Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Would you vote to Rejoin the EU if there was another referendum? - Part 2

306 replies

EEexpat · 18/10/2026 08:33

Advantages and disadvantages?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
GentleIron · 21/10/2026 19:46

Yeeeees!

Lullabycrickets23 · 21/10/2026 19:53

newmenewwhatever · 18/10/2026 08:38

No I would not… the referendum has happened and people need to come to terms with it!
The politicians ignored the results and never put anything in place before the leave date!
But I just don’t believe in another vote just because people don’t like the outcome

According to this reasoning, we were already IN the EU therefore there shouldn’t even been a vote to leave.
And if people didn’t like it well they should have sucked it up as there has been a referendum in 1975 asking if the UK wanted to stay in the EU and the outcome was YES.

Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 21/10/2026 19:53

Clavinova · 21/10/2026 17:48

I have no issue with some of that wealth being used to raise living standards in other countries in the EU

Plenty of people objected to UK tax-payers funding EU subsidies/grants which helped to set up manufacturing in poorer EU countries (where wages were much lower) - which in turn encouraged good manufacturing jobs to move out of the UK.

History has shown that jobs lost in a sector get replaced by different jobs in other fields.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Clavinova · 21/10/2026 20:14

Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 21/10/2026 19:53

History has shown that jobs lost in a sector get replaced by different jobs in other fields.

Not necessarily for the same workers though:

High-Wage Manufacturing] │ ▼ (Automation / Offshoring) [Displaced Worker] ──► Often transitions to ──► [Lower-Wage Service Jobs]

Yellowshire · 21/10/2026 20:18

TallSturdyGirls · 18/10/2026 21:55

This is why people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I voted remain.

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 08:56

@Lullabycrickets23

According to this reasoning, we were already IN the EU therefore there shouldn’t even been a vote to leave.

But there was a referendum held in 2016 as promised by David Cameron in 2013. Clocks can’t be turned backwards.

And if people didn’t like it well they should have sucked it up as there has been a referendum in 1975 asking if the UK wanted to stay in the EU and the outcome was YES.

The 1975 referendum was a retrospective question as UK parliament had already taken the UK into the EEC without a referendum beforehand.

Are people allowed to change their minds? The answer is yes. However, it’s a question of frequency.

OP posts:
Lullabycrickets23 · 22/10/2026 09:14

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 08:56

@Lullabycrickets23

According to this reasoning, we were already IN the EU therefore there shouldn’t even been a vote to leave.

But there was a referendum held in 2016 as promised by David Cameron in 2013. Clocks can’t be turned backwards.

And if people didn’t like it well they should have sucked it up as there has been a referendum in 1975 asking if the UK wanted to stay in the EU and the outcome was YES.

The 1975 referendum was a retrospective question as UK parliament had already taken the UK into the EEC without a referendum beforehand.

Are people allowed to change their minds? The answer is yes. However, it’s a question of frequency.

Right. There has been a referendum in the 70’s though and people voted favourably to stay in the EU. The you say, they changed their minds. They voted again.
Now why is people not allowed to have changed their minds again?
I don’t recall a clause saying that the 2016 referendum result had to be made “valid” for XXX years. Whose decision is that anyway? Who said what the right or wrong frequency is?

Plus, the Referendum…less than 50% of British people went to the polls. That alone should have made the referendum invalid. IF a popular vote has direct and deep consequences on everyone’ lives, we should make sure the will of the majority of the population is represented.
It can’t be argued that the outcome is representative because of you don’t have the actual number of majority you don’t know. It’s statistically impossible to know. You can infere and predict but that’s not much better than any large scale poll.
In my opinion, if there was another vote, it should be bound to reach 50+1% of the population actually showing up at the polls.
That would actually close the debate.

StarlightLady · 22/10/2026 09:31

Lullabycrickets23 · 22/10/2026 09:14

Right. There has been a referendum in the 70’s though and people voted favourably to stay in the EU. The you say, they changed their minds. They voted again.
Now why is people not allowed to have changed their minds again?
I don’t recall a clause saying that the 2016 referendum result had to be made “valid” for XXX years. Whose decision is that anyway? Who said what the right or wrong frequency is?

Plus, the Referendum…less than 50% of British people went to the polls. That alone should have made the referendum invalid. IF a popular vote has direct and deep consequences on everyone’ lives, we should make sure the will of the majority of the population is represented.
It can’t be argued that the outcome is representative because of you don’t have the actual number of majority you don’t know. It’s statistically impossible to know. You can infere and predict but that’s not much better than any large scale poll.
In my opinion, if there was another vote, it should be bound to reach 50+1% of the population actually showing up at the polls.
That would actually close the debate.

Exactly. This is why l likened it to a trades union strike vote (and got shot down in flames by some) upthread. That legislation states the turnout must be more than 50%. In addition more than 50% must be in favour.

GasPanic · 22/10/2026 09:54

What the country voted on in the 70s was not what the EU morphed into. This would be OK if the changes weren't significant, but they were.

It was essentially a customs union. Then in 1992 the Maastricht Treaty changed it into a political union, or at least laid the foundations of this.

This treaty was ratified by referendum (barely) in a number of countries including France (50.8%). Note this quote on the Wiki by Jacques Delors :

"Europe began as an elitist project in which it was believed that all that was required was to convince the decision-makers. That phase of benign despotism is over." - implying that the UK was in a state of benign despotism before Brexit due to the refusal of the British government to hold a referendum ?

Throughout the 90s and up to Lisbon there was plenty of discussion on whether a referendum should be held in the UK, both on Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty. I think all parties at some point (including the Lib Dems) proposed a referendum, but all of them either fudged the issue when they did gain or never gained power in order to hold it. This created IMO a huge democratic deficit, which UKIP exploited to gain the referendum promise. It shows our democratic systems are working correctly, even if it takes a long time for them to engage.

If the UK had held referendums on Maastricht or Lisbon at the time of the treaties I am sure we would not be where we are now.

I think there are justifications for holding further referendums on EU membership for the UK. But given the very high bar that has been set against holding previous referendums, I would at least expect that the referendum should be on joining a something significantly different from what currently exists and not just entry into an EU that the electorate has already rejected.

Given the history of our membership of the EU and the country rather than willingly going into the political union being dragged into it by the elites, I don't trust any government to hold an unbiased referendum on the subject. Past history almost guarantees this. I expect if further referendums are held the elites will attempt to gerrymander them in order to get the results they want, probably by shoring up the voter base with "right to remainers" and probably just about any other trick they can come up with.

It's hard to come to any other conclusion if you look back at the history of the political classes trying to persuade the electorate to become members of the EU.

Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 22/10/2026 10:02

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 08:56

@Lullabycrickets23

According to this reasoning, we were already IN the EU therefore there shouldn’t even been a vote to leave.

But there was a referendum held in 2016 as promised by David Cameron in 2013. Clocks can’t be turned backwards.

And if people didn’t like it well they should have sucked it up as there has been a referendum in 1975 asking if the UK wanted to stay in the EU and the outcome was YES.

The 1975 referendum was a retrospective question as UK parliament had already taken the UK into the EEC without a referendum beforehand.

Are people allowed to change their minds? The answer is yes. However, it’s a question of frequency.

The 1975 referendum wasn't a retrospective vote: it asked people did they want the UK to remain in the common market.

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 10:29

@Lullabycrickets23

Now why is people not allowed to have changed their minds again?

They are allowed to change their minds. Which is what I said in my post.

The turnout in the 2016 referendum was 72% and leave was 52%. This meet your criteria and that of the poster

@StarlightLady

@Needtosoundoffandbreathe

The 1975 referendum wasn't a retrospective vote: it asked people did they want the UK to remain in the common market.

You forget the fact the people were not given a say if they wanted to be in the EU.

OP posts:
EEexpat · 22/10/2026 10:39

@StarlightLady

That legislation states the turnout must be more than 50%. In addition more than 50% must be in favour.

The turnout for the 2016 referendum was 72% and the vote to leave was 52%. Does that not meet the above criteria?

Move onto to the Parliamentary vote held 29 March 2017,

612 MPs voted which is 94%
498 MPs voted leave which is 81%

OP posts:
Kpo58 · 22/10/2026 10:51

I still feel that that the results were too close for such an important thing such as staying in/coming out of the EU, especially as it wasn't a binding vote. So many people thought that their voices didn't count and so were using the vote to stick 2 fingers up at the establishment rather than what they actually wanted.

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 11:04

@Kpo58

I still feel that that the results were too close for such an important thing such as staying in/coming out of the EU, especially as it wasn't a binding vote.

Going over old ground again, but let’s reply anyway.

The 2016 referendum was conducted in accordance with the 2015 EU referendum act. This act did not specify a minimum spread for the vote to establish which side had won. Likewise, the 1975 referendum did not specify a minimum spread.

Cameron said in the booklet sent to each household:

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

Turned out that the government weren’t able to do that and it had to be vote on by parliament.

So many people thought that their voices didn't count and so were using the vote to stick 2 fingers up at the establishment rather than what they actually wanted

I have seen this before too. How can it be known why people voted in 2016? Is there any evidence to proof to support that statement?

OP posts:
Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 22/10/2026 11:08

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 10:29

@Lullabycrickets23

Now why is people not allowed to have changed their minds again?

They are allowed to change their minds. Which is what I said in my post.

The turnout in the 2016 referendum was 72% and leave was 52%. This meet your criteria and that of the poster

@StarlightLady

@Needtosoundoffandbreathe

The 1975 referendum wasn't a retrospective vote: it asked people did they want the UK to remain in the common market.

You forget the fact the people were not given a say if they wanted to be in the EU.

I don't forget at all - I'm too young to actually remember! I think you mean something different by retrospective than I do in relation to voting. I took it to mean ratifying the govt decision to join, by choosing to remain at the time.

EEexpat · 22/10/2026 11:13

@Needtosoundoffandbreathe

I don't forget at all - I'm too young to actually remember! I think you mean something different by retrospective than I do in relation to voting. I took it to mean ratifying the govt decision to join, by choosing to remain at the time.

Would a fairer question not have been:

Was the government correct to take the UK into the EU without a referendum beforehand?

My parents voted remain in 1975, not because their lives had improved since UK joined in 1973, but they thought leaving after such a short time would be a waste of money and time.

OP posts:
Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 22/10/2026 12:40

50 years later I don't think it's something worth spending time on tbh. I'm not sure why you're asking me tbh.

AmberTigerEyes · 23/10/2026 11:20

EasternStandard · 21/10/2026 10:43

Growth in the UK is primarily driven by the tech and services sectors, particularly artificial intelligence (AI) investments, computer programming, and information and communication. Despite high energy costs and global supply pressures, the economy expanded unexpectedly by 0.1% in August 2026 and 0.4% in July, leading the IMF to upgrade its annual growth forecast to 1.3%. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Key Growth Drivers

  • Artificial Intelligence and Tech: Surges in computer programming and digital infrastructure—anchored by hubs in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and regional tech clusters—are major contributors to economic output.

Growth here is picking up due to tech and AI, would you prefer it wasn’t?

That is not growth, that is stagnation/ flat lining. AI & tech are barely keeping us out of a recession. But if you look beyond little Britain at the countries that are further ahead with AI, it has started to drag growth.

AmberTigerEyes · 23/10/2026 11:30

Clavinova · 21/10/2026 18:31

The latest net migration figures are 171,000 - back to 2012 levels (pre-freedom of movement for Romania and Bulgaria).

Also, in theory, if you are unhappy with the number of work visas/dependant visas we have issued since 2021, there's nothing to stop the government cancelling or not renewing those visas. There's more control now if the government wishes to exercise that control.

Pre-Brexit immigration figures were clearly underestimated - hence why the ONS are now using new methodology. Not forgetting that 6.3 million people have applied to the EU Settlement Scheme - the Home Office was expecting 3.7 million people to apply.

Ukraine and Albania are both likely to join the EU. If we rejoin, how many Ukrainians and Albanians will exercise freedom of movement to move to the UK?

In addition, if countries such as France and Germany turn very right-wing/far-right, will this cause mass migration of ethnic minority EU citizens to other member states, including the UK if we rejoin?

Net migration figures are immigration minus emigration. The reason net migration is low is because emigration rates are at the highest level since thr 1920s. Over a half a million british are fleeing the sinking ship every year.

EasternStandard · 23/10/2026 13:28

AmberTigerEyes · 23/10/2026 11:20

That is not growth, that is stagnation/ flat lining. AI & tech are barely keeping us out of a recession. But if you look beyond little Britain at the countries that are further ahead with AI, it has started to drag growth.

AI / tech is still cited as a positive on growth, without it you’d be more likely to be in that recession you suggest.

Can you give examples of what you mean re other countries?

Plus where is doing well without the AI / tech?

AmberTigerEyes · 23/10/2026 16:12

EasternStandard · 23/10/2026 13:28

AI / tech is still cited as a positive on growth, without it you’d be more likely to be in that recession you suggest.

Can you give examples of what you mean re other countries?

Plus where is doing well without the AI / tech?

Edited

Take the US where silicon valley has led the AI revolution. This was yesterday.AI is dragging growth not helping it.

Nasdaq falls more than 2% for worst day since June as AI spending woes, oil prices spark sell-off: Live updates

Stocks mostly slid Thursday on renewed concerns around spending by artificial intelligence companies, while oil prices jumped amid rising geopolitical tensions.
The Nasdaq Composite pulled back 2.6% to 26,008.86, while the S&P 500 shed 1.21% to close at 7,663.43. The tech-heavy index suffered its worst session since June, while the S&P 500 posted its worst daily performance since July. The Dow Jones Industrial Average inched up 11.89 points, or 0.02%, to end at 52,867.98.
Meta Platforms slipped about 7%, even as it exceeded revenue expectations and offered upbeat guidance. Technology more broadly was under pressure as well as ongoing concerns about artificial intelligence spending persisted. Advanced Micro Devices fell more than 8%, while Micron Technology and Nvidia dropped 6% and 4%, respectively.
Neocloud leader CoreWeave, whose bond yields and credit default swaps remained elevated, declined 10% as well. The move comes as Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told CNBC Thursday that demand for neoclouds is “off the charts.” However, he added that capital is scarce and impeding growth.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/21/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

Nasdaq falls more than 2% for worst day since June as AI spending woes, oil prices spark sell-off: Live updates

U.S. equities mostly slid on Thursday, bogged down by declines in mega-cap names Meta Platforms and Tesla.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/21/stock-market-today-live-updates.html#108446327-KrNZo_5S4

EasternStandard · 23/10/2026 16:24

@AmberTigerEyeswhere is going well without AI / tech?

And going back to this
Artificial Intelligence and Tech: Surges in computer programming and digital infrastructure—anchored by hubs in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and regional tech clusters—are major contributors to economic output

Would you just not bother at all with that sector?

AmberTigerEyes · 23/10/2026 16:40

EasternStandard · 23/10/2026 16:24

@AmberTigerEyeswhere is going well without AI / tech?

And going back to this
Artificial Intelligence and Tech: Surges in computer programming and digital infrastructure—anchored by hubs in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and regional tech clusters—are major contributors to economic output

Would you just not bother at all with that sector?

“AI and tech” are not one single sector. Regulating AI is not doing away with computer programming or digital infrastructure. AI is a small piece of the sector and proving to be a drag on it, hampering growth.

EasternStandard · 23/10/2026 16:47

AmberTigerEyes · 23/10/2026 16:40

“AI and tech” are not one single sector. Regulating AI is not doing away with computer programming or digital infrastructure. AI is a small piece of the sector and proving to be a drag on it, hampering growth.

Is it? Where is doing well in your view

And do you see what’s mentioned in that post in Cambridge etc as a positive?

KatiePricesKnickers · 23/10/2026 17:12

@AmberTigerEyes ”Nasdaq falls more than 2% for worst day since June as AI spending woes, oil prices spark sell-off”

The NASDAQ is up 12.2% this year as of today.

Swipe left for the next trending thread