UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[My Thai Life]

24 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The Tusk- Barnier deal is the only viable option, but it is not do-able because it poses a constitutional crisis.

Really? Can't say I've seen that analysis in my daily survey of the quality media.

 

Sometimes the elephant in the room really is so big that some people just don't see it. The EU's arrogance in insisting that the UK be split is sure proof of their fundamental lack of interest in democracy.

 

Still, the pious self-proclaimed champions of democracy on this thread will continue to turn a blind eye.

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

The EU's arrogance in insisting that the UK be split is sure proof of their fundamental lack of interest in democracy.

Newsflash: Democracy is not when you give every beggar what he wants. Hurts to realize how this whole mess isn’t working at all, doesn’t it? 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Actually I'm not a Brexiter. I'm just someone who is happy to accept the democratic result of the referendum. I would have supported remain too.

 

By the way, your insults seem to be increasing along with your evident desperation.

 

I too accept the result of the referendum.  

 

But it needs a strong Government (like a Thatcher regime), with a clear single voice, with a working majority to see it through!  Brexit is a particularly thorny issue because its architects promised everything to everybody.

 

This is already an intolerable situation. Yes, Brexit is a proximate, but it is more fundamental than that.

 

I accept you are not a Brexiteer as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

9 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Really? Can't say I've seen that analysis in my daily survey of the quality media.

 

Sometimes the elephant in the room really is so big that some people just don't see it. The EU's arrogance in insisting that the UK be split is sure proof of their fundamental lack of interest in democracy.

 

Still, the pious self-proclaimed champions of democracy on this thread will continue to turn a blind eye.

Rant!

 

The Busk/Barnier deal leaves us with the potential for constitutional crisis in that Scotland, and N'Ireland really don't want it, and the inevitable outcome would be independence referenda.

 

It's a pragmatic and balanced solution in theory, since it delivers on a fundamental issue of the Brexit vote. But it fails to come anywhere close to a Free Trade deal, which was also an integral part of the Brexit vote.

 

It's doubtful whether it would pass Parliament, given the weak mandate the Government has.  You could even question whether most Tories MP's want it.

Edited October 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

No deal is not an option- it's rank failure.

 

It's a crude tool used as an existential threat- eat crap or die!

 

No deal= No Brexit.

 

Nobody voted for groundhog day.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

It's funny how one Boris Johnsson's eagerness to become PM by playing devil's advocate on EU referendum and one Cameron's arrogance lead to breakup of a nation of 60 million people. 

 

Currently the little Englanders feel quite nationalistic and don't care the United Kingdom breakup, as long as they get their hard brexit. 

 

 

 

Yes, no deal, it's a win, win, win, win for English Nationalists- they get the hardest of Brexits, and an independent England. They stuff Scotland, and create disarray in Ireland!

 

Good job!

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

The broad context was exactly the same, and you know it. The context being your belief that the EU is democratic. Yes, the EU does have aspects of democratic functioning, obviously, how could it not have. It also has a number of significant failings in that area. Ask Greece and Italy for starters, never mind your hero Juncker.

 

Given your refusal to accept democratic processes in the UK when you don't like them, you're not well placed to present yourself as a champion of democracy.

 

Your 1 line replies (or an extremely rare 2 lines in the reply that I've quoted) are also clear evidence that you  have nothing to say.

Only read as far as first line.

 

Quote the whole post or I won't bother to read your reply.

[melvinmelvin]

 

what are the bookies saying,

 

re brexit - deal

brexit - no deal

new referendum

ge

etc etc

 

[kwilco]

Let's get another thing straight......

 

 

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

what are the bookies saying,

 

re brexit - deal

brexit - no deal

new referendum

ge

etc etc

 

Not too sure, but if you fancy a flutter on a no deal, do it now as the odds for a no deal brexit are shortening by the minute.

[aright]

4 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

what you write here is ok,

but this is very different from what you wrote earlier

 

Can you identify the difference between what I wrote?

 

now, on top of the points, you made here,

project some contentious issues and you will quickly see that

the civser are well paid (in many countries) prostitutes, and that is OK, that is what they are supposed to be

 

brexit is a good example, contentious, comprehensive (constitutional, foreign policy, legal issues, national politics, trade, Scotland, NI)

here is no room for independent professionalism re interpreting relevant stipulations and base advice or

interaction with the public on that. especially when it comes to law-bending.

the pm or the relevant minister will understand the law for you and tell you how it is to be interpreted, in DETAIL,

depart from that and you are on the dole.

Who fires you and on what grounds? The National Union Of Civil and Public Servants might have something to say about dismissal if the subject is working within the code regardless of what the minister thinks. 

 

if your integrity tells you that this ain't right, you quit

 

Or you stand on your principles. There are other outcomes and yes Brexit is a good example. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/brexit-minister-steve-baker-accused-for-second-time-of-maligning-civil-service

 

 

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

What “result of the referendum”? There is no one result because everyone had a different understanding of what he is voting for in case of Brexit. You’re not accepting any referendum result but just your own interpretation of it. 

Read the ballot ticket again. 

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Nobody voted for groundhog day.

Hi MB. Always a pleasure to communicate with someone who doesn't resort to insults at every available opportunity and is capable of writing more than one line. I've bundled a couple of your posts together in my reply below. My comment are in italics. Cheers.

 

 Crap pie or you don't eat!  A free trade deal as proposed by Johnson, Rees-Mogg & co, Barnier-Tusk seems to me as a neutral observer to deliver very well on the terms of the referendum result.

 

The Tusk- Barnier deal is the only viable option, but it is not do-able because it poses a constitutional crisis.  There must also be question marks over this Government's competence to deliver. See below for my response to the “constitutional  crisis”. The Johnson-Rees-Mogg-Barnier-Tusk proposal allows for numerous free trade deals around the world. Some of these may be quite quick, some will be quite long. The total set would take longer than one term.

 

Nobody voted for Groundhog day.  We're already over-running. No comment.

 

Given nothing else matches the promised, but imaginary, deal offered by Leave, then we really ought to be considering damage limitation options. The Johnson-Rees-Mogg-Barnier-Tusk model is fine. Damage limitation? No form of Brino limits the damage – they would create more damage.

 

That would be a soft Brexit type option, which is popular with the electorate, Scotland , and N.Ireland, and is the only safe dock at present.  The Government won't consider that. Safe options are all Brino - there is no Brino that delivers on the referendum, and the parliamentary arithmetic won’t help anyway.

 

Logically, we have a GE I guess.  The Government has failed to deliver- in fact- it can't deliver because it has no majority with which to deliver. I find this a bit disingenuous. The failure so far has been due to May trying to appease remainers, not surprising as she is one herself. If a leaver had been in charge, the remainers would be complaining even more. I know you favour a Labour government, but the current Labour leader is completely out of his depth with this – most of his career has been spent trying to scupper his own party – it’s the only game he knows.

 

 

Ordinarily, I would say let the Government get on with what it wants to do. But in fact, that is not an option, is it? It’s actually the only option at present.

 

The Busk/Barnier deal leaves us with the potential for constitutional crisis in that Scotland, and N'Ireland really don't want it, and the inevitable outcome would be independence referenda. The EU attempt at blackmail concerning Northern Ireland is one of the nastiest pieces of duplicity I have ever witnessed. The WTO does not require a hard border, and the GFA does not require the EU’s involvement. I have posted several options on possible future border arrangements, all of which are taken from the quality press from both sides of the debate. It’s the EU’s aim to create this constitutional crisis, but it won’t happen because NI will not be separated from the UK via the EU’s backstop.

It's [Barnier-Tusk] a pragmatic and balanced solution in theory, since it delivers on a fundamental issue of the Brexit vote. But it fails to come anywhere close to a Free Trade deal, which was also an integral part of the Brexit vote. It is precisely a Free Trade Deal: no two FTAs are ever the same.

 

No deal= No Brexit. The general consensus seems to be that a no deal is a rapid Brexit. And many are unperturbed or even in favour of it (did you read my post quoting the CEO of Next?).

 

As a final point, from my recent surveys of the quality press there seems to be no “deal” which guarantees a parliamentary majority, though of course this could change. In this situation most believe we fall through to a no deal exit. This accelerates the FTA outcome and saves a lot of nonsense over the next few years, albeit with sharper initial pain.

Edited October 16, 2018 by My Thai Life

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Newsflash: Democracy is not when you give every beggar what he wants. Hurts to realize how this whole mess isn’t working at all, doesn’t it? 

The "mess" has been created by an increasingly politicised EU that wants total control. This is not what a lot of people want across Europe and it is certainly what most people in the UK did not realise they were approving in 1975. But you might have missed that! 

[bomber]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The "mess" has been created by an increasingly politicised EU that wants total control. This is not what a lot of people want across Europe and it is certainly what most people in the UK did not realise they were approving in 1975. But you might have missed that! 

what total control,in my 50 years of life all lived in the UK iam struggling to think of one aspect of the EU that has effected my life,job,income,standard of living or human rights,probably a few minor good things to of come from it if anything,i would probably have more faith in a german/french bureaucrat than our maniac MPs,they will seem like santa compared to comrade Corbyn

[welovesundaysatspace]

26 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Read the ballot ticket again. 

Then why don’t the Brexiteers accept leaving the EU but staying in the single market (with its four freedoms)? Perfectly fits the ballot ticket. 

 

No, Brexiteers claim the right to force their interpretation of what was meant with what’s written on the ballot ticket onto the rest of the country, and then call that “respecting democracy”. Ridiculous. 

 

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The "mess" has been created by an increasingly politicised EU that wants total control.

Certainly not. No one forced the U.K. to become an EU member; no one force the U.K. to Brexit; no one forced the U.K. to Brexit without a plan, preparations, and having spent any thought on the whole thing. That’s all the UKs decisions alone as a sovereign state. 

 

[melvinmelvin]

41 minutes ago, aright said:

 

 

you are missing the point,

the civser work for the political leadership of UK, not parliament or old liz

the civser is not an independent source of expertise

they are paid to do what the ministers tell them to do,

they are just about the only tool the ruling government has available in order to realize their policies, ("approved" by GE)

 

if you refuse to interpret stipulations they way the minister wants you are on shaky ground,

you refuse to follow orders,

rule bending is a fairly common and popular sport among politicians - as a civser you follow pace or you lose

 

now,

if, the parliament becomes sufficiently unhappy with what is going on - no confidence - the cabinet is ditched

and the civser is left flak free

any civser trying to follow clear majority voices in parliament is in double deep <deleted> if it doesn't suit the minister

the boss is the political management, better not undermine the boss if you want a future

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by melvinmelvin

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, bomber said:

what total control,in my 50 years of life all lived in the UK iam struggling to think of one aspect of the EU that has effected my life,job,income,standard of living or human rights,probably a few minor good things to of come from it if anything,i would probably have more faith in a german/french bureaucrat than our maniac MPs,they will seem like santa compared to comrade Corbyn

It's a shame so many that have lived only in the UK are so blinkered. I do agree about Corbyn. I don't agree that the EU should control our laws and regulations.

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Then why don’t the Brexiteers accept leaving the EU but staying in the single market (with its four freedoms)? Perfectly fits the ballot ticket. 

 

No, Brexiteers claim the right to force their interpretation of what was meant with what’s written on the ballot ticket onto the rest of the country, and then call that “respecting democracy”. Ridiculous. 

 

Certainly not. No one forced the U.K. to become an EU member; no one force the U.K. to Brexit; no one forced the U.K. to Brexit without a plan, preparations, and having spent any thought on the whole thing. That’s all the UKs decisions alone as a sovereign state. 

 

 

You must know the answers to your own questions by now. Yes, no one forced the UK into Brexit - it's just what the majority want. The SM is owned by the EU and membership of either entails accepting these so-called freedoms. Of these, freedom of movement is plainly the one of most concern to many Britons.

 

The UK joined the EEC without a referendum but under the veil of Heath's lies and deception. The 1975 referendum sailed through, with the majority of the electorate still believing in the sensible idea of simply a "Common Market". The contents of the Treaty of Rome were never fully, broadly and truthfully explained.

 

The political aims of the newly declared EU of 1992, were more plainly revealed in The Maastrict Treaty (but of course there was no referendum before that baby). I bet John Major knew there would have been a no vote then too. Since then the pressure for a referendum has been building steadily.   

Edited October 16, 2018 by nauseus

[bomber]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It's a shame so many that have lived only in the UK are so blinkered. I do agree about Corbyn. I don't agree that the EU should control our laws and regulations.

i aint blinkered,very few people have been affected by any EU laws and some have actually gained from them,its not the EU who decided to give so many benefits to asylum seekers that they will risk their lives to get here because our hand outs are greater than any other EU nation,its not the EU who decided our oversea's aid hand outs which we cannot afford,or to throw huge amounts of money at alcoholics,we could learn a lot from them but our British is best attitude gets the better of us,this time i think we have pushed our luck to far and deserve all that is coming,luckily iam to old enough and in good enough financial position not to be affected,luckily i have no children as the UK isnt going to be a good place to be in the coming years

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Hi MB. Always a pleasure to communicate with someone who doesn't resort to insults at every available opportunity and is capable of writing more than one line. I've bundled a couple of your posts together in my reply below. My comment are in italics. Cheers.

 

 Crap pie or you don't eat!  A free trade deal as proposed by Johnson, Rees-Mogg & co, Barnier-Tusk seems to me as a neutral observer to deliver very well on the terms of the referendum result.

 

The Tusk- Barnier deal is the only viable option, but it is not do-able because it poses a constitutional crisis.  There must also be question marks over this Government's competence to deliver. See below for my response to the “constitutional  crisis”. The Johnson-Rees-Mogg-Barnier-Tusk proposal allows for numerous free trade deals around the world. Some of these may be quite quick, some will be quite long. The total set would take longer than one term.

 

Nobody voted for Groundhog day.  We're already over-running. No comment.

 

Given nothing else matches the promised, but imaginary, deal offered by Leave, then we really ought to be considering damage limitation options. The Johnson-Rees-Mogg-Barnier-Tusk model is fine. Damage limitation? No form of Brino limits the damage – they would create more damage.

 

That would be a soft Brexit type option, which is popular with the electorate, Scotland , and N.Ireland, and is the only safe dock at present.  The Government won't consider that. Safe options are all Brino - there is no Brino that delivers on the referendum, and the parliamentary arithmetic won’t help anyway.

 

Logically, we have a GE I guess.  The Government has failed to deliver- in fact- it can't deliver because it has no majority with which to deliver. I find this a bit disingenuous. The failure so far has been due to May trying to appease remainers, not surprising as she is one herself. If a leaver had been in charge, the remainers would be complaining even more. I know you favour a Labour government, but the current Labour leader is completely out of his depth with this – most of his career has been spent trying to scupper his own party – it’s the only game he knows.

 

 

Ordinarily, I would say let the Government get on with what it wants to do. But in fact, that is not an option, is it? It’s actually the only option at present.

 

The Busk/Barnier deal leaves us with the potential for constitutional crisis in that Scotland, and N'Ireland really don't want it, and the inevitable outcome would be independence referenda. The EU attempt at blackmail concerning Northern Ireland is one of the nastiest pieces of duplicity I have ever witnessed. The WTO does not require a hard border, and the GFA does not require the EU’s involvement. I have posted several options on possible future border arrangements, all of which are taken from the quality press from both sides of the debate. It’s the EU’s aim to create this constitutional crisis, but it won’t happen because NI will not be separated from the UK via the EU’s backstop.

It's [Barnier-Tusk] a pragmatic and balanced solution in theory, since it delivers on a fundamental issue of the Brexit vote. But it fails to come anywhere close to a Free Trade deal, which was also an integral part of the Brexit vote. It is precisely a Free Trade Deal: no two FTAs are ever the same.

 

No deal= No Brexit. The general consensus seems to be that a no deal is a rapid Brexit. And many are unperturbed or even in favour of it (did you read my post quoting the CEO of Next?).

 

As a final point, from my recent surveys of the quality press there seems to be no “deal” which guarantees a parliamentary majority, though of course this could change. In this situation most believe we fall through to a no deal exit. This accelerates the FTA outcome and saves a lot of nonsense over the next few years, albeit with sharper initial pain.

 

Ordinarily, The Tusk/Barnier deal is the only sensible and reasonable option.  It ticks many boxes and could also serve as an opportunity for a closer working relationship which might actually bring about a Free Trade Deal  But Brexit defies all sense and reasonableness.

 

This is because both sides lied through their teeth.  The polyphonic messages (which were again in evidence at both the Conservative and Labour party conferences) effectively offered everything to everybody-through senior figures too- in a way allowed everyone to quite justifiably conclude that their understanding of what Brexit meant is the right one- a polymorphic Brexit which is impossible to deliver.  And in my opinion that makes it beyond resolution.

 

I don't quite know where the controversy over the border issue came from- as an issue its been blown out of all proportion.  Yet it is now a big factor that actually threatens the integrity of the union, as does the Scottish issue.

 

Unfortunately, and I don't know why it should be so, the Tusk/Barnier deal is also synonymous with a hard Brexit, and the Tory far right, and this would not bode well in a vote.

 

But by far the biggest factor that would scupper the deal is that this is a weak government, that at best may not be able to pass any deal, even if it had unity, which it quite evidently does not.  It is also to a large extent the architect of the problems- it has handled Brexit badly.  It is a sad fact that we elect governments to take the nasty decisions that we really don't want to make- this government can't, because it has no clout.

 

This may seem a weak conclusion: knock Brexit on the head!  We are not in position to go through with it.  There really isn't any other solution that will not have a bad outcome. Any victory will be pyrrhic.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[kwilco]

The trouble with Brexit is it's the kind of mass hysteria that lets in despots and dictators.

In countries  with despotic governments one thing we learn from history is that often a majority of the population didn't see it coming.... and they certainly didn't listen to those who did....maybe this time people will learn.

 

See if you voted on these principles ...

 

 

[kwilco]

7 hours ago, tebee said:

Yes there have been several polls showing a majority for reunification in case of brexit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-45391529 for one, another was mentioned here about 10 pages back 

 

Interestingly the GFA. allows for a referendum on Irish unity if “at any time” it appears likely to the British Secretary of State “that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.” The blueprint is already in place. All it now needs now are the right conditions to be met.

Brexit has many downsides but I think it will be nice for the Irish to watch a British famine

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Ordinarily, The Tusk/Barnier deal is the only sensible and reasonable option.  It ticks many boxes and could also serve as an opportunity for a closer working relationship which might actually bring about a Free Trade Deal  But Brexit defies all sense and reasonableness.

 

The Johnson-ReesMogg-Tusk-Barnier proposals are for Free Trade Deals. No-one has ever suggested they would be negotiated by 29th March 2019. In fact, according to the EU sequencing it's not possible to even start to do so by then. The A50 was drafted in a hurry by Lord Kerr to meet a completely different scenario from Brexit; and A50 is clearly inadequate for Brexit. I'm not suggesting this should be changed - it's too late for that, but it does add enormously to the practical problems (I have also posted about this).

 

The Northern Irish "issue" is concocted by the EU for political reasons. The WTO does not require hard borders; I have posted on this. And the Good Friday Accord does not require EU involvement.

 

The defying of sense and reasonableness is coming from the remain side in terms of the day to day "negotiations" (how could it be otherwise, the FTA people have not led the process or been significantly involved do date - let's not mention David Davis because clearly his role was highly constrained by May), including May, the CBI because CEOs get their bonuses on short-term performance, the CBI because the EU is a neo-liberal cartel which offers them lot of benefits, Corbyn - even though he's a leaver he's an opportunist who wants to rock the boat. I could go on (and on and on) but you get the gist.

 

By the way, I'm not a personal supporter of Rees-Mogg, I find a number of his views bizarre and repugnant. But this debate is about Brexit not personalities.

 

Finally (again ???? ) your suggestion to "knock it on the head" is all well and good, I'm sure many people feel like that, but it's just not possible. There is no clarity about whether A50 could be revoked, or whether the EU would accept that. A 2nd referendum really is pie-in-the-sky.

 

I really can't force myself to believe that there will be a GE and Corbyn will replace May. But let's say he does. Well nothing really changes: the parliamentary arithmetic remains the same; the options remain the same. The main difference is that we would replace a remainer who's trying to pursue Exit with a leaver who would be trying to pursue Remain!

 

We are in a process that cannot be reversed, the reasons are scattered across my post here. And the only open roads lead to FTA, whether via Johnson-Mogg-Barnier-Tusk or via "no deal" exit.

 

Phew, have a good evening!

Edited October 16, 2018 by My Thai Life

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

really can't force myself to believe that there will be a GE and Corbyn will replace May. But let's say he does. Well nothing really changes: the parliamentary arithmetic remains the same; the options remain the same. The main difference is that we would replace a remainer who's trying to pursue Exit with a leaver who would be trying to pursue Remain!

MB, apologies, need to revise this. If there were a GE and Labour won, the parliamentary arithmetic is very likely to change of course - not all Labourites are Frank Field.

 

But will there be a GE, and would Labour win on a Remain ticket? Re the first point - unlikely imho, certainly not in the time frame. Re the second point - given that Labour supported the Brexit result last time, and that some of the highest leave wards were Labour, that also seems highly unlikely.

 

Really, the best and most democratic approach is to accept that (1) Leave won (2) we are going to leave (3) FTA is the most llkely way, whether via "orderly" or "no deal".

Edited October 16, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Grouse]

9 hours ago, vinny41 said:

1,199 people took part in the poll out of a population of 1.871 million and that didn;t include any of the Republic of Ireland/Population of 

4,803,748 million people there would public sector job losses in the North and Higher Taxes to be paid from the South

The only way the Republic of Ireland population would vote for reunification if the other EU 26 members agreed to spend billions and billions of euros on a United Ireland  A double whammy for the Finnish population refusing to pay extra for Brexit then asked to pay extra for a United Ireland

Never make the mistake of involving brexiters in any kind of mathematic and specifically not statistical analysis.

[My Thai Life]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Never make the mistake of involving brexiters in any kind of mathematic and specifically not statistical analysis.

More cheap insults from the cups of cheap whisky. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by My Thai Life

[vinny41]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Never make the mistake of involving brexiters in any kind of mathematic and specifically not statistical analysis.

Yes and you know why  any poll can be rigged to deliver a particular outcome, Don't you find it strange that these polls always come out in favour of who is sponsoring paying for the poll, its unlikely there a clause in the contract between the sponsor and the pollster that the sponsor doesn't have to pay in the event they disagree with the poll results

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, bomber said:

i aint blinkered,very few people have been affected by any EU laws and some have actually gained from them,its not the EU who decided to give so many benefits to asylum seekers that they will risk their lives to get here because our hand outs are greater than any other EU nation,its not the EU who decided our oversea's aid hand outs which we cannot afford,or to throw huge amounts of money at alcoholics,we could learn a lot from them but our British is best attitude gets the better of us,this time i think we have pushed our luck to far and deserve all that is coming,luckily iam to old enough and in good enough financial position not to be affected,luckily i have no children as the UK isnt going to be a good place to be in the coming years

I'm glad you feel unaffected but most the things you mention have little to do with my point, which is that all British Laws should be made by all British governments. I too worry about the younger ones but I guess my reasons are different to yours. 

 

[tebee]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/10/15/talks-breakdown-don-t-blame-the-eu-for-what-leavers-got-wron?utm_source=quora&amp;utm_medium=referral