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

[EEexpat]

Advantages and disadvantages?

@StarlightLady
The bigger question is did those members of the public, mislead by overly rich former public school boys, many of whom have never had a proper job, have sufficient detailed knowledge of the detail to vote?

Do you think there public should’ve had to take a test before they voted in the referendum?

The question doesn’t make sense.

@StarlightLady

One very good reason was that people did not understand what they were voting for or about. It was complex and most people did not have sufficient knowledge.

How have you been able to measure those two statements?

The question asked in the 2016 referendum was asked in 1975. How did the government at the time examine registered voters to determine whether they understood or had sufficient knowledge before they allowed them to vote?

The question doesn’t make sense.
@StarlightLady

No, indeed it doesn’t, I should’ve read it before posting.
I’ll try again: should the voting public have had to take a test on their understanding of what the referendum involved before being allowed to vote?

No, even though I voted remain at the time. We would be a much weaker ‘partner’ if we rejoined now. It would cost us a lot financially and we would have to agree to terms that we didn’t originally sign up to. Also, having thought about it, I don’t like the idea of the primacy of EU law.

Ah get it! Probably in an ideal world it wouldn’t be a bad idea, maybe focusing on the Treaties, but l know in practical terms it’s a non starter.

This is why we elect MPs who are supposed to have a greater understanding to make decisions. But on the Brexit thing, so many in high office didn’t want to be seen to make a decision on this, so either way, if it was the wrong decision, it’s the public’s fault.

interestingly, if a union had a strike vote with such a narrow majority, by law they would not be allowed to strike.

@StarlightLady
Thank you for answering my question.

@StarlightLady

so many in high office didn’t want to be seen to make a decision on this, so either way, if it was the wrong decision, it’s the public’s fault.

How? Article 50 was triggered by a vote by parliament. The outcome was:

498 leave
114 remain

interestingly, if a union had a strike vote with such a narrow majority, by law they would not be allowed to strike.

I don’t see how that’s a valid comparison. The question was whether or not to remain in the EU, not a strike.

Turn the clock back to 1984, many miners went on strike even though there had not been a national ballot.

I’m aware of the A50 vote but they can always claim that was in line with the referendum vote.

The strike comparison was to demonstrate government interpretation on narrow margins. And yes, back in the 1980s the legislation was very different.

As a woman born in the UK but brought up in France, l want others to have the opportunities l did.

@StarlightLady

I’m aware of the A50 vote but they can always claim that was in line with the referendum vote.

This comment also appears often. Two part reply.

The 2015 EU referendum act stated it was not obligatory to implement the result.

If MPs thought they were obligated to accept the result, how do you explain what happened between the 2017 and 2019 general elections?

Extensions
The Benn Act
Liberal Democrat Party issued a manifesto that said Article 50 would be revoked
Labour Party manifesto was to have a second referendum with option to remain

None of that sounds like supporting the referendum result.

I have a UK passport, but worked in the Netherlands from Jan 2020 to December 2025. My daughter works in Germany with a UK passport.

So, the bleat that UK passport holders can’t, live, work or travel to the EU is not correct.

The EU just implements another layer of ineffective government.

If you think the UK government is bad, what is to gain by adding an extra remote layer on top of that.

They barely make any decisions. Doing anything quickly is pretty much beyond them. They don't enforce the rules they currently have in the EZ. Look at France for example. The budget deficit is way above what is allowed in the EZ with all the consequences that that entails.

There are two attitudes towards protectionism. Either you believe in it or you don't.

If the UK doesn't want to believe in protectionism (and there is no evidence that is does, from what I can tell most people would willing sell our home industries down the river for having to wait less time in a queue, or getting a cheap coffee) why should we enter into a protectionist agreement within the EU and let just them destroy our industry. Better to trade with the whole world.

Yes it will wreck our home grown industry, but it will at least do it at lower cost than if we allow the EU to wreck it.

Totally this!
The vote was given to appease same of the right wing Tory hierarchy by David
(call me Dave ) Cameron , a man said by Barak Obama to look like he had never done a days work in his life.

I agree re France and the EZ. They’re in a bind and I don’t see that re-joining with the current EU rather than a view of ten years ago is a good idea.

@awaynboilyurheid

The vote was given to appease same of the right wing Tory hierarchy by David
(call me Dave ) Cameron , a man said by Barak Obama to look like he had never done a days work in his life.

Cameron also said that the decision made by the electorate would be implemented. He resigned soon after the result. As did George Osborne, his fellow scaremongering partner.

Maybe Obama shouldn’t criticise Cameron as he was happy to say the UK would be at the back of the queue for a deal with the US if they left the EU.

We will still suffer if there are issues with the EZ. Just maybe a bit less so than if we were in it.

Even though the dynamics are changing, we still do a lot of trade with the EZ, and economic problems in that area are still going to affect us, just to a lesser degree.

Being out of the EZ also allows extra monetary tools to manage financial crises. For example printing, which is nothing more than a stealth tax on the currency.

But we can choose to do that unilaterally, whereas no country in the EZ can make the same choice.

The problem with all of these things is that they may be high profile this month, but may not be in the next one. So at the moment people can see clearly why being in the EZ might not be such a good idea. Whereas the majority of the time all people care about is whether their job is safe and whether they don't have to wait more than 5 minutes in a passport queue.

@DenizenOfAisleOfShame

It’s interesting that many who are opposed or have doubts about re-joining give their reasons, largely that we don’t know the conditions, but that they’d likely be worse than when we left, and Europe is in a different place ten years on. But the rejoiners seem to all just say “yes, definitely”.
^^
It’s as if the re-join view is an article of faith, blind devotion, not a decision to be weighed. I suspect that alienates a lot of otherwise undecided people.

This seems to be the trend so far.

Fair play to those who voted remain in 2016, but are aware of the downsides/disadvantages/risks of a rejoin.

There will be some advantages on the logic that there are always two sides to a debate, but so far not presented. Reminds me of the remain campaign. All doom and gloom instead of focusing on the positives.

That's literally how elections work.

Not whether we’re in the EU or not though otherwise it could change every time there’s an election.

No.

The EU is in a bad (and worsening) state and I think it'd be mad to join it.

One of the worst things for a country is instability. That's why votes with enormous consequences (ie referenda on Scottish independence or being in the EU) should not be repeated for at least a generation. I'd suggest at least 25 years in between each vote. And yes, I hold to that principal whether or not a vote has gone how I'd like it to.

They both worked in the NHS and liked the idea of the NHS receiving more funding. They got what they wanted as NHS did receive more funding. Whether that was due solely to Brexit seems to have different views.

The NHS did not receive the boost in funding that was promised by the Leave campaign. In real terms since Brexit, the NHS funding increases have been below the historic average since 1948 at 3% vs the average of 3.6%. In addition, due to Brexit, the real terms increase for the next 5yrs is projected to be even lower at 2.8% despite needs/costs increasing due to an aging population.

It is true unless you are cherry picking a few shortage occupations and confusing trade rates for wages. My figures are straight from the ONS.

@AmberTigerEyes

The NHS did not receive the boost in funding that was promised by the Leave campaign

Take a look at:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-has-brexit-meant-for-the-nhs/

It records:

The NHS budget (in England alone) has in fact risen by more than £350m a week since 2016. In fact, between 2015-16, the year before the referendum, and 2019-20, the year before the Covid-19 pandemic, it rose by £400 million a week in real terms.

So, I would say the red bus was a fair statement.

The money might not have come from the Brexit dividend due to spending on COVID (£400 billion) and energy subsidies (£100 billion), but the NHS did receive more funding.

Going back to 1948 when the NHS was first founded does not help as UK was not a member of the EU until 1973.

Yeah, there are plenty of good arguments about why the Leave campaign was dishonest, but curiously the one that’s mostly fixed on - the NHS funding claim on the bus - isn’t one of them. You can attack it on the basis of accounting procedure and spending projection but if you take it as most would have understood it, the NHS did benefit at least to the tune of £350m extra a week.

Yes, NHS funding increased by 2.6% per year in real terms from 2015/16 to 2019/20 but the leave campaign promised more than than the usual 3.6%/yr annual boost. As in an extra £350m/week on top of the usual funding increase. So instead of the usual 3.6% increase, the leave campaign promised the equivalent of an increase of 6.2%/yr in real terms. Instead the Conservatives cut the annual NHS increase to well below the average increase we would have had if we had stayed in the EU and fooled your parents and you by calling it a win.

It is one of them. They cut the budgeted annual increase in real terms from 3.6% to 2.6% instead of increasing it by 2.6% to 6.2%. The NHS had zero benefit in Brexit and actually lost money.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell