To want Brexit be reversed

you may have been a lone sensible voice in the wilderness. But the vast majority of remain voters were not.

And that is why you still occasionally hear the whinging cry of "why won't brexiteers engage with us?"

Oh right. You think people voted Brexit, which was a stupid thing to do, because Remainers told them it was a stupid thing to do before they voted for it.🤔

I find the lack of responsibility taken by ardent Leavers along with their sheer stupidity and unwillingness to engage with the reality and enormity of the result very embarrassing, frankly.

They damaged the UK massively and now they're blaming Remainers for their choice? Typical Brexiteer whinging.🙄

Hmm... Now, see, this is something that people keep getting wrong...

The exact statement made on buses during the Brexit campaign was: "We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead."

What is incorrect about that statement?
Surely it stands to reason that, if we're not sending the EU £350 million a week, then those funds could be available to put towards our NHS?

However, at no point did ANYONE categorically claim that: 'We WILL put the £350 million a week we're not sending the EU directly into the NHS'.

So anyone suggesting they did say this is, frankly, lying.

No, not at all. That's not mudslinging, that's just putting forward an opinion/having a debate.
Perfectly fine to disagree. Unfortunately, those in Remain camp seemed unable to debate like adults - just issued lots of snide remarks, name-calling and insults-whenever Leavers spoke - which is, ultimately, what swung it for Leave.
It was all a bit embarrassing, frankly.

Ment to say the £350 million a week that would go to the NHS instead. Even printed it on a bus and the Brexit voters fell for it.

I can’t read a Brexit thread without thinking of the Emily Maitless quote

“It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
She added: “I’d later learn that the ungainly name for this myopic style of journalism: ‘both-sideism’, which talks to the way it reaches a superficial balance while obscuring a deeper truth.”

We were absolutely screwed over!

And the fact we can't send asylum seekers back to France (or other European country they came from).

And we can't retire and go to European hotter climates for more than 90 days (even if you own there).

And what does “single market” mean to most people? It’s just more words, like “European Union,” and means whatever people they want to listen to tell them it means. What people listened and responded to were what they were told the potential benefits of leaving the EU would be. People were told the single market meant straight bananas, and money going to bureaucrats to make unnecessary red tape rather than money being spent on the UK in the UK. They were told we didn’t need the EU because the UK was a country the world was clamouring to do business with and that the EU was just holding us back. They were told we were being ripped off by the EU. They were told that the remain campaign was just sticking with something inadequate due to cowardice and lack of vision. It’s easy to sell a fantasy. Reality is always harder to sell.

Mudslinging?

Do you mean the commentators and audience members who were incredulous that anyone in the UK thought Brexit was a good idea?

The more Brexiteer posts I read, the more I understand how people are caught in romance scams.🙈

Are you actually claiming that even if people did listen to the debates, it was made clear?

June 3 2016
5 takeaways from David Cameron’s first Brexit TV ‘debate’
3. Single market, single market, single market
If Cameron had one job Thursday night, it was to bring the debate back to the economy.
The Remain campaign clearly believe Gove and Johnson have committed a major strategic error by calling for Britain to leave the single market, with Cameron returning to it again and again. “I keep going on about the single market, but it’s so important,” he said at one point, in a sentence that summed up his entire debate strategy.

If we rejoined it wouldn’t be on as good a terms as it was before, the deal would not be as good I don’t think

On this basis, logically, we should have embraced the pandemic as an opportunity to kill some people off.

I watched all of the TV debates. I still firmly believe it was all the mudslinging coming from the Remain camp that secured Brexit, more than the Leave campaign itself.

This.

We don't need a high birth rate. We need fewer people in general. Bringing in more people to pay the pensions of the generation before is utter lunacy, as those people will then need pensions themselves. What do we do then, bring in even more people? You can't keep doing that indefinitely.

There's no guarantee that would have happened. What was guaranteed though, was that it would take years to come back from. It could certainly be argued that the stretched finances, long NHS waiting lists and inadequate mental health services we have now are costing the lives that lockdown saved.

Yes. Do you think everyone who voted did? Was anyone told it was compulsory to listen to all the debates? Are you actually claiming that even if people did listen to the debates, it was made clear? Or that it was actually clear in the thick skulls of the people running the campaigns? Because they all had a funny way of showing it after the event.

Vote Leave said a lot of things before the referendum

summary

• We end the supremacy of EU law and the European Court. We will be able to kick out those who make our laws.
• Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. We will take back the power to negotiate our own trade deals.
• We spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools.
• We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
• We will regain our seat on international bodies where Brussels represents us, and use our greater international influence to push for greater international cooperation.
• We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way.
• We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European Court before the 2020 election.
• We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests.

The question on the ballot paper did not specify what was meant by leaving

Did you watch any of the debates and interviews at the time?

There was no way through the pandemic without massive costs. Having more people sick and/or dead comes with a cost. Of course it didn't help all the money that got given to companies that failed to deliver...

Very easy on paper, very difficult politically.

People don't like high immigration but we largely have it because our birth rate is too low to sustain an adequate workforce to pay for things like a state pension. Otherwise, we'd be in a similar position to Japan and South Korea.

All developed countries seem to be facing this problem to some extent, and none seem to have found a solution that isn't unpopular.

That was the real absurdity of the referendum wasn't it. It didn't actually define what leave meant. Nobody knew what they were actually voting for.

This! I think what we're experiencing now is almost solely down to the pandemic. Who honestly thought that shutting down everything for the best part of two years was going to have a positive impact long term, especially on our finances!? Unfortunately, that money had to be recouped somehow and that responsibility, as always, has fallen to the taxpayer.

The question asked in the referendum was, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The question on the ballot paper did not specify what was meant by leaving, so self-evidently meant whatever the voter fancied it to mean. The only people genuinely delighted with the result are those who make profit from chaos and division. Most other people either think it’s about as crap as they expected it to be, or are busy coming up with excuses for it not having made anything better, and other reasons for everything actually having got infinitely worse.

Cameron? He obviously didn't want to go through with it as he resigned. Farage and Gove were not bluffing though - Michael Gove was the senior spokesperson for Vote Leave. The ITV link up thread says;

Thanks to Michael Gove we know that Britain's future outside the EU would also be outside the single market.

So we can rule out our future looking like Norway or Iceland: both outside the EU but both members of the European Economic Area which pay for access to the single market and accept free movement of workers.

Vote Leave's future plan for the UK would be outside the EU and outside the EEA.