Brexit Mega Thread 16 – Who's Next?

[LouiseCollins28]

We are approaching the 6th anniversary of Brexit, or I suppose the 5th, if you count the period of transition as "in."

Since then, the world has endured Covid-19, seen war in Ukraine and many other things. Brexit has had reduced salience in the minds of many people recently.

When digesting the latest setbacks to befall the elite who govern our islands, a phrase I keep returning to, is “OK, so now do you get it?”

Brexit is undoubtedly the biggest “OK, so now do you get it?” moment directed at our leaders in my life. It’s surely the largest since 1979, since the Labour victory of 1945? or even since the advent of universal suffrage?

The U.K. local elections in 2026, and subsequent national ones, could see a big increase in support for the Green Party and Reform U.K. Two parties with more different attitudes to European integration could scarcely be found, so Brexit’s salience in the U.K. may rise again soon
.
There are many electoral contests in progress or coming across Europe too (the Netherlands and France, for example) which will be worth paying attention to. Maybe the next questions we will face are less about "what next?" and more about "who's next?"

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion, whoever leads the nations of Europe, or leads the E.U. itself.

Oh, surely not!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-attitudes-survey-brexit-culture-wars-division-b2860577.html

An interesting article that one. I tend to agree that Britain does at least feel more divided than I can recall. How much of that is attributable to Brexit I would question. A very large number of people certainly thought that Britain's attitude to and preference about continued EU membership was different from that which was made plain by the Leave decision. (FWIW I was one of those people.)

The "culture war" I do think is different from the Brexit decison/consequences though. An example, it was startling to me that 2 opposing groups of protesters (with opposed political viewpoints) set up rival protests outside an Aston Villa football match yesterday evening. Not long ago I'd have thought that such an event would have brought a local community together. Not the case on Thursday and I was astonished that the Police accomodated both groups of protesters, all while trying to police a high-profile European game.

If we aren't become an "island of strangers" we are at least at risk of becoming angrier neighbours to each other. I don't think that bodes well. When people are struggling and they perceive the country is struggling, I'm not surprised a sense of pride is lacking.

My overriding disappointment is with the lack of response. No-one in government appears to be doing anything to solve the problems. From minor to serious; fare evaders carry on with impunity, dangerous people are released from prison into the community... now even people are being knifed on trains and nobody in authority is acting to prevent any of it. Those outcomes are not to do with yes/no to EU membership. That's societal/governmental failure writ large.

Those outcomes are not to do with yes/no to EU membership. That's societal/governmental failure writ large.

Yet even the government of the time pointed out that so much governmental time was taken in dealing with the shit show that was Brexit that they couldn't deal with all those other issues that effected most people every day.

So, yes, it was, and still is, an issue that's making the whole country worse.

Well done you...

At the time Brexit was being negotiated I don't doubt that it took up huge amounts of government time and severely affected the government's capacity to do some other things. Following withdrawal we of course experieneced the pandemic which I expect took up even more government bandwidth. Neither explanation is any mitigation for the current failure when we've had a new government for 18 months, that had to deal with neither issue.

I think you're being a little disingenuous in what you're saying and especially in your examples.

You talk about the prison system - systematically underfunded and understaffed for decades under many different governments. It's going to take a lot more than 18 months to fix.

Knifings on trains - what happened on the Huntingdon train is most likely going to turn out to be mental health related. And we can look back at 14 years of the previous government in terms of responsibility for starving the NHS and mental health services in particular of funding. I know how high the bar is for getting an inpatient bed these days.

Fare evasion is not really on a par with the other two, but again - privatised rail companies maximising profits by reducing staff headcounts at stations is going to have an impact on this, and make rail travel less safe.

The problem here is unfettered capitalism. And Brexit is one of the things that was always intended to take some of the fetters off.

@HappiestSleeping

Until you are able to provide independent analysis to the contrary, we will have to agree that those who benefited are outliers. Such as yourself.

The burden of proof is upon you. You are the one who has made the statement the majority of the UK are worse off due to Brexit.

If, correct, how do you explain the results of the last three general elections? What’s in the manifestos of the remain/rejoin parties that people don’t like?

Brexit is a single word, but as per Remain campaigners, Brexit would make the UK worse off in every way possible. Increased unemployment (never happened). More difficult to export (never happened). More difficult to make trade deals without the weight of the EU (never happened).

@Talkinpeace

bcause only the deeply entitled are single issue voters

How can anyone know the reasons why others vote?

and only the deeply stupid assume that everybody votes on their pet issue

Says someone who is not clever enough to spell because correctly.

I'm sure AIs never commit minor typographical errors, there is that.

The rest of us are human, and we think attacking people over typos is low.

Au contraire. I have provided many independent economic studies from reputable sources to back up my point that Brexshit was generally a bad thing.

You have provided none to back up your claim that it was generally a good thing. I love the fact that you point to the trade deals that have been brought about by not having the weight of the EU. Trade deals we wouldn't have needed, and that took 9 years to strike. Easy really, eh?

Trade deals that even their negotiators now admit were rushed and bad for the UK

It's all very childish.

"Where's your evidence?"

"Here's my evidence, where's yours?"

"Where's your evidence?"

Ad infinitum...

@HappiestSleeping

You have provided none to back up your claim that it was generally a good thing.

The back up is the result of the last three general elections. The most significant was in 2019. Even you acknowledged that the opportunity to cancel Brexit was presented, but not taken. Refer to your post on the “one positive of Brexit” thread started December 2023.

None of the main parties made reference to rejoining the EU 2024 manifesto’s. That tells me the main parties do not think the majority of electorate want to rejoin the EU.

Trade deals we wouldn't have needed, and that took 9 years to strike. Easy really, eh?

Where does the 9 years come from? The UK was not entitled to enter into any discussions on trade deals until 1 January 2021.

Considering governments around the World were grappling with COVID and rising energy prices, that UK was able to make any deals at all was good going I would say.

@DuncinToffee

The TCA between the EU and UK is excellent for the service sector. In 2019 services were with 339 billion. As of August 2025, services were worth 542 billion. That’s growth of approximately 10% per year.

Reason for the growth is that services are not subject to the regulatory constraints applied to goods as per the TCA. Also, services represent 81% of UK GDP and 83% of employment.

@MaybeNotBob

If there is conclusive evidence that Brexit has made the UK worse off, why has Starmer as PM, or any other MP, not proposed there is a vote in Parliament if Article 49 should be triggered or not?

Genuine question.

Because he's terrified of Farage and his ignorant band of Brexiteers being egged on by the likes of the Daily Heil. Particularly as he made the stupid promise not to before the election.

This really isn't a secret...

Brexit wasn't even mentioned by the last government

And, as has been repeatedly pointed out - a General Election is not a referendum.

Again, this is not a secret...

@MaybeNotBob

A referendum would not be necessary for parliament to vote on Article 49. Remember that the UK joined the EEC on 1 January 1973 without a referendum beforehand.

Particularly as he made the stupid promise not to before the election.

Labour promised not to raise taxes before the election, but they did within four months of winning the election. It’s sounds very likely they will do the same in the upcoming November budget. So, they are not averse to going back on their manifesto promises.

Because he's terrified of Farage

If, as alleged, the majority of the electorate is against Brexit, why would he be in fear of Farage?

I find this incessant ingenuousness incredibly tedious...

See earlier comment about the electorate being stupid uninformed. Not only did they vote for Brexshit, but they voted for a clown. As I said before, the election wouldn't be won in a single issue. For example, a Lib Dem government could be potentially more damaging than Brexshit.

Also, do not forget that we cannot just rejoin and have the same terms we did before. As such rejoining would be worse (changing currency to the Euro for example). The damage is done, per the many economic studies.

Also, I stand corrected, although so do you. The UK were able to negotiate trade deals after 31st January 2020, so it only took 5 years.

@HappiestSleeping

The electorate would not need to be involved in a vote to trigger Article 49. It would have to be an act of Parliament like the vote cast on 29 March 2017 to trigger Article 50. So, the electorate being uninformed or not would not apply.

The five year period you refer to included World impacting events such as:

COVID appeared in March 2020
Russia enter the Ukraine February 2022
Hamas attack on Israel October 2023

Even if UK did apply to rejoin the EU, there is no guarantee the application would be accepted. It only takes one member to say no.

Trade deals UK has made since leaving the EU might not align with EU requirements. The US deal in particular might be an obstacle. Would the US say to the EU their tariffs will be reduced from 20% to 10% to align with the UK, or say to the UK, the tariffs on the UK will be increased from 10% to 20%? I would say the later.

Great company to be in 😬

Draw lines showing where the EU buys energy from.

Ukraine’s wish to join the EU is strange considering the EU provides more support to Russia than the Ukraine.

The EU does not buy energy you wazzock

Countries that are members of the EU buy energy from other countries
depending on their location and domestic energy mix.

Well maybe by the time we try to get back in the UK will be so poor, we will be a net taker? Was that your genius plan all along?

You are contradicting yourself now. Your own argument was that there have been general elections where the manifesto of the Lib Dems stated they would seek to rejoin the EU. As far ad I know, a general election definitely involves the electorate.

I do agree that the EU would not necessarily accept an application, although they have repeatedly stated they would. Per my earlier comment, it wouldn't be on the same terms we had previously, so the point is moot.

I don't really understand your point about the US trade deal. Essentially, what has happened is that a rogue US president has introduced tariffs that were not there previously, and then reduced them to make it appear to be a better deal. Ironically, pre-Trump, we would probably have a higher tariff than the EU. One of the few things Starmer has done well.

To sum up, I think we are agreed that, for the majority of the UK, Brexshit has been a bad thing (evidenced by many economic studies), although that you are an outlier who has benefited (evidenced only by you). I can live with that.

@HappiestSleeping

Who said anything about a general election?

To trigger Article 49 would require an act of parliament. Neither a general election nor a referendum is required. The UK joined the EEC in 1973 without a referendum beforehand.

Even if the Liberal Democrat’s had won the 2019 general election, to revoke Article 50 would require an act of parliament in the same way an act was required to trigger Article 50 on 29 March 2017.

If the economic studies are accurate, and there is proof the majority are worse off due to Brexit, why has Starmer as PM not called for a vote in Parliament to trigger article 49?

That US has increased tariffs on many countries Worldwide does not change the fact that tariffs on EU imports into the US are double those applied to the EU. The US would not have been able to impose lower tariffs on the UK had it still been a member of the EU.

To sum up, I think we are agreed that, for the majority of the UK, Brexshit has been a bad thing (evidenced by many economic studies)

You may think whatever you wish.

I think your use of the word Brexshit is unlikely to scare your former employer into re-hiring you and paying an upfront lump sum for the years you have missed since 2016.