Let's be real: Most people are vibe-voters, not issue-voters.
They keep voting for parties and politicians with platforms that are wildly contradictory or generally nonsense. They want to vote for parties that they ascribe vague values to, or which they feel are 'on their side'... and often end up selecting the wrong ones.
This entirely describes the AfD in Germany. I recently listened to somebody "interested" in the AfD. All his arguments were things that AfD politicians have brought up recently and they were all idiotic things that didn't stand up to any kind of proper scrutiny. They just sounded good.
Yeah, these right populist parties are very similar everywhere. Anything that is not just blatant hatred is completely contradictory. They just say whatever they feel plays best to the audience in that moment.
Cut the budget but raise spending, lower taxes and eliminate public debt, reduce migration and raise wages, but also lower labour costs... we're going to privatise and nationalise public health at once, we will get the best healthcare and pay nothing for it, pay our staff twice as much and kick out all the foreign staff, but also reduce wait times...
Yep, political voting is treated like a game of football (my side good, yours bad) or voting someone out of the big brother house now (can't vote for this party with great policy 'cause me no like one person in party).
It's tragic and sad - we've imported the American system in this regard.
Absolutely. Even just nine or ten years ago, David Cameron was campaigning for Remain in the EU referendum. But of course, it’s his fault we had the referendum in the first place. If the Tories hadn’t been so terrified of UKIP, then who knows what would have happened?
Oh they do. They wan t to end all single mothers with multiple children, who have mobile phones and flat screen tvs. Have all of their kids taken off them and given to them, because they worked all of their lives and never had a chance to have kids. So they have the money to look after them properly. Nothing said about love.
This is after browsing the Conservative page on facebook for 5 minutes.
The real question is whether or not these parties can actually sell their voters the idea of rejoining the EU when a lot of concessions are part of that.
I think especially the tories would lose a lot of their voters to reform if they changed their tune now.
Selling more immigration, losing the Pound, becoming the EU's biggest contributor etc for very little in return would be impossible and that's just for starters.
In hindsight I can sort of see why reminers went scorched earth between 2017 and 2019 in their attempts to block the UK from leaving in the first place because once out theres no going back.
That is how the EU works. Thatcher negotiated the budget rebate in the 80s because without it, the UK would have become the largest net contributor, ahead of Germany which had a much larger population and was much richer.
Without the rebate the UK would have been the largest net contributor before it left (it wasn't true for the entire period in between, but it was in the second half of the 80s and the mid 10s).
The reason for that is that while the UK wouldn't have been the largest gross contributor, the EU spent much less in the UK than it did in France, Germany, Italy etc.
No UK government is going to start the process for re-joining the EU without clarity on exactly what the terms will be because until then, the debate about the merits of re-joining will be drowned out by the debate about the costs of re-joining.
The UK was the second largest contributor to the EU budget, that's a cold hard fact and without a rebait it would likely become the largest contributor.
You keep using that word, and coupled with the very basic way you answered, I have a feeling you don't have too many real reasons just BREXIT GUD! EDUCATION BAD! FORUNERS BAD!
They should take the re out of rejoin and include all the "concessions". "Do you want the UK to join the EU, including Eurozone, Schengen, ...?"
Because first, if you really want to be European, that's the goal, isn't it? And second "rejoining" with all the pre-brexit exceptions and special rules is not wanted by the EU, so it's not realistic anyway. Might as well ask if people want free beer every thirstday.
Even if people were to agree with Schengen it's complicated because you first have to ask Ireland what they want. If Ireland want to join Schengen as well then it should of course be a requirement for the UK rejoining that we join Schengen together. If Ireland don't want that then it shouldn't be, because maintaining the Common Travel Area and especially the Good Friday Agreement has to come first for everyone involved.
As for the eurozone, the most likely situation in practice is one identical to Sweden's - on paper required to join, but in reality isn't going to for the foreseeable future. It's the situation that can be sold to the most voters on both sides of the issue, even though it's pretty dumb to have that discrepancy between paper and reality indefinitely.
Basically, rejoining (or joining as you prefer) is going to be a massive mess that no UK politician really wants to touch in the current political climate. Even if joining without the exceptions would likely still be in the national interest. Hopefully calmer political times lie ahead that allow for the possibility of joining Europe properly, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be on the horizon just yet.
As far as I know Ireland is not a Schengen member because of that CTA. I just presumed they would want to join together with the UK - I don't see why they would not. Of course that would be one of the details to be solved during the joining negotiations.
In the brexit referendum a lot of people voted leave because they wanted some "good old times" back, without knowing what exaclty that meant and if that could actually be achieved. I'm afraid a lot of that "rejoin support" is again a form of "bring back the good old times". A rejoin on that premise would just start a cycle and return Britain as leading anti-EU member.
I think the UK should be welcome in the EU if they really want to become a part of the union, not if they want to get some benefits but as little integration as possible. Thus there should be popular support for a full join before the start of the whole process.
Sure, I agree we need to avoid another "grass is greener" scenario.
To avoid that it's my opinion that a future referendum (and other future referendums on similar topics such as Scottish Independence) should take place in two stages - an initial vote about 1 year before a general election on whether people agree "in principle" with rejoining. If the result is yes it gives the next government the authority to start negotiating what it will actually look like, and they can run their GE campaigns on their plans. And then, after some agreed period of time the second stage of the referendum is held, to decide if we want to go through with the version of rejoining that's actually been negotiated.
That way our options aren't the status quo Vs "whatever you think it will be" and instead we'd know exactly what we're voting on. Not sure if people actually have the political appetite for that kind of longer political process though.
A referendum is an assignment/mission fro the government to do something. The referendum for (re)joining should have the mission "Become a full member", not "cure the brexit fallout, but integration is bad", that's my point.
There could be a second referendum, too. But I don't think it's that neccessary here.
The brexit one really needed a followup referendum, because it was just destructive in nature - get rid of the EU membership. It was not precise at all about what that meant - become a non-EU member like Norway? Or like Switzerland? Or like Japan? There were lots of different ideas, none of them even close to a majority.
"Get full membership" is constructive and much more precise. Full member like France, like Germany, like Spain or like Poland? I don't see any substantial differences. If they get an agreement to join under such conditions, they can tell the voters "you got exactly what you asked for." A new referendum would just ask "Do you still want the same as last year?" - which seems to be a bit pointless in my opinion...
They aren't anti-EU, they are pro-Canzuk. A mistake like rejoining the EU would destroy the possibility of that so they don't want it: https://www.conservativefriendsofcanzuk.uk/
Opposite effect, as this is the establishment of a partnership it requires both the Left and Right to be onboar, this instead will likely be put in place by the current governments as we are all jointly threatened by Trump.
He's the US president responsible for the rebirth of the British Empire.
Yea, but that has nothing to do with the website you linked and their charter since they specifically mention the conservative party to be in charge of canzuk relations.
Don't get me wrong, though. I think the UK working together with these other nations is a good thing.
Trump definitely played a factor in Australia's election but it wasn't the full picture. The Liberals had an awful campaign trail and had came up with dogshit policies that they kept flip flopping on.
No, it actually was the full picture that's why they performed even worse than Canada's. Peter Dutton is known by the nickname "Temu Trump" in Australia due to his start similarity to Trump and his party to the Republicans.
Why do you think there's 2 parties? The UK's Conservatives for all their faults were loyal to the UK not the billionaires. The Conservatives that left for Reform are the ones that didn't feel their corrupt motivations were represented properly.
They aren't but not right now, realistically Canzuk would first need to be put in place and then an agreement between the 2 blocks can be created. As Canzuk encourages the idea if its good for 1 of the members it's good for the rest it means Canada, Australia and New Zealand's standards should be in line with the UK's and as a result, very similar to the EU's as we were once a member.
The reason we had the referendum was Cameron trying to assert his authority over the anti-EU Tory MPs. It had been a thing since John Major, with constant infighting in the party.
The country got shafted purely due to a small number of upper class Tory MP's who think it's still 1840 and Britannia rules the waves, claiming to be doing it for the working class. They then sold that lie during the campaign, such as the claims on NHS funding.
depends how they frame it. Successive failures of government to address Illegal Migration and mass migration as a whole is driving people to vote Reform when combined with Poverty. Public service cuts are just icing on this fact.
Labour need to get tough on illegal migration i would say go so far as to revive the Australian Model for dealing with it while advocating a different path to reform on tax and spend.
Yeah, the revisionism around Corbyn's lifelong position on the EU when it came to Brext was shameful. He was spineless on the topic of security, but his grasp of the EU maintaining access to cheap labour for capitalists without losing control of the actual capital was spot on. Direct polling of labour voters at the time showed that the majority either "didn't know" or thought Labour were pro-Brexit.
Painting it as a Tory issue is obviously untrue when you look at the vast swathes of never-blue constituencies that voted for Brexit.
Yes, I do. I believe the EU is better without a former member with one foot out, one foot in like the UK.
If yes, what gains does a Swiss person like you think the UK has made from Brexit?
Contact your geography teacher and ask for a refund. Even if you don't know that Südtirol is a German speaking region of Italy, Tirol is still not in Switzerland.
Anyway, I don't care if the UK benefitted or not from Brexit. I only care if the EU has made gains. And in my view the EU has gained long term from it, as the UK was a constant stumbling block in the path to further integration, a major naysayer and we've seen more projects coming out of the EU since the UK left, from PESCO to NextGenEU, not to mention the idea of exiting the EU being discredited so much that even EU right parties deleted that from their propaganda.
I believe the EU is better without a former member with one foot out, one foot in like the UK.
At least you admit that's simply your belief, and unsupported by facts. The UK was a full member and one of the major contributers to the EU.
Contact your geography teacher and ask for a refund.
Haha, you changed your tag. It said Switzerland before. But you are a one month old account Mr Word_Word_Number, so of course you did. Got to try and keep the propaganda consistent.
Anyway, I don't care if the UK benefitted or not from Brexit.
Of course you don't comrade.
And in my view the EU has gained long term from it, as the UK was a constant stumbling block in the path to further integration,
What integration did it block? The Euro? Nope. Schengen? Nope. So what, precisly, did the UK block?
we've seen more projects coming out of the EU since the UK left, from PESCO to NextGenEU
The UK is part of PESCO ...
NextGenEU is simply a Covid stimulus fund. The UK leaving has nothing to do with that, and the German central bank is the one opposing a continuation one of its main funding sources. As he says, it was strictly for Covid recovery. The UK had many Covid stimulus funds, so it is clear the UK had no problem with that.
not to mention the idea of exiting the EU being discredited so much that even EU right parties deleted that from their propaganda.
with lots of opts out. In fact, it was the member that had the most opts out, more than the rest of the EU members combined. Full my asss.
and one of the major contributers to the EU.
major because it was the formula that calculated what each member needed to contribute, certainly not because it was your generous concession. And per capita Sweden or the Netherlands contributed more than you.
Haha, you changed your tag. It said Switzerland before. But you are a one month old account Mr Word_Word_Number, so of course you did. Got to try and keep the propaganda consistent.
Haha, you only have the "russian troll" argument to attack me. I've always had this flair. And you can't change your username, unlike what you claim. And not that it should matter, but you are soooo far away from the truth. Russia and its people make me vomit. I've been banned before for comments that were very critical of them and their war. In fact, I can't fully say what I think of them here.
What integration did it block? The Euro? Nope. Schengen? Nope. So what, precisly, did the UK block?
Cameron was prepared to let the € go under than to dent the interests of the greedy bankers of the City of London. The same bankers that together with Wall Street, made the world descend into the 2008 financial crisis. Disgusting and one of the best examples of how better off we are without the UK.
Several EU countries have opt outs, such as Denmark, Ireland and Poland.
Full my asss.
Yes, full. I guess that's why you are pulling so many things out of there.
major because it was the formula that calculated what each member needed to contribute, certainly not because it was your generous concession
The UK was the second highest net contributer, only behind Germany. That is based on amount payed in versus amount received. So yes, it was a concession to fund the 17 EU states that were net recipients of that money while the UK was a member.
I've always had this flair. And you can't change your username, unlike what you claim
Two lies in one sentence, how efficent of you. I didn't say you changed your username, and you did change your flair.
In fact, I can't fully say what I think of them here.
Haha, utterly transparent.
Cameron was prepared to let the € go under
You claimed that the UK was stopping integration, that has nothing to do with emergency funding and regulation for a financial crisis in the Euro, regulation that could damage non-Eurozone countries. That is entirely a matter for Eurozone countries to deal with. The Eurozone is not the EU, and there are many countries not using the Euro.
It was a relatively fringe position in the Tory party, but the promise of a referendum in the 2015 manifesto turned it into a major issue that showed fracture lines in both the Labour and Conservative parties. Truss was a non-entity in leadership until she fell ass-backwards into it when the Tory party, for some reason, decided that the serving Chancellor of the Exchequer was a bad pick for PM.
Have you seen how MAGA has picked up on Truss? I have seen her in multiple clips speaking the same nonsense. I love when she cries how mainstream deep state had it in for her? (She was the mainstream deep state if anything)
Yes, after she tanked the economy in less than a month and got slung out for it, she pivoted hard to court those idiots. She's making a lot of noise about setting up a British version of the scattered right-wing "free speech" social media sites like Rumble, Parler, Truth social etc. Which can only be a scam to launder money from US techno-fascists into her own pocket.
Truss is not an intelligent person. She's best understood as the sort of person who becomes "Head Girl" at their expensive school by fanatically parroting the "school ethos" without ever understanding the context she exists in or even realising she's clueless.
She's picking up the MAGA tours because they don't know who she is other than "Former British Prime Minister" and she doesn't know that the crowds she's performing to are just the impotent masses.
Farage is actually understood by the Trump team to be a potentially influential asset in the UK. Truss is only useful for fundraising from Americans.
she latched on that because she doesn't have any other choice. She's discredited left and right and made fun of, made object of memes about being worse than a vegetable and a queen killer.
She literally has no options left, and MAGA offers a safe haven to those who are anti intellectual (or anti common sense, more like) and have zero qualifications.
Nooooooooo our president has only been elected 2 times, and his party won only congress and senate! The deep state is running the country into dust!!!!
Its even funnier when Truss says it after her party has been in power for like forever.
70
u/g0ggy May 14 '25
If you add the tories to it then they are north of 40%.
Rejoining the EU is a pipedream.