21–30 of 31 posts
I highly recommend reading Dominic Cummings directly to see the level of thinking exhibited by one of the Brexit architects. For example, https://dominiccummings.com/2019/02/21/on-the-referendum-29-...
I've got a wild theory, so hear me out. Maybe Britain wanted to be governed by a set of law's made by British people?
This was already the case before Brexit, via Parliamentary sovereignty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was already the case before Brexit, via Parliamentary sovereignty.
If what you said was actually true in practice, then why would people be mad that they were leaving?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was already the case before Brexit, via Parliamentary sovereignty.
If what you said was actually true in practice, then why would people be mad that they were leaving?
EDIT:
I can't reply to the comment below for some reason, so here's what I was going to say:
Much of the EU's unpopularity amongst the Brexit-supporting section of the UK's population comes from it repeatedly being used as a convenient scapegoat for domestic political issues, and the country's most-read newspapers printing decades of nonsense ("EU bans yogurt and cheese from school dinners", "EU bans straight and bendy bananas", etc.) that were taken as fact about what a broken institution it is.
Brexit was really just the end result of a spectacularly successful sustained propaganda campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would very naive to believe extremely wealthy interests did not play a very large part in Brexit. One example of such dark money is the funnelling of half a million euro through Northern Ireland [1] to influence London voters. [1] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-...
Of course wealthy interests played a role. And there's also evidence of foreign interference which was never fully investigated or disclosed. Those are seriously problematic. But they are different from implying (like point 16 in the OP does) that there is an organised global network or wealthy people whose goal is to take over countries and who have taken over Chile and Indonesia and are now happy to add the UK to t…
That such 21st century robber barons are seeking to gain from Brexit is no secret. It is likely this is what the author refers to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If what you said was actually true in practice, then why would people be mad that they were leaving?
Various reasons, e.g. losing the perceived economic benefits of a free trade zone with the rest of the EU countries. EDIT: I can't reply to the comment below for some reason, so here's what I was going to say: Much of the EU's unpopularity amongst the Brexit-supporting section of the UK's population comes from it repeatedly being used as a convenient scapegoat for domestic political issues, and the country's most-rea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would very naive to believe extremely wealthy interests did not play a very large part in Brexit. One example of such dark money is the funnelling of half a million euro through Northern Ireland [1] to influence London voters. [1] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what-connects-brexit-the-...
Of course wealthy interests played a role. And there's also evidence of foreign interference which was never fully investigated or disclosed. Those are seriously problematic. But they are different from implying (like point 16 in the OP does) that there is an organised global network or wealthy people whose goal is to take over countries and who have taken over Chile and Indonesia and are now happy to add the UK to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Various reasons, e.g. losing the perceived economic benefits of a free trade zone with the rest of the EU countries. EDIT: I can't reply to the comment below for some reason, so here's what I was going to say: Much of the EU's unpopularity amongst the Brexit-supporting section of the UK's population comes from it repeatedly being used as a convenient scapegoat for domestic political issues, and the country's most-rea…
If that's all the eu were I'm sure it would be smashingly popular.
> Brexit is an opportunity not just to rip up specific rules, which it overtly aims to do, but also to tear down the uneasy truce between capitalism and democracy under which pro-social rules are set and enforced. wut. The EU may be many great things, but democratic it is not - particularly when compared to a democratic national government.
In fact if you were to try to associate civil war with economic system. Brexit is 'civil war against socialism' A no deal with the EU harms not the UK but it harms the EU. Worse yet, it harms the Eastern EU that much more whereas France and Germany benefit. That's why no-deal is going to happen.