Debunking the two main “Brexit benefits” myths: the Covid vaccine rollout and Ukraine policy Whenever Brexiters are backed into a corner and asked to name any benefits from Brexit so far, they reach for three things. One is the myth that because we left the EU, we were able to roll out the Covid vaccine in a way that saved thousands of British lives. The second is the myth that being outside of the EU allowed the UK to help Ukraine, militarily and otherwise, in a way it would not have been able to as a member of the European Union. The third is the “Brexit is good because we’re free now” nonsense, which is so idiotic it needs no further discussion.
Until 2017 we were head of the European Medical Agency, based in the UK and serving the EU, thanks to that membership we had a huge pool of talent and knowledge still in the UK after we had left. That talent in part helped our programme. If we had never been members of the EU would we have had that talent and knowledge base in this country ? Probably not..
The other reason the Brexitists like to gaslight the populace with Cove/Ukraine, is because they are big damaging economic events that help to cover up the damage/comparative damage that leaving the EU has done economically... I find it astonishing that the UK is just meekly accepting empty supermarket shelves, no more 'use by' dates, manifestly less fresh and lower quality produce (and smaller quantities at higher prices in many cases)... these issues are absolutely unique to the UK/Brexit
Sadly, post the Covid supply chain breakdowns we've still got supermarket supply problems here in New Zealand, and I also noticed lots of gaps in supermarket shelves when I was in Australia recently. Of course, the scale of the problem may be much smaller than in the UK?
To play devil's advocate I think there's one thing your article does miss: Brexit may have inspired British politicians to do something different for the sake of doing something different. Admittedly, that's a pretty rubbish reason to make a major foreign policy decision, and it doesn't mean that we would have been _unable_ to make these decisions while members of the EU. But it _might_ just be true that had we been in the EU our leaders may have chosen to go along with an EU vaccine rollout, etc. (Again, not saying that this outcome would have been worse.)
Ultimately there's no way to prove this, and the principle is incredibly important, but it may, just may, be that the UK did some things different because it left that it might not otherwise have done.
This is good and all, but I've just come here from reading Chris Grey's blog, where the resignation of Johnson and the publication of the damning report from the privileges committee has inspired him to do a summation of Johnson and Brexit. The through line on that consideration is that "Brexitiness" is about the extent to which true believers no longer even agree with you on what "facts" and "arguments" really are. So great that you give us some logical and factual arguments to nail the lies, but if you're operating against true believe who hold a "post truth" position how effective can that be?
Don’t you think that Putin wouldnt have dared to begin his invasion in Ukraine, if the EU had had’nt been faced with the mess caused by Brexit ? And don’nt you think that Putin had been challenged by the bluff and warlike language of Boris ? Has the discussion between Boris and Putin just before the invasion ever made public ? I think Putin saw Boris just as a rascal and screamer.....
If you are asking, did Brexit embolden Putin's actions in Ukraine (?), then my personal suspicion is that this indeed could well have been the case. The timing alone seems extraordinarily coincidental. Nothing enrages the Brexiteers like this suggestion - but eventually the truth might start to leak out.
I think it's pretty clear that Putin is the only world leader who got a clear benefit from Brexit, and he was putting Russian money behind the idea for a long time. That might enrage Brexiters even more than what you say - but in so far as Putin had long term plans about the EU, encouraging us to Brexit was one of those plans. I think Putin got a shock by how swiftly the EU and ourselves *did* manage to pull together on Ukraine and security in the face of his invasion, even though we were not in the best position to do that when it happened.
Until 2017 we were head of the European Medical Agency, based in the UK and serving the EU, thanks to that membership we had a huge pool of talent and knowledge still in the UK after we had left. That talent in part helped our programme. If we had never been members of the EU would we have had that talent and knowledge base in this country ? Probably not..
The other reason the Brexitists like to gaslight the populace with Cove/Ukraine, is because they are big damaging economic events that help to cover up the damage/comparative damage that leaving the EU has done economically... I find it astonishing that the UK is just meekly accepting empty supermarket shelves, no more 'use by' dates, manifestly less fresh and lower quality produce (and smaller quantities at higher prices in many cases)... these issues are absolutely unique to the UK/Brexit
Sadly, post the Covid supply chain breakdowns we've still got supermarket supply problems here in New Zealand, and I also noticed lots of gaps in supermarket shelves when I was in Australia recently. Of course, the scale of the problem may be much smaller than in the UK?
To play devil's advocate I think there's one thing your article does miss: Brexit may have inspired British politicians to do something different for the sake of doing something different. Admittedly, that's a pretty rubbish reason to make a major foreign policy decision, and it doesn't mean that we would have been _unable_ to make these decisions while members of the EU. But it _might_ just be true that had we been in the EU our leaders may have chosen to go along with an EU vaccine rollout, etc. (Again, not saying that this outcome would have been worse.)
Ultimately there's no way to prove this, and the principle is incredibly important, but it may, just may, be that the UK did some things different because it left that it might not otherwise have done.
Still, excellent article!
This is good and all, but I've just come here from reading Chris Grey's blog, where the resignation of Johnson and the publication of the damning report from the privileges committee has inspired him to do a summation of Johnson and Brexit. The through line on that consideration is that "Brexitiness" is about the extent to which true believers no longer even agree with you on what "facts" and "arguments" really are. So great that you give us some logical and factual arguments to nail the lies, but if you're operating against true believe who hold a "post truth" position how effective can that be?
Don’t you think that Putin wouldnt have dared to begin his invasion in Ukraine, if the EU had had’nt been faced with the mess caused by Brexit ? And don’nt you think that Putin had been challenged by the bluff and warlike language of Boris ? Has the discussion between Boris and Putin just before the invasion ever made public ? I think Putin saw Boris just as a rascal and screamer.....
If you are asking, did Brexit embolden Putin's actions in Ukraine (?), then my personal suspicion is that this indeed could well have been the case. The timing alone seems extraordinarily coincidental. Nothing enrages the Brexiteers like this suggestion - but eventually the truth might start to leak out.
I think it's pretty clear that Putin is the only world leader who got a clear benefit from Brexit, and he was putting Russian money behind the idea for a long time. That might enrage Brexiters even more than what you say - but in so far as Putin had long term plans about the EU, encouraging us to Brexit was one of those plans. I think Putin got a shock by how swiftly the EU and ourselves *did* manage to pull together on Ukraine and security in the face of his invasion, even though we were not in the best position to do that when it happened.