Brexit was an economic policy decided on emotional terms: most Britons voted on the basis of I like Europe or I don't like foreigners, and economic forecasts about potential effects were just throwaway talking points to bolster those preconceived opinions. Unlike the US, we have no common vision of a destiny to manifest; unlike the Russians, we have no expansionist goals; unlike the French, our political system is an outcome of a thousand years of compromise, not blazes of revolutionary zeal. We are just an archipelago of people quietly bumbling our way from cradle to grave, buffeted by the winds of change, and taking the advantages they afford us while we can.
Brexit was a mistake, but there is no way back to the privileged position we once held in the EU, and so anyone who still wants to talk about it is just a pointless shit-stirrer.
> anyone who still wants to talk about it is just a pointless shit-stirrer.
Talk about Brexit you mean? I think it's important to point out if it was a bad decision caused by deception, even more so if that was driven by illegal foreign influence. One can learn and perhaps something similar won't happen again, be it in UK or elsewhere. Brexit bombing already had a positive effect on other countries where this topic went from prime serious discussion to something only Russian parrots keep bringing up.
You shouldn't be making decisions such as Brexit on economic terms. It doesn't matter if it's a mistake just as it doesn't matter about thinking the country can go back. Brexit is a 100% permanent outcome from the referendum vote. Those changing their minds now as they thought it might not happen, or doing it for fun, are directly responsible for the outcome. BoJo delivered what the people demanded and now Britain's place as an island off the NW coast of the EU is cemented - warts and all.
I'd have more respect for Brexiteers if they just said they wanted autonomy regardless of the economic implications. It's at least a coherent position.
Reminds me of my grandma trying to justify having a coke with every meal "to aid digestion". Just have your coke, it's fine, but own it.
And some do have that position. I think I 100% agree with you, people should own their opinions and ideas. Usually when they don't, it's because it's ideas they didn't built but still hold tight, for the only reason that someone they like said it on TV/YouTube.
One of the proposed benefits was cutting bureaucracy and regulation (retained EU laws) that made the EU one of the worst investment and business growth environments in the world, which was a drag on UK/EU economies.
But it seems like the UK lost their political will to drop the hammer on regulation after Brexit, and they actually kept most of those legacy EU laws and only nixed a few.
UK experts: why was that? What made them lose their will?
It seemed to me once you were in for a penny, you were in for a pound and you had to go all the way to realize the benefits.
Now you just have a situation with even more regulatory complexity due to differences between the UK/EU, but the UK got none of the benefits. They’ve fallen between two stools.
The simple explanation is there was no plan. There was no list of named regulations, just a handwave against the concept of regulation to begin with. Then comes the reality that, for physical products, deregulation in the UK market limits you to the UK market - for a global exporter, you have to comply with CE rules anyway for your EU customers, and you aren't going to make a separate cheap/worse product for UK customers.
They didn’t lose the “will” to get rid of EU regulations. It was never practical in the first place. The idea that the UK was gonna get rid of EU regulations was based on a fundamental lie, that outside of some very specific minor stuff they were onerous, and was based on a lie of omission, about what would happen if they did.
If they did get rid of the regulations they wouldn’t be able to trade with their largest trading partner anymore, whereas the trading partner would have over a 100 alternative countries they could replace the UK with.
Getting rid of well defined EU regulations would then additionally require passing tons of regulations through a complicated political process.
It would require retraining existing bureaucrats and hiring new bureaucrats.
It would require rewriting tons of software.
It would require exposing themselves to new loopholes because so many regulations and laws they weren’t getting rid of interacted and depended on EU regulations in ways that would not be clear before getting rid of them.
Negotiations between the EU and the UK paralyzed the UK political sector for half a decade.
Getting rid of decades of EU regulations (which the UK was the biggest driver of along with France and Germany, and held a veto power on every single one), would tie up the Uk Leadership in at least a decade of political bickering and inaction.
For the benefit of those outside of the UK, Nigel (Mr. Brexit) Farage’s right hand man in Wales, Nathan Gill was just jailed for taking bribes from Kremlin stooges to parrot their propaganda in the EU parliament.
And especially importantly, on per capita GDP. Immigration would almost certainly cause GDP to go up, but the per capita effects are important, especially on the original population. (Qualifier added because if the original population experienced an increase in per capita median GDP they might consider it net positive even if the recent arrivals had a lower than median per capita income, who might also be satisfied if that’s still 3x what they were earning elsewhere.)
I agree, directionally. To be even more precise we probably want an even better metric, but that’s closer yeah.
By a better metric I mean something that would even more accurately capture quality of life, healthcare outcomes, social ties, productivity within the home or family that isn’t tied to an income from an employer, etc.
One thing that frustrated me around this time was that the UK's "stop the boats" campaign (although launched under Sunak) was just a lazy clone of an anti-immigration slogan first launched in Five Eyes partner Australia back in ~2013.
At the time I remember seeing a meme of Captain Cook's ship off the coast of Australia with 'Stop the Boats' stamped beneath it to highlight the hypocrisy.
To be fair the migrants on the Endeavor did have a devastating effect on the locals in much the same way some migrants to the UK have.
Edit due to rate limit: I’m unsure whether the IAmBroom person below thinks Europeans didn’t have a devastating effect on natives or whether the grooming gangs and incest related birth defects aren’t happening but either way they’re very easily proven wrong. Perhaps they just don’t understand what racism is?
Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between.
Brexit lead to more immigrants from poor countries but I doubt it moves the needle overall
So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor?
The big change has been that it has shifted the balance from unskilled to skilled immigration. Generally you need money or skills to get a UK residence visa. Brexit removed a huge exemption to that for people from the EU.
I'm not GP, but I took their comment as a provocative way of questioning your (unsourced) general claim "Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between."
> My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill
It makes no sense to compare the aggregates in countries of origin rather than in the immigrant populations.
Non EU immigrants tended to be higher skilled or well off because that is the only way they could get a visa. Unskilled immigrants could come in freely if they were from the EU and many did.
Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants who replaced them is false if you assume skilled immigrants make a grater contribution.
> Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants
I suggest looking at the numbers instead of guessing (incorrectly). I’ll save you some time - it’s on page 4. see also page 57 - comparison to other studies finding the same.
I think that interview is actually historically notable: the first example of a western leader saying that immigration was deliberately increased to push down wages
i now buy deliveroo slop basically every day, and every day the delivery driver is a barely literate global south immigrant.
in other words, its a huge positive impact. unfortunately for the delivery driver, well, hes basically an indentured servant... i have no idea how these guys survive. especially now in 0 degree weather.
i recently started tipping them in the hopes that they don't dekulakize me in some future bolshevik overhaul (that they would be entirely justified to!)
Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker but that headline is terrible to read and process. Is it "good" English to write it that way? It's possibly the shortest way, yes, but that's everything I'd give to it. :-D
"So again, these are ludicrous scare – these are scare stories that are being put up. Even if sterling, even if sterling were to fall a few percentage points after Brexit, so what?" - Nigel Farage 2016.
It's down what? 15/20% from pre-brexit? I really wonder how people like Nigel Farage sleep at night. Just fine I suppose, but I really do wonder how.
Snugly and enjoying the sense of contentment engendered by the many past profits from them (or their friends) short-selling UK-based instruments, I would assume.
It's the same as the Ruble 11 years ago. Intentionally damage your own country to personally profit from short-selling the currency (or bonds, etc.). Countries are just imaginary social constructs after all, so who cares?
Presumably most of Farage's personal income at this point is ultimately denominated in USD, so he's probably benefiting just fine from sterling's fall...
> I really wonder how people like Nigel Farage sleep at night.
These people have no morals or ethics. They are psychopaths that only care for themselves. Even if it comes at devastating costs for others.
Brexit was a complete success, for Nigel Farage. The last thing I heard is that his party leads the polls in the UK.
In my country the spokesperson of the far-right party (AfD) was caught saying: "The worse things get for Germany, the better it is for the AfD". That's their mindset.
It's the same story with all far right figures, everywhere. It's okay if the whole country suffers, as long as they benefit themselves, and that the people they hate suffer more.
It's also why they are typically comically incompetent at actually managing a country.
I don't live in the UK, but my impression from the outside is that rejoining is a political minefield within the UK?
Like, you guys have the Farage party leading in polls right now. I don't think any move in the direction of rejoining is realistic with the possibility of his party ruling the UK in a few years.
The real benefit from Brexit was felt outside of the UK. Although it was a shame to lose such an important country, the results were so disastrous for the UK that any *exit became extremely unpopular in other EU countries. Even far right parties in other EU countries had to completely scrape or severely tone down any rhetoric to leave the EU. Nowadays their goals are more to weaken the EU from within (which is still bad, but better than having those absolute retards campaigning to leave).
Not to just say “skill issue” but… isn’t this just a skill issue?
The main negative impact seems to be trade but the UK already has free trade agreements post-Brexit with the EU. Most of the remaining differences in hurdles are paperwork, which seems like an opportunity for automation that should be almost trivial with AI. The US has successfully automated most compliance based hurdles in the last couple years from finance to law to contracting.
Looking at the positive impacts and lack of growth from those… also skill issue?
Not having to follow regulations from the EU is also a huge boon yet the UK seems to have taken no advantage of this. Which to me is especially concerning because for years we have been hearing that Europe is lagging behind in development because of over-regulation in fields like AI, yet when freed of those shackles the UK seems to be lagging just the same.
The other positive impact heavily touted was reduced net immigration. This >could< have had a short term positive impact (heavily debatable long term cutting off access to talent pools) yet they have almost 3x’ed the reduction in immigration from the EU with an increase in immigration from other sources. The effects of this are pretty palpable as the UK now has its own flavor of nationalist movement, has not seen wage increases in advanced sectors due to supply forces in their labor market, and universities are relying on overseas students to increase tuition revenue - training a labor force that will largely churn.
The last one I’ll hit is not having to follow EU laws. After Brexit, instead of taking advantage of legislative sovereignty, the UK temporarily codified all EU law to avoid disruption. Parliament has had ~5 years to review the laws but from what I can tell has made almost no progress (~10%) and extended the expiration because… they haven’t had time to read the other laws.
So overall while I’m no type of economic analyst it would seem the problems of Brexit are not actually Brexit, but almost all competency issues. If there’s British tech talent in this thread there’s probably a billion pound opportunity in just easily automating trade paperwork or helping UKG review the remaining EU laws.
Regulatory divergence is a cost all of its own. The main impact of Brexit is that manufacturers have to check three sets of rules rather than two and print "UKCA" next to "CE" on goods. As well as all the customs checks which appear because of divergence, including those within the UK because of the NI farming question.
The idea of growth through liberalization should have been subject to the question "which rules, exactly" before getting to the point of the referendum.
This again seems like something trivially automated (and is in other developed countries outside the EU like the US, JP, CN, etc). Why is nobody tackling this in the UK?
Sure it would have been better to do it before the referendum but it seems everyone on that side of the pond has been wallowing in grief for the better part of a decade which should have been more than enough time to remedy the issues. Moving _slower_ than regulation is… certainly a choice.
Not British but asking, is there anyone in the U.K. defending Brexit at this point? I mean it sounds like we're just debating how bad it was, not whether it was bad.
What a lot of the pro-Brexit crowd finally admitted is that Brexit was always going to be a bitter pill to swallow and they knew it. Conveniently none of them wanted to say that in the lead up to the vote. 5 years ago when they began admitting this, they claimed it was going to be a 10 year process before the "benefits" of Brexit can be felt. Here we are. I guess Brexit benefits will be like Fusion Energy or Full-Self-Driving; always a few years into the future.
What do you mean by this, concretely? Or in other words, if we check back in 5 years, what would cause you to say 'yeah I was wrong, eu newfascism {doesn't exist || hasn't progressed as badly as I expected}'?
edit: to the downvoters, what do you object to here?? I'm trying to pin down the meaning of the parent comment, because without some kind of definition, a phrase like 'eu newfascism' is all heat and no light. My 'in other words...' framing was not based on the assumption that the parent commenter will be proven wrong; I'm just asking 'what would it take to falsify this?'
Ahem, in 5 years Nigel Farage will have persuaded the idiots to willingly up their human rights, as enshrined in the ECHR. Churchill’s great achievement to prevent the horrors of the Nazi regime happening again.
But the British public, or at least the flag-waving hotel-arson subset, really want to separate families and send people to countries where they face significant risk of torture or death.
They would've been better off if they could have set up an agreement with the EU, but they didn't get one that satisfied all parties - plus they had a weak negotiating position.
It was particularly weakened by obvious issues with the UK's political leadership - the EU knew that the UK didn't know what it really wanted and didn't have negotiators with the mandate to get it.
There are. The rhetorical strategy is to argue that Brexit was a good idea, but it has not been implemented properly. Look for the phrases "Brexit means Brexit" and "proper Brexit".
A lot of people voted for it as a point of 'control'. The UK might be in a pretty messed up place politically right now, but it does have full control over its laws. The buck stops with someone you can reasonably drive to and shout at. The EU was a slow and constant move into more and more centralised control in Europe.
Some of these people think this means they can influence the country more for their own gain; some think it protects them from people influencing the country unduly.
Either way, its hard to argue against brexit having given the UK has more on paper long term control, and its hard to argue against brexit being costly both theoretically and in practice, and its hard to argue that the UK wouldn't currently be better off in the EU. Its hard, but people are doing it.
Its mostly a matter of identity. Do you feel European or British? Its much like any secessionist movement. This partly explains the high ethnic minority vote for Brexit, because its hard to feel European if you are not of European origin.
It is also a matter of class identity. Being a remainer is a lot posher than being a leaver.
> That said, I am staunchly pro EU, and would always vote for further integration. In truth, I even think that EU federalization would be a good idea.
It is necessary. Having a common currency without a common budget has been a disaster.
> I have no idea why immigrants of all people would have a nationalistic stance on this.
How is it a nationalistic stance? You are preferring one identity over another - either way is just as nationalistic.
Immigrants from outside the EU do not like immigrants from the EU being given preference from their countries of origin, often places with strong historical links to Britain, where English is widely spoken, etc.
English first, European second. Indeed, the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland likely feel the same, and it’s unclear why that union should be considered worthwhile when a larger one is not.
> its hard to feel European if you are not of European origin.
All British-born people are of European origin. That is a simple geographic fact.
My daughter was born in Britain, but her ancestry is only partly European.
Lots of people are British born who are not of European ancestry. Unless you are defining "European origin" to mean "born in Europe" in which case your claim is tautologous. The other possibility is that you are defining "British born" to mean ethnically white British which does not really need any comment.
Even if it is not what you meant, European has strong implications of European ethnicity.
I would invert your question. Why do many people consider the larger union worthwhile but the smaller (and more workable one) not worthwhile? The only areas outside London that had a majority remain vote, are those where the vote was swung by Scottish or Welsh nationalists. In general the supporters of one union oppose the other.
I didn’t vote in the referendum and I’m fairly apathetic about Brexit. I wouldn’t dispute that there are downsides, but I do see the positive as no longer being part of an institution many British people consider deeply problematic.
-Commission’s monopoly on legislative initiative
-Technocratic “fast-tracking” of democracy via trilogues.
-cult-like mentality around ever-closer union making devolution unthinkable within the commission.
-Commission’s direct funding of media and its proposed expansion of the Media+ budget give it the ability to spend money directly promoting the narratives and priorities it wants to see amplified.
-Legislative attrition; passing legislation not through genuine consensus, but through persistence — re-proposing it until the Commission secures its preferred outcome. As we’re currently seeing with the chat control proposal
The way the EU has behaved in defense negotiations has further solidified my thoughts on this. Tying fishing rights to defense cooperation[0] then after the UK made concessions demanding billions with no say on how the money will be spent.
Yes. Many people still support it. Even if Brexit is objectively bad this is self-evidently obvious, people are very bad at changing their minds and lots of people voted for it.
Maybe over half would now vote to remain, but most pundits thought this would be the case before 2015, so who can say for certain (e.g. Nigel Farage is more popular than ever and he is Mr Brexit).
It is way too early to judge the success or failure of leaving the EU, and part of it will be down to chance. There are also intangible reasons (e.g. feeling of national identity, distaste for bureaucracy) people voted leave and, while I don't think they make up for the loss, I don't think they should be poo-pooed.
I personally would have liked to remain in the EU but I don't think the EU is obviously good, or leaving the EU is obviously a terrible idea.
I do defend it, no point here because I always just get downvoted and people cannot grasp the points made because they do not want to.
Compare how the UK has done since 2016 compared to either the government forecasts of what would happen in the event of a Brexit vote, or to the other big western European economies and you can see the problems. The fact that one estimate is double another gives you a clue to how uncertain these estimates are.
Reform UK is still technically defending Brexit; they've just switched to the no-true-Scotsman argument that real Brexit was never delivered and that they're the ones that can make good on the promises from the referendum.
Purely from a sovereignty points of view, it makes a lot of sense if you think your country being independent is important.
From an economic point of view, it will probably never make sense because the UK was shielded from most of the EU most stupid decisions through carve out. They were out the disastrous currency union. They were not fully in Schengen. They had a lot of leeway with regulations.
Coming back would probably be a mistake however. They would most likely be forced to join the eurozone.
You can write it without the quotes you know, it's an actual word.
I think it's a real argument personnally and the heart of the issue. That was the main question of the Brexit referundum: do you want to be a part of this pan-European union of people and surrender some of your country power to this union?
You can argue that the subsequent trade agreement and the alignment that followed have reintroduced some of the same constraints, which is true, but practically and conceptually speaking it is a very different kind of situation.
It seems to have become a taboo topic. There are too many people who voted for it and now realise it has been a mistake and want to forget about it, anyone who reminds them, will be seen negatively. It also can't be reversed anyway so there's no upside in this discussion - reversing means becoming "just one" of the EU states because the Union has been explicit that they won't allow any perks, not even keeping the pound - which is just too much for public to stomach.
The people who voted for Brexit have moved on to the next stupid bogeyman. In a few years we'll see the fruits of that with Reform in power demolishing what's left of the Uk economy. And still, the masses won't learn.
if the government wasn't incompetent in how they are handling certain immigration issues the anti-immigration parties would not have any momentum. for some bizarre reason the government is pursuing a course of action that is poisoning the well when it comes to immigration in the UK. i think immigration can bring a lot of benefits to the UK but by bringing in poor performing migrants into the UK it can end up turning the public against all immigration.
The EU is undemocratic, horribly mismanaged and reduces sovreignty. The feeling is we were putting in more then we were getting out.
Now i can't accuse the Brexit negotiators of acting with competence. Neither can i claim that it has brought any short to medium term benefits. But the situation wasn't great either way. The referendum was a choice between a bad option (remaining) and an even worse option.
EU Members of Parliament for the UK were elected via proportional representation, whereas Westminster MPs are elected via the comparatively undemocratic first-past-the-post system, where a party with 14% of the national vote gets just 1% of the seats in Parliament (Reform UK, GE 2024), and one with 34% of the vote gets 63% of the seats (Labour, GE2024).
While I broadly agree on this specific point, there is a lot to be said about the overall democratic legitimacy of the EU.
The constitution was rejected by referundum by at least two members states before being plainly reintroduced as a treaty and summarily imposed. Parliament has no power of initiative. Commissionners appointments are frankly opaque when it comes to how portfolios are handed out.
Then, you have the way the eurozone is structure. It's literally a prison. The treaties don't provide an orderly way out of and TARGET 2 ensures that leaving means complete economic chaos so countries are basically stuck. This situation has been used in the past to justify bludgeoning a population into obedience and impose extrem austerity to protect rich members unwise creditors.
Brexit was only possible because of the pound sterling and that's not a possibility the union extends to new comers.
I always ask imbeciles that repeat this bullshit, and they can never articulate this point. They either never reply or change the subject.
Typically they gesture at the EU commission being unelected, but they ignore that the commissioners are nominated by each member state (and all member states are supposedly democracies. And I say supposedly because Hungary exists). The nominees then have to be approved by the EU parliament (which is elected).
Saying that EU is undemocratic is like saying that a country with a prime minister is undemocratic because he was not directly voted for. Which is not an argument that can be taken seriously.
And I say this as someone that dislikes that EU commission is appointed by the member states government. The problem with this is that it mixes internal politics with EU politics - for example, in national elections I may vote for parties based on national issues, but I would vote for a different party in an explicit EU election.
The EU, particularly Germany started letting in a bunch of Middle Eastern migrants with predictable results, and the UK would have been forced to take them. Brexit was a response to that, among other things (the proposed ‘EU army’) and it allowed the UK to control its own migration policy.
> allowed the UK to control its own migration policy
Has that helped? Seems like they traded-off Eastern European migrants (who all fled during the pandemic because life in their own country is now much better than in the UK) for Middle Eastern migrants who have nothing to lose and for whom this disaster of a country is still an upgrade over what they had before.
I think that a lot of people will still support Brexit. Leaving the EU allows a (future) government to do a lot of stupid things. Throwing out good fiscal policy, eroding human rights, aggressively stopping boats or changing migration rules, reversing climate change regulation. A lot of people believe, or will be led to believe (because previous governments were hamstrung by the EU), that those stupid ideas are actually quite good ideas.
Brexit was necessary for those ideas to be implemented. An individual's view on whether those ideas are good or not will correlate with their continued support of Brexit.
Brexit was the proof that Putin can influence first world countries via social media. That effort is now franchised to in every country. Plant panic and fear, sow division and erode the EU in a first step to dismantle it.
Step two was funding greens to reduce Nuclear and increase dependence on his energy products so he can fund his military and oligarchs. By spreading extreme left policies that seem unreasonable to normal people he opens the door to install his own populists at the helm of any country over time.
Step three is war to leave his permanent mark by re-expanding Russia and avoiding jail. God knows what else motivates him to do damage.
His apparatus works too well because social media is perfect for spreading fear. Humans evolved socially to protect themselves and the #1 thing they want to spread is things that others should be watching out for. Now the lions at the river are largely manufactured to keep the flock contained and obedient.
Has there ever been a bigger own-goal than Brexit? (You could argue the US electing Trump, but at least that's somewhat reversible. Though now that they've done it twice, maybe it is the bigger self-harm.)
Brexit was an economic policy decided on emotional terms: most Britons voted on the basis of I like Europe or I don't like foreigners, and economic forecasts about potential effects were just throwaway talking points to bolster those preconceived opinions. Unlike the US, we have no common vision of a destiny to manifest; unlike the Russians, we have no expansionist goals; unlike the French, our political system is an outcome of a thousand years of compromise, not blazes of revolutionary zeal. We are just an archipelago of people quietly bumbling our way from cradle to grave, buffeted by the winds of change, and taking the advantages they afford us while we can.
Brexit was a mistake, but there is no way back to the privileged position we once held in the EU, and so anyone who still wants to talk about it is just a pointless shit-stirrer.
> anyone who still wants to talk about it is just a pointless shit-stirrer.
Talk about Brexit you mean? I think it's important to point out if it was a bad decision caused by deception, even more so if that was driven by illegal foreign influence. One can learn and perhaps something similar won't happen again, be it in UK or elsewhere. Brexit bombing already had a positive effect on other countries where this topic went from prime serious discussion to something only Russian parrots keep bringing up.
You shouldn't be making decisions such as Brexit on economic terms. It doesn't matter if it's a mistake just as it doesn't matter about thinking the country can go back. Brexit is a 100% permanent outcome from the referendum vote. Those changing their minds now as they thought it might not happen, or doing it for fun, are directly responsible for the outcome. BoJo delivered what the people demanded and now Britain's place as an island off the NW coast of the EU is cemented - warts and all.
I think you are right about people's motives, but there is more to it than economic policy. There are a lot of implications to "ever closer union".
I'd have more respect for Brexiteers if they just said they wanted autonomy regardless of the economic implications. It's at least a coherent position.
Reminds me of my grandma trying to justify having a coke with every meal "to aid digestion". Just have your coke, it's fine, but own it.
And some do have that position. I think I 100% agree with you, people should own their opinions and ideas. Usually when they don't, it's because it's ideas they didn't built but still hold tight, for the only reason that someone they like said it on TV/YouTube.
One of the proposed benefits was cutting bureaucracy and regulation (retained EU laws) that made the EU one of the worst investment and business growth environments in the world, which was a drag on UK/EU economies.
But it seems like the UK lost their political will to drop the hammer on regulation after Brexit, and they actually kept most of those legacy EU laws and only nixed a few.
UK experts: why was that? What made them lose their will?
It seemed to me once you were in for a penny, you were in for a pound and you had to go all the way to realize the benefits.
Now you just have a situation with even more regulatory complexity due to differences between the UK/EU, but the UK got none of the benefits. They’ve fallen between two stools.
The simple explanation is there was no plan. There was no list of named regulations, just a handwave against the concept of regulation to begin with. Then comes the reality that, for physical products, deregulation in the UK market limits you to the UK market - for a global exporter, you have to comply with CE rules anyway for your EU customers, and you aren't going to make a separate cheap/worse product for UK customers.
Not to mention the NI question.
Physical reality bites as well: you can deregulate fish https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-fishin... , but that doesn't solve the underlying environmental issues and at best allows fishermen to collapse stocks sooner.
They didn’t lose the “will” to get rid of EU regulations. It was never practical in the first place. The idea that the UK was gonna get rid of EU regulations was based on a fundamental lie, that outside of some very specific minor stuff they were onerous, and was based on a lie of omission, about what would happen if they did.
If they did get rid of the regulations they wouldn’t be able to trade with their largest trading partner anymore, whereas the trading partner would have over a 100 alternative countries they could replace the UK with.
Getting rid of well defined EU regulations would then additionally require passing tons of regulations through a complicated political process.
It would require retraining existing bureaucrats and hiring new bureaucrats.
It would require rewriting tons of software.
It would require exposing themselves to new loopholes because so many regulations and laws they weren’t getting rid of interacted and depended on EU regulations in ways that would not be clear before getting rid of them.
Negotiations between the EU and the UK paralyzed the UK political sector for half a decade.
Getting rid of decades of EU regulations (which the UK was the biggest driver of along with France and Germany, and held a veto power on every single one), would tie up the Uk Leadership in at least a decade of political bickering and inaction.
For the benefit of those outside of the UK, Nigel (Mr. Brexit) Farage’s right hand man in Wales, Nathan Gill was just jailed for taking bribes from Kremlin stooges to parrot their propaganda in the EU parliament.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/21/nathan-gill...
Dodgy money is a theme.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/d...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48611704
And Nige has an EU passport through his German wife.
What is the impact of the “Boriswave” immigration policy on the economy, I wonder?
I’m trying to figure out if you’re asking a leading question and if so, in which direction…
And especially importantly, on per capita GDP. Immigration would almost certainly cause GDP to go up, but the per capita effects are important, especially on the original population. (Qualifier added because if the original population experienced an increase in per capita median GDP they might consider it net positive even if the recent arrivals had a lower than median per capita income, who might also be satisfied if that’s still 3x what they were earning elsewhere.)
PPP per capita is what matters for QoL. This took a massive hit in 2008 and took years to recover, and has been pretty flat since 2019.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locat...
I agree, directionally. To be even more precise we probably want an even better metric, but that’s closer yeah.
By a better metric I mean something that would even more accurately capture quality of life, healthcare outcomes, social ties, productivity within the home or family that isn’t tied to an income from an employer, etc.
You can't solve the immigration "debate" with metrics.
Also the effects of skilled vs unskilled immigration.
One thing from the Brexit debate that people forget is that both Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage said they favour allowing skilled immigration.
One thing that frustrated me around this time was that the UK's "stop the boats" campaign (although launched under Sunak) was just a lazy clone of an anti-immigration slogan first launched in Five Eyes partner Australia back in ~2013.
At the time I remember seeing a meme of Captain Cook's ship off the coast of Australia with 'Stop the Boats' stamped beneath it to highlight the hypocrisy.
To be fair the migrants on the Endeavor did have a devastating effect on the locals in much the same way some migrants to the UK have.
Edit due to rate limit: I’m unsure whether the IAmBroom person below thinks Europeans didn’t have a devastating effect on natives or whether the grooming gangs and incest related birth defects aren’t happening but either way they’re very easily proven wrong. Perhaps they just don’t understand what racism is?
Anything but fair. Eggregiously racist, more like.
You are going to need to edit your comment again.
Doubt it has a big impact.
Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between.
Brexit lead to more immigrants from poor countries but I doubt it moves the needle overall
So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor?
The big change has been that it has shifted the balance from unskilled to skilled immigration. Generally you need money or skills to get a UK residence visa. Brexit removed a huge exemption to that for people from the EU.
> So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor?
Is that really what you got from my post? A brain dead apples and orange comparison?
My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill…
I'm not GP, but I took their comment as a provocative way of questioning your (unsourced) general claim "Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between."
> My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill
It makes no sense to compare the aggregates in countries of origin rather than in the immigrant populations.
Non EU immigrants tended to be higher skilled or well off because that is the only way they could get a visa. Unskilled immigrants could come in freely if they were from the EU and many did.
Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants who replaced them is false if you assume skilled immigrants make a grater contribution.
> Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants
I suggest looking at the numbers instead of guessing (incorrectly). I’ll save you some time - it’s on page 4. see also page 57 - comparison to other studies finding the same.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bfd2209e5274...
the entire point is that it was supposed to have a big impact
Boris said it himself in an interview: the treasury pushed for what has become known as the "Boriswave" because of inflationary wage pressures
https://youtu.be/WlR1JSV45X4?t=1410
I think that interview is actually historically notable: the first example of a western leader saying that immigration was deliberately increased to push down wages
i now buy deliveroo slop basically every day, and every day the delivery driver is a barely literate global south immigrant.
in other words, its a huge positive impact. unfortunately for the delivery driver, well, hes basically an indentured servant... i have no idea how these guys survive. especially now in 0 degree weather.
i recently started tipping them in the hopes that they don't dekulakize me in some future bolshevik overhaul (that they would be entirely justified to!)
Interesting to see far-right terminology being used unironically at HN.
Can't escape it anywhere, sadly.
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45933317 Brexit reduced UK GDP by 6-8%, investments by 12-18% [pdf] (nber.org)
6 days ago | 157 comments
Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker but that headline is terrible to read and process. Is it "good" English to write it that way? It's possibly the shortest way, yes, but that's everything I'd give to it. :-D
It's not "good" English, but certainly the usual "newspaper headlines" style. You have to get used to it.
Hah yeah, I'd never really thought about it, but newspaper headlines must be a late-game boss for non-native speakers, they are super convoluted
Sure, it's not incredible, and it's biased to a headline style formatting, but I think the biggest factor is the HN submission character limit
https://archive.is/71gGy
archive.is gives be a verification loop for about a week running, from any browser. is it working for any of you guys?
If you edit the address they have other TLDs that might work:
archive.today
archive.fo
archive.li
archive.md
archive.ph
archive.vn
works fine here
"So again, these are ludicrous scare – these are scare stories that are being put up. Even if sterling, even if sterling were to fall a few percentage points after Brexit, so what?" - Nigel Farage 2016.
It's down what? 15/20% from pre-brexit? I really wonder how people like Nigel Farage sleep at night. Just fine I suppose, but I really do wonder how.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum...
Snugly and enjoying the sense of contentment engendered by the many past profits from them (or their friends) short-selling UK-based instruments, I would assume.
It's the same as the Ruble 11 years ago. Intentionally damage your own country to personally profit from short-selling the currency (or bonds, etc.). Countries are just imaginary social constructs after all, so who cares?
Presumably most of Farage's personal income at this point is ultimately denominated in USD, so he's probably benefiting just fine from sterling's fall...
> I really wonder how people like Nigel Farage sleep at night.
These people have no morals or ethics. They are psychopaths that only care for themselves. Even if it comes at devastating costs for others.
Brexit was a complete success, for Nigel Farage. The last thing I heard is that his party leads the polls in the UK.
In my country the spokesperson of the far-right party (AfD) was caught saying: "The worse things get for Germany, the better it is for the AfD". That's their mindset.
It's the same story with all far right figures, everywhere. It's okay if the whole country suffers, as long as they benefit themselves, and that the people they hate suffer more.
It's also why they are typically comically incompetent at actually managing a country.
On the huge pile of money he made shorting the pound before the vote.
They blame immigrants
As you can see from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45996860 , blaming immigrants is a magic ticket to being able to do whatever you want.
Rejoin.
The thing about rejoining is that the UK would likely not get the same preferential treatment, exemptions and so forth it used to enjoy before Brexit.
True, but it's still better than what we have now.
I don't live in the UK, but my impression from the outside is that rejoining is a political minefield within the UK?
Like, you guys have the Farage party leading in polls right now. I don't think any move in the direction of rejoining is realistic with the possibility of his party ruling the UK in a few years.
The real benefit from Brexit was felt outside of the UK. Although it was a shame to lose such an important country, the results were so disastrous for the UK that any *exit became extremely unpopular in other EU countries. Even far right parties in other EU countries had to completely scrape or severely tone down any rhetoric to leave the EU. Nowadays their goals are more to weaken the EU from within (which is still bad, but better than having those absolute retards campaigning to leave).
> but my impression from the outside is that rejoining is a political minefield within the UK?
Probably less of a minefield than it is perceived as, a huge chunk of the "leave"-voters are dead now.
Not to just say “skill issue” but… isn’t this just a skill issue?
The main negative impact seems to be trade but the UK already has free trade agreements post-Brexit with the EU. Most of the remaining differences in hurdles are paperwork, which seems like an opportunity for automation that should be almost trivial with AI. The US has successfully automated most compliance based hurdles in the last couple years from finance to law to contracting.
Looking at the positive impacts and lack of growth from those… also skill issue?
Not having to follow regulations from the EU is also a huge boon yet the UK seems to have taken no advantage of this. Which to me is especially concerning because for years we have been hearing that Europe is lagging behind in development because of over-regulation in fields like AI, yet when freed of those shackles the UK seems to be lagging just the same.
The other positive impact heavily touted was reduced net immigration. This >could< have had a short term positive impact (heavily debatable long term cutting off access to talent pools) yet they have almost 3x’ed the reduction in immigration from the EU with an increase in immigration from other sources. The effects of this are pretty palpable as the UK now has its own flavor of nationalist movement, has not seen wage increases in advanced sectors due to supply forces in their labor market, and universities are relying on overseas students to increase tuition revenue - training a labor force that will largely churn.
The last one I’ll hit is not having to follow EU laws. After Brexit, instead of taking advantage of legislative sovereignty, the UK temporarily codified all EU law to avoid disruption. Parliament has had ~5 years to review the laws but from what I can tell has made almost no progress (~10%) and extended the expiration because… they haven’t had time to read the other laws.
So overall while I’m no type of economic analyst it would seem the problems of Brexit are not actually Brexit, but almost all competency issues. If there’s British tech talent in this thread there’s probably a billion pound opportunity in just easily automating trade paperwork or helping UKG review the remaining EU laws.
Regulatory divergence is a cost all of its own. The main impact of Brexit is that manufacturers have to check three sets of rules rather than two and print "UKCA" next to "CE" on goods. As well as all the customs checks which appear because of divergence, including those within the UK because of the NI farming question.
The idea of growth through liberalization should have been subject to the question "which rules, exactly" before getting to the point of the referendum.
This again seems like something trivially automated (and is in other developed countries outside the EU like the US, JP, CN, etc). Why is nobody tackling this in the UK?
Sure it would have been better to do it before the referendum but it seems everyone on that side of the pond has been wallowing in grief for the better part of a decade which should have been more than enough time to remedy the issues. Moving _slower_ than regulation is… certainly a choice.
Automate what, exactly?
Agreed, but we all know the voters didn't choose growth through liberalization; they chose "get those EU gits out of our hair - BRITANNIA FOREVER!".
Not British but asking, is there anyone in the U.K. defending Brexit at this point? I mean it sounds like we're just debating how bad it was, not whether it was bad.
What a lot of the pro-Brexit crowd finally admitted is that Brexit was always going to be a bitter pill to swallow and they knew it. Conveniently none of them wanted to say that in the lead up to the vote. 5 years ago when they began admitting this, they claimed it was going to be a 10 year process before the "benefits" of Brexit can be felt. Here we are. I guess Brexit benefits will be like Fusion Energy or Full-Self-Driving; always a few years into the future.
let meet here and discuss status of eu newfascism in 5 years. uk will not be part of it.
indeed, with Mr Brexit on track to become next PM, UK will have its own brand of it.
> eu newfascism
What do you mean by this, concretely? Or in other words, if we check back in 5 years, what would cause you to say 'yeah I was wrong, eu newfascism {doesn't exist || hasn't progressed as badly as I expected}'?
edit: to the downvoters, what do you object to here?? I'm trying to pin down the meaning of the parent comment, because without some kind of definition, a phrase like 'eu newfascism' is all heat and no light. My 'in other words...' framing was not based on the assumption that the parent commenter will be proven wrong; I'm just asking 'what would it take to falsify this?'
Ahem, in 5 years Nigel Farage will have persuaded the idiots to willingly up their human rights, as enshrined in the ECHR. Churchill’s great achievement to prevent the horrors of the Nazi regime happening again.
Let’s see how that work out.
But the British public, or at least the flag-waving hotel-arson subset, really want to separate families and send people to countries where they face significant risk of torture or death.
No, the UK will have its own indigenous fascism with a little Union Jack printed on it.
People will defend the idea of Brexit but condemn the implementation. And people avoid debating it directly anyway.
They would've been better off if they could have set up an agreement with the EU, but they didn't get one that satisfied all parties - plus they had a weak negotiating position.
It was particularly weakened by obvious issues with the UK's political leadership - the EU knew that the UK didn't know what it really wanted and didn't have negotiators with the mandate to get it.
There are. The rhetorical strategy is to argue that Brexit was a good idea, but it has not been implemented properly. Look for the phrases "Brexit means Brexit" and "proper Brexit".
Sounds similar to the things I hear about Communism. It's purportedly the best system… just that no one yet has done it right.
Nobody I know of who voted for Brexit did it because they thought it would make the country (or themselves) any richer or poorer.
Why did they vote for it?
A lot of people voted for it as a point of 'control'. The UK might be in a pretty messed up place politically right now, but it does have full control over its laws. The buck stops with someone you can reasonably drive to and shout at. The EU was a slow and constant move into more and more centralised control in Europe.
Some of these people think this means they can influence the country more for their own gain; some think it protects them from people influencing the country unduly.
Either way, its hard to argue against brexit having given the UK has more on paper long term control, and its hard to argue against brexit being costly both theoretically and in practice, and its hard to argue that the UK wouldn't currently be better off in the EU. Its hard, but people are doing it.
Its mostly a matter of identity. Do you feel European or British? Its much like any secessionist movement. This partly explains the high ethnic minority vote for Brexit, because its hard to feel European if you are not of European origin.
It is also a matter of class identity. Being a remainer is a lot posher than being a leaver.
This is so weird.
I live in EU, but I am not originally from Europe. I have a EU citizenship at this point though.
That said, I am staunchly pro EU, and would always vote for further integration. In truth, I even think that EU federalization would be a good idea.
I have no idea why immigrants of all people would have a nationalistic stance on this.
> That said, I am staunchly pro EU, and would always vote for further integration. In truth, I even think that EU federalization would be a good idea.
It is necessary. Having a common currency without a common budget has been a disaster.
> I have no idea why immigrants of all people would have a nationalistic stance on this.
How is it a nationalistic stance? You are preferring one identity over another - either way is just as nationalistic.
Immigrants from outside the EU do not like immigrants from the EU being given preference from their countries of origin, often places with strong historical links to Britain, where English is widely spoken, etc.
> Do you feel European or British?
English first, European second. Indeed, the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland likely feel the same, and it’s unclear why that union should be considered worthwhile when a larger one is not.
> its hard to feel European if you are not of European origin.
All British-born people are of European origin. That is a simple geographic fact.
My daughter was born in Britain, but her ancestry is only partly European.
Lots of people are British born who are not of European ancestry. Unless you are defining "European origin" to mean "born in Europe" in which case your claim is tautologous. The other possibility is that you are defining "British born" to mean ethnically white British which does not really need any comment.
Even if it is not what you meant, European has strong implications of European ethnicity.
I would invert your question. Why do many people consider the larger union worthwhile but the smaller (and more workable one) not worthwhile? The only areas outside London that had a majority remain vote, are those where the vote was swung by Scottish or Welsh nationalists. In general the supporters of one union oppose the other.
For some it was a protest vote. And some people are idiots.
Xenophobia.
I didn’t vote in the referendum and I’m fairly apathetic about Brexit. I wouldn’t dispute that there are downsides, but I do see the positive as no longer being part of an institution many British people consider deeply problematic.
-Commission’s monopoly on legislative initiative
-Technocratic “fast-tracking” of democracy via trilogues. -cult-like mentality around ever-closer union making devolution unthinkable within the commission.
-Commission’s direct funding of media and its proposed expansion of the Media+ budget give it the ability to spend money directly promoting the narratives and priorities it wants to see amplified.
-Legislative attrition; passing legislation not through genuine consensus, but through persistence — re-proposing it until the Commission secures its preferred outcome. As we’re currently seeing with the chat control proposal
The way the EU has behaved in defense negotiations has further solidified my thoughts on this. Tying fishing rights to defense cooperation[0] then after the UK made concessions demanding billions with no say on how the money will be spent.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-eu-defense-pact-really-do...
Yes. Many people still support it. Even if Brexit is objectively bad this is self-evidently obvious, people are very bad at changing their minds and lots of people voted for it.
Maybe over half would now vote to remain, but most pundits thought this would be the case before 2015, so who can say for certain (e.g. Nigel Farage is more popular than ever and he is Mr Brexit).
It is way too early to judge the success or failure of leaving the EU, and part of it will be down to chance. There are also intangible reasons (e.g. feeling of national identity, distaste for bureaucracy) people voted leave and, while I don't think they make up for the loss, I don't think they should be poo-pooed.
I personally would have liked to remain in the EU but I don't think the EU is obviously good, or leaving the EU is obviously a terrible idea.
Unless you obviously want to benefit by eg retiring/ moving there.
The poll mentioned in the article has 56% of respondents saying that Brexit was a bad idea, so roughly half seem ok with it.
“There was a better Brexit, but it goes to a different school” is the mentality.
Sophistry incarnate, that bunch.
It is completely verboten for the political class to mention Brexit or its reversal.
I do defend it, no point here because I always just get downvoted and people cannot grasp the points made because they do not want to.
Compare how the UK has done since 2016 compared to either the government forecasts of what would happen in the event of a Brexit vote, or to the other big western European economies and you can see the problems. The fact that one estimate is double another gives you a clue to how uncertain these estimates are.
The only upside is that we can buy BYD cars with fewer tariffs.
Reform UK is still technically defending Brexit; they've just switched to the no-true-Scotsman argument that real Brexit was never delivered and that they're the ones that can make good on the promises from the referendum.
Which is horseshit, obviously.
Not really, but I'll take every opportunity I can to complain about it's impacts.
Purely from a sovereignty points of view, it makes a lot of sense if you think your country being independent is important.
From an economic point of view, it will probably never make sense because the UK was shielded from most of the EU most stupid decisions through carve out. They were out the disastrous currency union. They were not fully in Schengen. They had a lot of leeway with regulations.
Coming back would probably be a mistake however. They would most likely be forced to join the eurozone.
The "sovereignty" argument is a bit misleading though. It's basically regulatory alignment.
You can write it without the quotes you know, it's an actual word.
I think it's a real argument personnally and the heart of the issue. That was the main question of the Brexit referundum: do you want to be a part of this pan-European union of people and surrender some of your country power to this union?
You can argue that the subsequent trade agreement and the alignment that followed have reintroduced some of the same constraints, which is true, but practically and conceptually speaking it is a very different kind of situation.
It seems to have become a taboo topic. There are too many people who voted for it and now realise it has been a mistake and want to forget about it, anyone who reminds them, will be seen negatively. It also can't be reversed anyway so there's no upside in this discussion - reversing means becoming "just one" of the EU states because the Union has been explicit that they won't allow any perks, not even keeping the pound - which is just too much for public to stomach.
The people who voted for Brexit have moved on to the next stupid bogeyman. In a few years we'll see the fruits of that with Reform in power demolishing what's left of the Uk economy. And still, the masses won't learn.
What are we supposed to learn? That the Tories are rubbish and Labour are even worse?
The real driver of all of this is the press. There's a lot of immigrant-blaming propaganda that diverts attention from real issues.
if the government wasn't incompetent in how they are handling certain immigration issues the anti-immigration parties would not have any momentum. for some bizarre reason the government is pursuing a course of action that is poisoning the well when it comes to immigration in the UK. i think immigration can bring a lot of benefits to the UK but by bringing in poor performing migrants into the UK it can end up turning the public against all immigration.
The EU is undemocratic, horribly mismanaged and reduces sovreignty. The feeling is we were putting in more then we were getting out.
Now i can't accuse the Brexit negotiators of acting with competence. Neither can i claim that it has brought any short to medium term benefits. But the situation wasn't great either way. The referendum was a choice between a bad option (remaining) and an even worse option.
> The EU is undemocratic
EU Members of Parliament for the UK were elected via proportional representation, whereas Westminster MPs are elected via the comparatively undemocratic first-past-the-post system, where a party with 14% of the national vote gets just 1% of the seats in Parliament (Reform UK, GE 2024), and one with 34% of the vote gets 63% of the seats (Labour, GE2024).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o
While I broadly agree on this specific point, there is a lot to be said about the overall democratic legitimacy of the EU.
The constitution was rejected by referundum by at least two members states before being plainly reintroduced as a treaty and summarily imposed. Parliament has no power of initiative. Commissionners appointments are frankly opaque when it comes to how portfolios are handed out.
Then, you have the way the eurozone is structure. It's literally a prison. The treaties don't provide an orderly way out of and TARGET 2 ensures that leaving means complete economic chaos so countries are basically stuck. This situation has been used in the past to justify bludgeoning a population into obedience and impose extrem austerity to protect rich members unwise creditors.
Brexit was only possible because of the pound sterling and that's not a possibility the union extends to new comers.
The UK is undemocratic (one of two unelected bicameral parliament in the world, the other is Iran) and as we can see horribly mismanaged.
> The EU is undemocratic,
Elaborate how exactly it is undemocratic.
I always ask imbeciles that repeat this bullshit, and they can never articulate this point. They either never reply or change the subject.
Typically they gesture at the EU commission being unelected, but they ignore that the commissioners are nominated by each member state (and all member states are supposedly democracies. And I say supposedly because Hungary exists). The nominees then have to be approved by the EU parliament (which is elected).
Saying that EU is undemocratic is like saying that a country with a prime minister is undemocratic because he was not directly voted for. Which is not an argument that can be taken seriously.
And I say this as someone that dislikes that EU commission is appointed by the member states government. The problem with this is that it mixes internal politics with EU politics - for example, in national elections I may vote for parties based on national issues, but I would vote for a different party in an explicit EU election.
The EU, particularly Germany started letting in a bunch of Middle Eastern migrants with predictable results, and the UK would have been forced to take them. Brexit was a response to that, among other things (the proposed ‘EU army’) and it allowed the UK to control its own migration policy.
> allowed the UK to control its own migration policy
Has that helped? Seems like they traded-off Eastern European migrants (who all fled during the pandemic because life in their own country is now much better than in the UK) for Middle Eastern migrants who have nothing to lose and for whom this disaster of a country is still an upgrade over what they had before.
Leaving the EU is required but not sufficient to fix UK migration.
But after brexit your immigration from non eu countries increased dramatically? Now you have even more immigrants from questionable countries
> it allowed the UK to control its own migration policy.
UK is still in the ECHR, so, not really, not yet
old contract, uk known to commit to its past commitments.
That’s true. Labour opposes leaving. But their leader has near record low approval rating so that may not mean anything.
> and it allowed the UK to control its own migration policy.
As in: Brits found out that they need to queue like the rest of the world to get into the EU and migration from the EU decreased.
However, net migration to the UK has increased since Brexit.
yet non-EU immigration vastly increased after brexit.
I think that a lot of people will still support Brexit. Leaving the EU allows a (future) government to do a lot of stupid things. Throwing out good fiscal policy, eroding human rights, aggressively stopping boats or changing migration rules, reversing climate change regulation. A lot of people believe, or will be led to believe (because previous governments were hamstrung by the EU), that those stupid ideas are actually quite good ideas.
Brexit was necessary for those ideas to be implemented. An individual's view on whether those ideas are good or not will correlate with their continued support of Brexit.
Original paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w34459 (semi-paywalled, download counts are per IP address).
Brexit was the proof that Putin can influence first world countries via social media. That effort is now franchised to in every country. Plant panic and fear, sow division and erode the EU in a first step to dismantle it.
Step two was funding greens to reduce Nuclear and increase dependence on his energy products so he can fund his military and oligarchs. By spreading extreme left policies that seem unreasonable to normal people he opens the door to install his own populists at the helm of any country over time.
Step three is war to leave his permanent mark by re-expanding Russia and avoiding jail. God knows what else motivates him to do damage.
His apparatus works too well because social media is perfect for spreading fear. Humans evolved socially to protect themselves and the #1 thing they want to spread is things that others should be watching out for. Now the lions at the river are largely manufactured to keep the flock contained and obedient.
Has there ever been a bigger own-goal than Brexit? (You could argue the US electing Trump, but at least that's somewhat reversible. Though now that they've done it twice, maybe it is the bigger self-harm.)
Yes, but look at all the upsides.
Rose tinted glasses required.
But then you can't see the blue of those sweet blue passports as well!
At least my pint glass still has a crown on it.