I would hope people would look at Brexit as a model of how well that line of thought works. Especially as we're seeing how ugly the downstream effects are years afterwards.

What are the British population's attitude towards this post-Brexit reality now? Has anyone reflected on it?

Probably a 48%/52% split between "this is exactly what we said would happen" and "we've been hamstrung by leaders not negotiating a good deal"

Generally speaking, bad. Polls indicate that favorability for Brexit is probably around 35% or lower. It's been getting worse because a lot of the current crisis's the UK faces are the direct result of Brexit. Because a lot of things they took for granted in regards to stuff like the food chain or energy negotiations is something that directly impacts an individual's day to day life.

> food chain or energy negotiations

The UK along with Norway export gas to EU during summer which is stored for use in winter. UK does not have expensive gas/electricity because of Brexit, it is because of Ukraine war. The rest of EU is just as bad or worse when it comes to energy prices. The economy in Germany is worse than UK this year. The latest data regarding budget deficit from France is just as bad as UK.

Not sure what food chain issues, the UK needs cheap labour to work the fields, UK people won't accept that work, so cheap labour is brought over from Asia for seasonal work. The new young generation Polish/Eastern Europe people are no longer are interested in such work either.

No, I remember energy prices going up way before Ukraine war. Starting in the summer of 2021 we had multiple energy providers going bankrupt.

And don't forget the usefulness of the UK for USA is now hovering just above nil. From an Establishment point of view David Cameron has got to be the Biggest Donkey in years! And what do the Tories do, they reward him.

> It baffles me that there was even a need for 'a deal'. I mean: WTF. Can't we just be free?!

Sure, but that freedom means not doing any trade with your neighbours, not letting people from your country visit the EU (and vice versa), not importing any energy, etc.

Why does the EU have to limit trade? Importing energy? Can't you just leave that to the countries themselves? That's my whole point: the EU was never a good plan.

> Can't you just leave that to the countries themselves?

No. A big point in favor of the EU is that countries do not negotiate individually but as a single block. This is an advantage because it gives them more power and the ability of getting better deals (in aggregate). Which is exactly the sort of "bullying" that you are complaining about: by deciding to go alone, the UK is weaker and gets worse deals.

In fact, a well-functioning EU is one of the only ways in which European countries can hope to count anything in a world dominated by much larger economies (US, China, India, ...)

Call me naïve, but what's the point of 'more power'? And 'better deals'? Didn't we have enough food on the table before the EU? Sure, striving for better is fine, but enough is enough right? And if you've build an economy that's favorable for everyone (as the Dutch have. Especially knowledge. See ASML) you don't need to convince other countries to do business with you. I just don't see the added value of the EU. What I see now is a wealth transfer form the Dutch to the 'poor' EU countries. If you don't believe me, checkout the pension fund management of the Dutch. (more than 1000 billion euro 'disappeared' over the last 10 years and shows up in Greece, Italy, Spain. Or as windmill. Or a rainbow flag.). Man, I get angry even talking about it. Wasting the future of my children.

> what's the point of 'more power'?

To defend (y)our interests against other economic blocks that are more powerful and not necessarily nice to you. With ASML you are well covered for now, but China is catching up. And how can 18 million people compete against 1.4 billion? The Dutch GDP is just a bit higher than Beijing'!

I'm not gonna defend every EU policy and I am not arguing that the current state of the EU is satisfactory. All I am saying is that European countries are better off together; there is a reason why "divide and conquer" is a thing.

I'm talking about having left the EU. Countries then have to sort out these deals themselves, that's the whole point.

>> the EU wasn't really cooperating in making a deal with the UK. Could you clarify this? What kind of deal should the UK have gotten? Should the UK get a better deal than other countries which are not in the union?

Give the UK (the people in the UK) the freedom to do business with whomever they want. Without 'bullying' border rules. But no, EU said: You left us and that makes us angry.

My whole point is: there should never have bin a EU. What was wrong with the agreement between countries?

There was always a tension between some sort of common market trade organization and a European superstate—which the UK never fully bought into in important aspects anyway.

You should have stayed in the EEA or EFTA then. The UK was one of the founding members of the EEA. Tatcher was quite against the EU and the Euro anyway.

I don't understand your point. The EU and all of the stuff associated with it was part of the agreement. Brexit was the UK backing out of that agreement, which means now they need to negotiate with individual countries (and the EU as a bloc). Which means now they need to figure out how the borders are going to work, how immigration/travel is treated, how imports/exports should be treated etc.

Why is it baffling that they need a deal when that's exactly what they wanted? It sounds like you want the ability for a country to leave the EU, but then not have to negotiate all of the benefits that came with being in the EU. Which, isn't exactly how it works.

As a similar analogy, it would be like if one of the states here in the US successfully seceded. The US would be under no obligation to make deals with said state, they would have to negotiate as two separate countries and all of the geopolitical stuff that comes with it.

See my reply above. My whole point is that the EU was never a good plan.

The main reason is that people don't feel like being responsible for their own solutions, just expect it from a savior - failing EU then a local one. They keep blaming whoever else while forgetting THEY are part of the EU and THEY vote for every single point on the EU action list and legislation, yes including environmentalism. And continuing to not feel responsible, they vote for the guy who takes them out of that EU responsibilities, while promising he will deliver locally on exactly the same points he failed previously to deliver on the EU level. And the voters believed him, of course, ignoring there are green and left-wing parties on local level just as well. Well, this eternal naivety some iron hand will save us, same since the dawn of history...

I find it a large leap to go from "broken housing, inflation, too much environmentalism, and declining healthcare" to "the EU is the problem". All these "problems", as far as they exist, exist in the whole EU as well as in the US. The cause is therefore unlikely to be the EU.

A more likely cause of some problems is the lack of people in the working age, that is, a demographic problem. The US has solved (historically) and is solving this via immigration, which is exactly the thing that Wilders wants to stop. Put differently, who is gonna build the houses? Many Dutch youths have completed a bachelor or master degree, so are not interested in that line of work.