The problem was Brexit, or more specifically it going ahead on 51% of the vote without any plan. I couldn't find a more blatant act of economic self-sabotage if I tried.
Where brexit will really make a difference is in the upcoming recession. The ability to change YOUR economic profile without it being voted out by other countries will be crucial.
If you're a country not depending on imports/exports for anything crucial maybe yes, otherwise you're the little guy with no leverage that has to bend over and take it.
Having the last prime minister’s policies blocked by the EU would have been quite helpful. I don’t believe anything she did would have run afoul of EU rules though, but she didn’t have a lot of time.
Well, the conditions before the revolution were probably pretty bad for the average person, so they happily went along in hopes of getting something better. The same cannot be said about pre-brexit Britain, it was just pure self-sabotage.
Still it was motivated by independence from EU insanity in law and push for fast federation with Germans ruling it. I am pro united Europe but it is pure madness to expect entities (countries here) with interdependent history (of hostility) and opposite business expectations to unite in some theoretical ASAP. In my opinion 1k years is good timeframe, assuming everything will go positive all the time.
Maybe faster but true integration is not just laws on paper, it is whole continent societes integration so no constatnt backstabbing is default modus operandi.
So, IMO, Brexit is not Britain exiting rest of the Europe countries club forever.
And plan for lowering taxes was a good thing, just not something what can bring effects in just few months. Why not abolish VAT for example ? Transactions monitoring ? LOL
What would a "well-executed brexit" even look like?
The problems are that, in order to have a "well-executed brexit", you would need pragmatic, realistic people to execute it. Who are also pro-brexit. and
a) I don't think that those exist much. It's a Venn diagram with no meaningful intersection. The realists aren't pro-brexit, and the brexiteers aren't realists.
b) Brexit is fundamentally a populist "over-promise to the people" project. Theresa May tried to pitch a reasonable compromise, and got shouted down in favour of more outlandish promises. Realistic versions can't be sold as "the real thing". What existent thing can accurately be sold as the "the real thing" I do not know or care: it's not my problem to polish that turd.
Who are the "globalists" who are "the people"?
Are those that voted to stay not part of the people? Why? Because it doesn't fit with your narrative?
Your comment reeks of demagoguery with very nasty undertones.
