I disagree with that mate, I followed Brexit closely at the time and since and for at least the first 2-3 years before/after the vote. Large sections of the leave vote thought Brexit would make everything better.
That's not what I am arguing here. I am arguing most of them understood it could get shaky for some time before any rewards would come by to reap. 3 years is a very short time. It's slightly more than half a term for the Government. I said 30 years is needed to judge the success or failure of Brexit as short term there are too many short term impacts
Yeah but most people are too busy with work, kids and watching Love Island. So it was far too important a vote to put top the public without clearly explaining the ramifications. No one really knew what brexit meant, and to many including politicians it meant different things. For a start I heard virtually nothing about how it would affect Northern Ireland in the mainstream British media. And yet not only has it jeopardised the peace process it was one of the main stumbling blocks to Brexit even being implemented to this day.
Can't argue against the NI part. I don't think anyone thought of that until after the referendum. It will hopefully be solved with a bit of time. Something that was very throughly debated however was trade deals. Remainers were very emphatic about leaving the single market and it was very clear that a Brexit would mean leaving the single market of the EU. This serves my argument above that people knew that Brexit could for example potentially be without any deal with the EU, which could be very shaky.
diluteinev
Bolded is perfectly put imo. I would argue that it's a road to disaster to outsource the ruling of your own and your family's life to bureaucrats without accountability. Especially federal bureaucrats from and in different countries who's agenda it is impossible to anticipate and control.
True to an extent but one side of the lies duped people into voting for something to make their lives more difficult.
I think it's important to remember that the referendum was not about either doing nothing or leaving. It was the referendum that never took place in the first place. The UK never voted to enter a union. The vote before was to enter a trade zone. Staying IMO had much more profound implications for the UK society long term but they would have been implemented slow enough for things not to get shaky.
Mostly fueled by British exceptionalism/xenophobia, the British right wing media and successive governments blaming everything on the EU boogeyman. Not all leave voters were racist but all racists who voted will have voted leave.
Anyway this isn't a thread for debating Brexit mate so lets leave it there.
This is what I said as well. While it's entirely true, it's important that realise that it doesn't mean that the inverse correlation exists. Many people who wanted to leave probably wanted restrictive, or at least more restrictive, immigration. But they wanted it to protect their own jobs from wage dumping and their access to public healthcare. This is maths and not xenophobia. If you dilute the labour market with immigration, wages will inevitably drop, and the NHS will have less money in but more patients to serve. UK is as far as I am aware officially one of the least racist and most diverse countries in the world, possibly competing only with some of the scandinavian countries. I don't think that the suggestion that this small minority managed to dupe an entire nation into leaving the EU is plausible.
Sure you are right, we can leave it here. I want to thank you for your posts. Feel free to answer if you want to, as I did in fact respond quite extensively here. I will read it but I will not answer any more Brexit arguments then. Thanks.