and Kitty holding it together until the kids can vibe more. If you liked Donna's dad, then you'll like the new neighbor btw. She's probably my favorite new character. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way.",
">\n\nIt' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them.",
">\n\nBut your father can't sleep until he gives it to me.",
">\n\nI've only seen a trailer for this show. Aside from the smoking, the trailer felt so disney. Is that a fair assessment? Or am I misjudging it?",
">\n\nIt does have a Mighty Ducks: Game Changer vibe to it. Also, Girl Meets World. Trying SO hard to recreate the formula for a show that worked in the 90s but would never really succeed currently.",
">\n\nYeah, I figured. And I'm not certain on this one... but I feel like there's a tiny chance that red and kitty are a tad different??? I mean, in a way where they still do have the same lines and maybe quirks, but in more of a homage to the original series? Idk, I don't feel confident in this one, but thinking there's a chance. Just tell me if I hit the nail on the head or not."
] |
>
I'm gonna be honest here. I watched 1 clip and think it's going to be a whopping dud. It was meeting Kelso and Jackie. It involved them 2, kelco, kitty, red, kelcos son and reds granddaughter. Only saw about 45 seconds.
First off, the main kids. If you're going to make a spin-off, your primary audience should be the fans of the original series. They were the ones who made the show popular, they would be the ones interested in the spin-off. At the time, the "kids" felt a bit older. Granted, many of us were younger at the time of watching it. But now, we are older. To us, these kids are, well, kids.
I like sitcoms. I like King of Queens and Seinfeld a lot. Everybody loves raymond was alright. The parts I didn't like on it were scenes involving the kids. King of Queens and Seinfeld didn't have kids, and it was nice not having them. I don't have anything against kids, I have some and love them. But kid scenes in sitcoms just isn't funny. Well, this shows main characters are all kids.
Secondly, fine, you wanna go kid route... Maybe a few people will still latch on. Butt when they introduced Kelco and Jackie, boy did they not at all seem like they have matured now that they are parents. Either stick with the same exact humor and personalities, or have them mature some now that they are parents. It just seems too off that they act like complete air balloons and are able to be parents. Which, I'm sure they will have future scenes (if the show can get more seasons) where they will have their own emotional moments with their kids; shedding light on how at their heart, they are good parents. But that's not enough to redeem their overall narrative that they are dim-witted.
So my review is a big thumbs down. | [
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nI really enjoyed it. You can hate me. That’s fine. I will say this though - I was 15 in 1995. It was nothing like that. edit - for me",
">\n\nI also really liked it! Not as good as the original but of course not, the original is iconic. I was also a teen in the 90s, though, and there’s far less nostalgia than I expected. Doesn’t really feel like that time to me. Not sure why.",
">\n\nMaybe it’s too recent to be nostalgic? If I put on Hypercolor or Bilabong today I’d walk into oncoming traffic. I no longer own overalls and I use both straps on my backpack. I still listen to the music tho. The music is lit.",
">\n\nYeah, that could be it, I just thought there would be more staple 90s trends prominently displayed. Maybe they didn’t want to be that type of show, which is fine, but I expected them to make it feel a little bit more like a cliché mid 90s. Either way I enjoyed watching it and I’ll watch another season.",
">\n\nI’ll watch it if they have a season two for sure. Their nod to flannel was funny, but there really wasn’t much else. The mall I guess.",
">\n\nI’ve also just remembered that it’s Wisconsin. It’s 90s Wisconsin, not 90s Southern California haha",
">\n\nI hate it so far. That 70's Show had memorable characters, because they were stereotypes. Every single cast member reminded you of someone you knew in highschool.\nThat 90's Show? All the kids are just clones of \"self absorbed naive teenager\".",
">\n\nFrom my experience with the 90s its pretty accurate. Maybe a bit of caricatures but that is understandable. \nThe only thing I can criticize is the lack of other drugs. A kid in my high school got arrested by joint task force with 250 hits of acid. There wasnt close 250 kids that would be willing to take acid at my high school but he brought all of it with him. Heroin was also a huge problem because of the proximity to Philly. So much coke too. It was a small town high school with city high school drug problems.\nI know people who went to high school in that part of the country in the 90s and meth would have been pretty accessible. That and prescription opiates.",
">\n\nOutside of acid I don’t think those would be fun drugs like weed for the tone of the show.",
">\n\nThey can be fun but not always funny. Its easier to joke about cannabis use than stuff that has more serious consequences. I would say lsd is even a bit too much for the target demographic and tone of the show. Im just saying outside of ommitting the other drugs its not that bad of a depiction of what teenagers did and how they behaved during the 90s.",
">\n\nIts casting is also farther from anything good. \nI mean did they try to find the blandest bunch of kids they could? Callie Haverda / Leia is the only one you might remember in a crowd and she delivers her lines like its high school theater. Not that it would save the show with it being written like a Nickelodeon afterschool special.\nYou can't recreate magic, but I can't believe they greenlit that casting and those scripts.",
">\n\nI feel like she delivers like she's Eric's kid. He was weird and theatery.",
">\n\nTopher Grace wasnt the best of the bunch but he came through in the scenes with Red and Kitty. I think he's a better dramatic actor than comedic.",
">\n\nBoth statements are true, my friend.",
">\n\nI was born in the 70s, watched the 70's show in the 90's in my 20's and now watch the 90's show in the 20's.",
">\n\nCongrats, it means youre in your 70's",
">\n\nHelp with the math? Born in 1970's makes me 70 years old now?",
">\n\nOh, you said \"You were born in\" I thought you said \"You are boringgggggg\"",
">\n\nSame thing, I guess.",
">\n\nIt's ok grampa, time to go to bed.",
">\n\nI just need to take my back pill first. Im 44 by the way.",
">\n\nIt' called a suppository, and we have told you, you don't need them.",
">\n\nBut your father can't sleep until he gives it to me.",
">\n\nI've only seen a trailer for this show. Aside from the smoking, the trailer felt so disney. Is that a fair assessment? Or am I misjudging it?",
">\n\nIt does have a Mighty Ducks: Game Changer vibe to it. Also, Girl Meets World. Trying SO hard to recreate the formula for a show that worked in the 90s but would never really succeed currently.",
">\n\nYeah, I figured. And I'm not certain on this one... but I feel like there's a tiny chance that red and kitty are a tad different??? I mean, in a way where they still do have the same lines and maybe quirks, but in more of a homage to the original series? Idk, I don't feel confident in this one, but thinking there's a chance. Just tell me if I hit the nail on the head or not.",
">\n\nYep, there's a chance. If anything, it'll be Red and Kitty holding it together until the kids can vibe more. If you liked Donna's dad, then you'll like the new neighbor btw. She's probably my favorite new character."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.