United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Not from the UK, I am wondering who benefitted from brexit?
Racists who are nourished by their fantasy that Brexit is hurting brown people.
Disaster capitalists.
William Rees-Mogg wrote 3 books in the 90s, I forget the 3rd one but the other two were called "(The Best Time To Buy Is When There Is) Blood In The Streets" and "The Sovereign Individual". The latter describes a Sovereign as someone who earns more than $200k per year (90s money, so more like £500k today) and uses their wealth and influence to live above the laws of any nation. This is the kind of "sovereignty" his son Jacob Rees-Mogg campaigned for, he's literally laughing at all his supporters while he's doing it.
No, it isn't.
Edit: déjà vu
As was always the plan, the very rich and powerful are the only people who benefited from brexit.
It raised trade barriers, so potentially businesses that weren't competitive with their counterpart businesses across the Channel.
If someone isn't getting something from across the Channel, then they're probably getting it domestically.
Everyone in the UK did.
Care to elaborate? How exactly did they benefit?
They're no longer citizens of a nation state which is a member of the EU.
And that helps them how?
They really owned the libs there, didn't they?
What are "the libs"?
Edit: mystified by the downvotes
Go away sealion
Eh?
We're free from stupid shit like mandatory free warranties on electronics, or chicken that doesn't taste like the physical incarnation of sadness, or fresh vegetables where you don't have to throw half away right after you buy it!
For a start it means that the structure of the government better reflects the concerns of the population. The EU never really made much of a dent in the consciousness of Britons. I expect the number of citizens who knew the name of their MEP off the top of their head would be dwarfed by the number of citizens who knew the name of their MP. This is in comparison to continental countries, particularly in my mind Germany, where the EU, EU political parties and MEPs are very much present in the minds of the electorate. At least, that was my experience.
Also, in my view the EU is quite undemocratic. The separate Council, Commission and Parliament are an affront. Especially the fact that the Parliament, which represents the electorate, does not have the power to introduce legislation. The people are an inconvenient afterthought in the EU power structure. I'm afraid I can't find a link right this second but somewhere I have a copy of an interview with Yanis Varoufakis when he was finance minister for Greece back when they had their economic meltdown where he says that he was told by others around the halls of EU power that "the people" should not be given the power to decide economic policy. That, to me, is the EU. The British people are better off out of it.
EU Regional Development Funds are another horror. They're run by unelected bureaucrats, stepping on the toes of existing, democratically elected regional institutions like.. councils. Instead of giving hundreds of millions to councils for development projects, or even creating larger regional institutions with democratically elected leadership, someone thought it would be a good idea to give those millions to unelected bureaucrats to spend in the same area. I'm still mystified as to how this ever came to pass. Brexit couldn't come soon enough.
Edit: Found the interview. Here's the full quote from Varoufakis, talking about the impending referendum on whether to accept European proposals regarding Greece's debt: [in the event that the referendum accepts the European proposals] "I am not going to impede its progress through parliament. This is my commitment to democracy and my commitment to the people, that I have entrusted with the decision, with the verdict of yes/no, or no, in a way that has incensed my colleagues in the Euro group who don't believe that 'such complex matters', as I've been told, 'should be put to common folk'." -- https://youtu.be/OmqnYHmRg48?t=625
You do realise that the entire structure of the EU was primarily dreamt up by British legal experts? It's quite literally one of the best, most robust and most competent systems of governance in the world.
Yes, Parliament can't introduce legislation by themselves, but that's because we don't want populists like Farage, Boris or Trump to do that. They're charismatic, but not actually competent. That's why talented legal experts in the European Commission (who are each appointed by elected governments of member states, the UK had 6 iirc), people who actually know how law works, write the laws. The elected MEP's vote on the laws.
However even here we're missing the fact that the European Parliament (EP) do have a say in the legislation. The EC writes an "Impact Assessment" with rough draft of the law they're thinking of writing (which anyone can comment on), then this is presented before Parliament who propose and discuss amendments. So it's completely disingenuous to imply that the elected EP is somehow beholden to the "unelected" (but chosen for competency by elected member governments) EC bureaucrats.
And all that skips around what starts the EC's initial proposal. Aside from occassionally writing laws off their own backs, the EC responds to requests from:
That's right, not only can Parliament demand new legislation (they just have to get the big boy lawyers to write it for them), but individual citizens can directly!
Parliament has the final say in whether or not legislation is implemented. That's completely democratic. What you call "an affront" is actually competent people writing effective legislation. Rather than bullshit like the Rwanda deal which states the UK will accept vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange for the small boat migrants to Rwanda (all paid for by the UK taxpayer), or the general ineptitude of no legislation at all and a Hard Brexit causing issues like sewage being dumped in our rivers since water companies now face restrictions on importing treatment chemicals from the EU.
LOL
As I understand it, the Parliament does not have the power to compel the Commission to introduce legislation. The Parliament can make requests (not "demands") but the Commission has the power to say "no" to those requests. This is critical.
Here's the thing: the UK needs trade agreements in order to thrive. The EU may be only minimally democratic, but the fact that the people get a say at all in the terms of that set of trade agreements is considerably better than the day we'd get in any other trade agreement. Especially given that we would be the minor partner an any trade agreement we made with powerful partners: we'd be letting the USA, for example, dictate to our government. If we ever do an agreement with the USA, you can bet that it would come with rules about generic drugs, and allowing them to buy up our schools, hospitals and prisons -- and the people would get no say at all.
Meanwhile the EU, for all its faults, has rules based around human rights, environmental protection, animal welfare and mutual prosperity. Not only that: being out of the EU has cost us 5% growth per annum. Our exposure to global catastrophes has been worse, and our recoveries slower, than other EU countries and comparable economies. Our labour market is a mess, our exporters are inundated with paperwork, and our governments, without the leavening influence of the "undemocratic" EU, have been more corrupt, more cruel and less respectful of human rights.
I've no idea what you're talking about.
EU directives around human rights, environmental protection or animal welfare are not trade agreements. Membership in the EU is not a trade agreement. Indeed, the fact that it is more than just a trade agreement, is the problem.
The cost of leaving the EU is money well spent.
This just seems absurd to me. I see no such increases.
Regardless, you want less corruption, less cruelty, more respect for human rights, and you're happy to give up degrees of democracy in order to have that. We differ.
Please try to understand; it's very important. Every trade agreement we make costs us sovereignty. You want a publicly owned NHS? Too bad. It's on the negotiating table when we deal with the Americans. In secret.
They are effectively terms of a trade agreement. Goods traded in the EU have to meet standards.
To what end? Nothing is better. Many things are worse. Is there any payoff at all?
Exhibit A: The Rwanda scheme.
I simply don't believe we will have "more democracy" outside the EU. We elected our MEPs. We do not elect our trade negotiators, nor those with whom they negotiate. In terms of democracy, we're swapping a pittance for nothing. So I'll take the reduced cruelty and corruption, and the human rights please.
LOL
No monetary payoff, no. I see now that money is what's detaining you.
The Rwanda scheme isn't an increase in the reprehensible behaviour of government, it's the same amount of reprehensible behaviour as has always been displayed, before and after Brexit.
LOL
You realise that LOL isn't a convincing reply?
Anyway, to address the points you bothered to make:
Any payoff at all? I'll take anything.
I see it as a new low, though YMMV. My opinion is that in general, the last few years of government have been the most destructive in living memory.
So much focus on democracy. Yet when a significant portion of your population (Scotland) wants to vote to leave the UK (partly so they can stay in the EU) you don't even let them.
Sounds like cherry picking democracy is no longer an issue.
I haven't mentioned Scotland.
I did.
Why did you mention Scotland when I didn't?
Because you claim that the main reason that the UK left the EU was because: democracy above everything. Yet the UK in itself is weirdly undemocratic.
I haven't claimed that.
Whoa, you're delusional...
LOL