Those of you who voted for Brexit when is it going to get better and how?

[N0addedsalt]

I didn’t and didn’t see any benefits. Tried to refocus anger about the lies during the campaign to resignation and acceptance. Was ready to try and embrace/ focus on positives and move forward but still really can’t see any. Now just getting increasingly worried and also fearful.

Hit me with all the benefits and when we’re going to see them impacting our lives.

The problem for me with Labour and the Tories is that they are very close together in terms of policy, and where they wouldn't want to be they are constrained by economics.

Hardliners would have that there is a big difference between both sides but to me the difference is negligible. It makes policy announcements very dangerous because there is the chance the opposition will steal your policies and incorporate them into their agenda. So I don't expect to see much policy announcement from either side before the next election.

I agree implementing policy that they may think is "progressive" but ends up alienating 50% of their voter base isn't the way to win an election. Labour are faced with these sorts of conundrums though. The middle class soft left vs. the traditional trade unionists, the ultra progressives vs. the conservatives etc. They appear much more divided than the Tories at the moment, and much less willing to bind together to seek power.

Also water security. Unbelievable that one of the rainiest countries in the world can have water shortages. Privatising it was obviously stupid but you can still regulate it easily through laws on minimum reservoir storage capacities per household/ business supplied in the area. No new houses can be built without this being increased in advance with the developer funding this through payments to the water company. Minimum % revenue to be spent on maintenance/ infrastructure upgrades per annum. Remove right to issue dividends if more than two spillage spills per year. Etc.

Fresh water will become one of the world's most precious resources in the next decade. We have an abundance and squander it.

And we import hydro power from Norway, when this country is surrounded by coastline.

All of our politicians are intellectually challenged, at best. Less generously, they do not give a damn about UK citizens.

No food security strategy. No industrial strategy. No economic strategy of even the decency to tell the truth about the mess and the reasons for it. No tax strategy. No strategy to deal with the unfunded state and public sector pensions time bombs. No strategy for education and the way tech will transform the workplace very shortly making many current jobs obsolete and how we'll have the skills for that. No strategy for anything, no intelligence. No company would get away with this so why do the politicians? Labour haven't shown they will do any of this. If they do, they'll win a landslide.

Like the old Mumsnet saying: when someone shows you who they are, believe them. All of these people on both side of the house show us daily they are not remotely competent for the positions they hold.

I’m not sure about the euro though.

Joining the SM and CU does not involve a commitment to join the Euro.

And even the commitment made when countries join the EU is flaky. Many avoid it and have no intention to ever do so. Tbh with the British economy as it is and the pound tanking ever since 2016, there is no way the UK would even theoretically meet the criteria to join the Euro if it wanted to! They don't want their currency tanked as well.

Joining the SM and CU does not involve a commitment to join the Euro.

You’re right it doesn’t.

I’m not sure where the idea has come from that the EU have said no to SM / CU

Howpo where did you see it, could you link?

WhereHasTheSunshineGone

Are you going to answer my questions about the test that you think should be taken before people can vote?

Apologies, I didn't see it as you didn't actually tag me.

Wherehas could you give some examples of the questions you think should be asked?

I think I answered this in a general sense in my post: questions ensuring that people understand the basics of how the political system works, the respective duties and responsibilities of the House Of Commons, House of Lords, local Councils, interaction of UK law with international law, the roles of Parliament vs the judiciary, the BOE, basic principles of economics and how interest rates, money supply and inflation work and what causes them e.g. the difference between demand driven and supply driven inflation, to show that people voting are making informed decisions. Otherwise the decisions clearly will not be in the best interests of the majority because they will be (and are) often based on false assumptions, ignorance and easily manipulated. This is basic stuff every adult should know. And if they don't then they have no business trying to decide things on these topics for their fellow citizens. It should also include a basic understand of how much tax is raised from which taxes and on whom, what proportion of tax is spent on different services, and also some test scenarios where people are given a set of evidence and then asked to draw conclusions from it to check that they are capable of rational thought processes.

What would happen to people who spoke poor English?

It's not a language or spelling test.

How would cheating be prevented?

It would be sat in exam conditions like the UK citizenship tests.

Who would mark the tests?

Exam markers.

Would anyone who boycotted the test have their right to vote revoked?

Yes, passing it should be a prerequisite for voting.

A useful question pre-Brexit to check voters understood would have been: explain the definition of "the balance of payments" and describe the effect that this will have on the long term prosperity of a country. What factors do you think would affect the balance of payments? What impact might this have on living standards for that country's citizens?

Anybody who didn't know what this meant, or understand the implications of Brexit on this, had no business casting a vote,

Thank you for answering my question WhereHasTheSunshineGone

What does everyone else on the thread think about this?
Does it happen in any other democratic country in the world?
I don’t see it as a popular measure, I have to say. Had the referendum gone in favour of remain there would have been absolute uproar had this been suggested.

You can’t set intelligence tests for votes any more than you can for MPs, it’s totally undemocratic and easily manipulable. People with lower IQs and education levels have a right to vote. The answer is not to ask stupid questions.

It doesn't happen anywhere that I know of. The state of the governance of most countries isn't a good advert for the status quo. I'm sure it wouldn't be remotely popular, but most of the difficult things that need to be done often aren't, are they?

This isn't the point of the thread and was me going off on a bit of a tangent so don't want this to derail the discussion. This view of mine is not the result of Brexit: I've long been of this opinion (for decades) that democracy is non-functional in terms of acting in the best interests of its citizens and that jury trials are often unfair because these safeguards aren't in place. I remember a taxi driver telling me how when he did jury service he'd decided his verdict was guilty before any evidence was presented because the defendent was black, for example. With rights come responsibilities and in a large system we need a process for people to demonstrate they are meeting the responsibility side (being informed and capable of rationality) before they get the right of deciding the fate of their fellow citizens.

But as I said this is just a long held personal view.

There are other methods of farming than using land.

I mean, the idea of havjng your innocence or guilt determined by 12 adults chosen at random from the UK population is terrifying, frankly. Can you imagine, the prejudices and lack of ability to weigh up evidence and balance of probabilities and determine if the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" is reached?

Scary.

I can't understand why anybody would be comfortable with that and not think proper safeguards are needed to screen the jurors in terms of their ability to perform the task (the current ones are totally inadequate). Deciding the fate of your fellow citizens in elections - often with huge consequences for the lives of others - seems analogous to this to me, so in my view similar protections should apply so that people aren't subjected to completely irrational decisions that benefit nobody.

But as I said I appreciate it would not be popular 🤣 and will never happen so not much point discussing it. Just that when somebody earlier commented that apparently somebody had started a petition about this previously I responded to that comment to explain that I can absolutely understand their thinking on why that would be a better system with better outcomes for everyone.

Apparently intelligent, well-educated people can be just as prejudiced and irrational as anyone else.

Of course they can. Hence the need for a standardised test.

It wouldn't be to test anybody's political views. It would be a test of understanding of how economic and political systems function to demonstrate people were capable of making informed choices, whatever those choices might be.

Anyway off topic of the thread and not going to happen so not worth discussing further tbh, I was just responding to @Southwestten 's question as they asked me to.

It's currently at £865m a week extra for the NHS since 2016.

£45bn/year increase since the vote. £145bn vs £190bn.

Figures courtesy of the British Medical Association (BMA).

Maybe the answer is to spend more educating people in politics, economics and critical thinking. Then people of any IQ would have more tools and information at their disposal.

I'm of the Boomer generation often blamed for Brexit and attended a comprehensive school in the 1970s where no time at all was spent on these issues. If you didn't get your information elsewhere you certainly didn't get it at my school until the sixth form.

The media manipulate the lack of these skills in the general public probably much to the delight of those in government of a certain bent.

Maybe the answer is to spend more educating people in politics, economics and critical thinking. Then people of any IQ would have more tools and information at their disposal.

I'm of the Boomer generation often blamed for Brexit and attended a comprehensive school in the 1970s where no time at all was spent on these issues. If you didn't get your information elsewhere you certainly didn't get it at my school until the sixth form.

The media manipulate the lack of these skills in the general public probably much to the delight of those in government of a certain bent.

Agreed. And it's been no better in subsequent decades. It's interesting that the subjects that so many politicians have studied - philosophy, politics and economics - are conspicuously absent from the national curriculum which presumably constitutes the essential knowledge that they believe all members of the public should have. Go figure.

A CU agreement followed by SM, in other words de facto EU membership would need to be approved by EU Parliament and Council of Ministers, plenty have said no to this.

CU is possible, similar to Turkey, then in a 2nd parliament, having proved ourselves, we "might" get approved to join the SM.

The idea we could pitch up and rejoin both is not credible or on the cards.

Plus, its all pie in the sky, only the LibDems are proposing this and Labour, even if they got us into a CU, may not win a 2nd term.

One thing that astonishes me is the very large number of people who don't even know what the UK is never mind the EU. They don't know what Britain is for example, and these are not just teens, it's people born, lived their whole lives and retired in England. Do you remember that brexiteer MP who claimed he could just get an Irish passport (no Irish heritage) because he was British.

The Leave campaigns exploited people’s emotional weaknesses in order to influence people to vote for Brexit.

They focus grouped every slogan and targeted specific groups they had found had the triggers that made them susceptible.

So it would have to be a psychological test.

People who make decisions based on facts didn’t vote for Brexit.

The SM is more important than the CU. It’s more likely to be the other way around - join the EFTA states with some complaints.

Not sure why you’re assuming this would be on the cards now - of course it’s not. The line of the political class is that Brexit is done and dusted. The 2024 election will be fought as is.

But in 5 years, by the following election, things may look different. Economic doldrums will change the political landscape. It would be 13 years since the referendum - many of the definitive 60+ voters will be in care homes and there will be a new swathe of 18-25 year olds. The tide has actually started to turn already but it’s won’t be ignorable by then.

As I said before, the EU would be mad to consider having us back before Brexitism is completely defeated in this country. That means we’re looking at 10 years minimum. But the SM deal may be a humiliating necessity before that.

plenty have said no to this

Where have you seen this, can you link?

Here are some quotes on the topic from the chief negotiator

Has anyone got other quotes with the opposite

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/01/uk-can-rejoin-eu-time-says-michel-barnier/

It’s actually more possible now than later, if we continue diverging it gets harder

In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, turning down the deal that Theresa May worked out was another of the mistakes made since 2016. It wasn't perfect, but no compromise is ever going to deliver everything you want with clotted cream on top. Now, I suspect we are going to have to suffer a long drawn out decline before we re-apply to the EU as a poor supplicant member, by which time every other prosperous country will be far enough ahead that the UK will qualify for all the infrastructure investment the UK sent to the EU to build infrastructure between 1985 and 2015. Over those 30 years (I lived through them) very little of substance was built by the state in the UK, not even Eurostar, which was largely risk money, but I drove across rural northern Spain last summer (santander to Barcelona) on glorious open fast roads and mountains -- that were cart tracks in the 1980s. It has become a route of choice for petrol heads, and the hotels have secure underground garaging for valuable cars and bikes. It's not a MNetty opinion, because most women with families hate trailing kids around in cars, because kids don't enjoy road travel much.