“Everybody thought the EU was about people coming into the country … no-one told of us the benefits”.

The Remain campaign did highlight many of the issues that subsequently transpired, including the hit to the economy, the Northern Ireland issues and the increased barriers to travel.

The problem wasn't that people weren't warned, it was that they put their fingers in their ears and chose not to listen.

The Remain campaign was undoubtedly too complacent. They were operating from the assumption that the electorate wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for Brexit, and obviously that was wrong. But it absolutely isn't true to say that the big issues weren't talked about

Unfortunately, Michael Gove told people that they had had enough of experts and they chose to believe him.

Many people told them. But they chose the lies due to racism. Brexit was a xenophobic, racist referendum. And those same people are going to do it again, and wreck things for my children, grandchildren, and every decent person in the U.K. I despair. I am also very, very angry.

That argument would stand up if the economy as a whole hadn't been negatively affected by Brexit.

But if the overall pie is significantly smaller, then people will inevitably get smaller slices of pie.

i checked out some of the house prices, many auction 5-10K a real opportunity for someone. even 100k for a solid 2 bed with no sign of water/moisture.

To be fair, a lot of it was "Project Fear". Have people forgotten Gordon Brown's threat of a "punishment budget"? Obama's veiled threats?

If the Remain campaign had explained how much more difficult it would be to take your dog on holiday they might have got somewhere. Ditto how it was going to affect Northern Ireland.

But they ran a lazy campaign from a liberal elite position of "surely everyone can see how good being in the EU is for us?" and accused people of bigotry and racism instead of listening to their concerns and acting on them.

Brexit didn't win, Remain never got off the starting blocks.

I didn't know that about their borrowing and that is v interesting info - thanks for sharing it.

Everyone with half a brain told you the risks of Brexit. It was all dismissed as project fear. Unfortunately, some people are thicker than a submarine door…

She agreed with joining the European economic community , but she would not have agreed with joining the political union that it morphed into without any of us having any say about that.

Do people remember the fight over agreeing the Maastricht treaty?

Does anyone know that the EU is now double borrowed against the same assets? Each county has is own eye watering national debt borrowed against its own ability to pay the interest. But on top of that the European Central Bank has borrowed again against those same countries abilities to pay the interest.

God help the EU when the first lender to either one of those countries (France being top
of that list) or the ECB, decides they want their capital back and nobody else wants to buy it).

The structural problem for the ex-mining town mentioned is that it is geographically remote. That didn't matter when its wealth was connected to what was sitting under the ground. Now it is a long way from the economic heart of the country and the continent.

EU regional policy was to subsidise poorer areas, so Wales, Cornwall, the NE got funds to help those areas economies. Our government could do the same but chooses not to.

Brexit is not the only reason these towns are suffering but it's a drag on our national economy. We are poorer as a nation that we would have been had we stayed in the EU. I understand why people voted for change when they voted for Brexit but it was still a fucking stupid national decision and our political class should be ashamed they led us to it.

And yet I never saw any. Maybe my local area didn't receive any funds. I certainly noticed them when I travelled elsewhere so I would have noticed them at home if there had been any. So they weren't 'everywhere'.
Edited because posted before finished.

Mrs Thatcher hated Europe. But as a non thick person, she was able to be pragmatic and put her needs behind those of the country (the country in this case being the UK not Russia).

There are several instances where she put fact and science ahead of her own prejudices. The UKs ground breaking tacking of AIDS being another example.

But how can you attempt to persuade anyone of anything if you start from the premise that they're stupid if they don't agree with you?

Yes, I found it useful to read some of her speeches rather than go on what people said she said.

I also found it really interesting to talk to a guy at a party who described the atmosphere around the time of the 1975 referendum. I hadn't really realised (being a toddler at that point) that the EEC/EU was far from being a done deal. It was always treated as a fact of life when I was at school.

No. People really are thick. read the Darwin awards.

When you belong to a club (which is what the EU is, with quite a large membership fee), you don't get to say exactly how the club spends its funds though? Although Thatcher certainly had a good go. Nor do we (taxpayers, local areas, whoever) get to mandate how our own government spends its money.

Thatchers beef with the EEC was that it wasn't really as much about frictionless trade as she felt it should be. Which is why the UKs entry really shook it up and with the UKs very firm insistence, the single market was born. Very much to the complaints from France and Germany.

The single market is fundamentally a British invention. And now it works the EU cant get enough.

Are people thick or was it a predictable consequence of making a political issue out of an economic matter and then deciding on emotional grounds?

People answer the easier question: how do I feel about this, if they aren't equipped to answer the harder one.

When you belong to a club (which is what the EU is, with quite a large membership fee), you don't get to say exactly how the club spends its funds though? Although Thatcher certainly had a good go. Nor do we (taxpayers, local areas, whoever) get to mandate how our own government spends its money.

I think it's a more than a bit simplistic to treat the funding regimes as the same. The EU had/has different objectives to the UK government.

Having actually met - and seen Cameron in action - he was genuinely a passionate European. The "tragedy" is that his explanation and defence of the EU was flawless and accurate. But the meeting fidgeted all the way through the sensible bits, until someone was able to ask about "all these foreigners".

Cameron gave a very good account of the UKs position. However the only takeaway was a (white) South African anaesthetist who asked why they should stay in a country that so despises foreigners.

Which is why he will get the pasting history will give him.

Of course it's a good question. It's my job.

The answer is there are some pretty thick people out there. Including myself. At times.

They couldn't "educate people as to the loss of funding in poorer areas" because that loss of funding was entirely the decision of our own goverment. It was not a result of Brexit itself, but a result of different spending decisions for the same money by the people we elected to make those decisions.

We gave the EU that money in the first place which they then chose to give us some back. It wasn't some marvellous act of generosity by the EU.

He didn't. He did it to appease likes of Farage and the right of the Tory party and I blame him for the whole mess

And different member states (including in the EU15) have had different growth rates since Brexit. The factors affecting Germany's economy are reasonably well documented - this isn't the gotcha you think it is.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to imagine what might have been had we not kneecapped investment, trade and jobs.

I know that. I found it was a more grown up way of communication than anything I saw in 2016. Made me think.

Cameron didn't expect to lose, did he?

We were already in by then. It was a referendum to decide whether to stay in and we did.