A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a landmark poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK fully leaving the EU single market and customs unions.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has been of benefit to them or the country.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a landmark poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK fully leaving the EU single market and customs unions.
The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has been of benefit to them or the country.
Just one in 10 people (10%) believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.
James Crouch, head of policy and public affairs at Opinium, said the perception of Brexit being handled badly and having had negative effects on various aspect of UK life appeared to be spreading: “Public discontent at how Brexit has been handled by the government continues, with perceived failings even in areas previously seen as a potential benefit from leaving the EU.
“Half (51%) of Leave voters now think that Brexit has been bad for the UK’s ability to control immigration, piling even more pressure on an issue the government is vulnerable on.
“This shift in sentiment may be particularly stark among the ‘red wall’ voters who rallied most eagerly to Johnson’s banner four years ago, but have been most exposed to rising bills and collapsing public services since.
The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 259 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What the aristocrat with messy hair lied?
I wonder. In Australia, Germany, and the bulk of the world prices are crazy, due to greed in the covid times.
Are Brits mistaking this phenomena with Brexit?
In Australia we, for the first ever time, have a highly visible homeless problem for example. Houses are not affordable for future generations. Basics are getting out of reach financially.
If we’d had an “exit” of sorts, would we even know if it was the exit, or the covid greed?
I suspect we’d blame it on the exit.
It’s a lot easier for politicians and capitalists to blame brexit (a choice made by the people) rather than their own utter cockup of handling covid.
I wonder. In Australia, Germany, and the bulk of the world prices are crazy, due to greed in the covid times.
The inflation is mostly energy squeeze because of the Ukraine war and the supply issues for Russian oil and gas.
Don’t take my word for it, look at the graphs.
It’s not COVID.
Maybe in DE and UK, but Australia is a major energy producer, compared to our population. That doesn’t hold up for Australia, NZ, etc etc
Oh dear. Sorry I misread “Australia, Germany” as “Austria, Germany”.
Germany, definitely Russian oil. Australia, no clue mate ;)
However the bulk of Australian natural gas is contracted to be shipped overseas (mostly to china), so despite the abundance of the resource it’s mostly not available for local usage. Besides even if it was world market prices will prevail. If you think Clive, Woodside or Gina are going to cut a discount to the aussie public when they can make more shipping it overseas then I have a bridge for sale
Britons voted for it, now they think it’s completely failed. I don’t know guys, but there some questions that we should just not ask Britons!!?
Personally voted against Brexit, but always believed it should never have even gone to a referendum. We are a parliamentary democracy and parliament should have decided.
We are a parliamentary democracy and parliament should have decided.
“How dare those dirty proles be given a choice”
Yup, you’re a real hero with your populism. Look how great that turned out.
People these days treat democracy like a damned religion instead of a system of governance. Turns out though that complex decisions often benefit from expertise instead of letting the lowest common denominator decide.
the lowest common denominator
Wow. Careful, your hat might blow off at those elevated heights you inhabit.
the lowest common denominator
How’s the weather up there in your ivory tower?
I voted against it. I told everyone I knew it would be a shitshow. Countless others called out all of the lies from the leave campaign.
It’s not fun to have been proven right on something like this. 49% of britons did not want brexit and rightly knew how awful it would turn out.
Did prove 51% are either/both racist and stupid
The problem is that it was an advisory vote and it is should have been handled by initially deciding a negotiating position.
Leaving the EU meant a lot of different things and the approximate idea of implementation should have been decided on before leaving.
The problem is that it was an advisory vote
This is sometimes raised, but is misleading. The only reason it was legally advisory is because in the British system of government, the UK cannot bind Parliament; the House of Commons can override anything else.
In the system of government in some countries, the option for a meaningful legal difference between two types of referendum exists.
The British government had been explicit that what the British public voted for would be implemented; this is the closest analog to a binding referendum. Had they simply wanted to request the advice of the public, it would have been announced that they would take the outcome under consideration.
This is not to say that having that referendum was s good idea. It is just to say that the binding/advisory nature is really a property of the British system of government, not to indicate that the intent was to merely take the public’s vote as advice.
The problem is that it was an advisory vote
This is sometimes raised, but is misleading. The only reason it was legally advisory is because in the British system of government, the UK cannot bind Parliament; the House of Commons can override anything else.
In the system of government in some countries, the option for a meaningful legal difference between two types of referendum exists.
The British government had been explicit that what the British public voted for would be implemented; this is the closest analog to a binding referendum. Had they simply wanted to request the advice of the public, it would have been announced that they would take the outcome under consideration.
This is not to say that having that referendum was s good idea. It is just to say that the binding/advisory nature is really a property of the British system of government, not to indicate that the intent was to merely take the public’s vote as advice.
We are a parliamentary democracy and parliament should have decided.
It was decided by the political class, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened. With such a slim margin they could have said “oh well, it’s practically 50-50, it’s wiser to maintain the status quo”.
I don’t understand how the population of an island nation with no resources to speak of thought removing themselves from a larger economic bloc would benefit them in any way, other than to satisfy their racist tendencies. The entire history of the country is about its citizens leaving to steal resources from others because there isn’t shit on that island. I suppose I couldn’t expect the citizens who still worship a monarchy to have better critical thinking skills.
