Would a referendum on any other subject have been as divisive?

[littlequestion]

Imagine the referendum had been on a completely different issue, but with the power to affect all our lives - e.g. "Should the NHS should be abolished so we can lower income tax?"

And imagine there was a narrow "Yes" vote and we'd had the same shenanigans where no one could quite agree what it meant - did it mean NO health service at all, or did it mean each area setting up its own health service or whatever.

If three years down the line, we still hadn't abolished it, would it be the only issue in town, as Brexit seems to be, because the democratic will of the people hadn't be followed through? Would Tory leader hopefuls be only talking about this subject and nothing else?

Fingers, prominent leavers have been articulating the benefits of Brexit for more than three years. If you haven't been persuaded in that time, I don't think me repeating it will convince you.
*
What makes you the judge of what is a "concrete benefit"? The majority of people were persuaded the benefits were worth the costs.

Leave wouldn't have won if the benefits had not been articulated. You just don't agree with the reasons that have been articulated*

Leave won for many reasons mainly false promises on the side of a bus, the implication that future trade deals with EU would be easy as they need us more than we need them, trade deals with the rest of the world would be easy and create more jobs, taking back control of our borders and fears about increasing migration and Turkey joining the EU.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/whyvotee_leave.html

Any costs or downsides at the time of the referendum were not outlined. Days after the referendum prominent leave campaigners distanced themselves from the £350 million a week for NHS claim. We are now aware that a future deal with the EU will not be the easiest deal in history and trading on WTO rules is also not a straightforward option. Any future trade deals would also involve concessions on immigration, food and animal welfare standards and possibly the NHS. Only recently Andrea Leadsom stated that will be 'winners and losers' and Jacob Rees Mogg has admitted that any benefits might not be seen for 50 years.

If the factually inaccurate claims by Leave were called to account at the time of the referendum and if we had an honest fact based referendum rather than something that preyed on people's hopes and fears I believe the outcome would have been a lot different.

I have been stating on these threads for several years now that a main benefit for me will be the fact that we will no longer have the ECJ overruling our justice system.
Our laws will be made and upheld in the UK.
And before you all shout about the WTO having a "court" it is a court of arbitration dealing only with trade issues.

George Osborne said that if Leave won he would have to have an emergency budget immediately. Lies.

George Osborne said that if Leave won he would have to have an emergency budget immediately. Lies.

No, Cameron said that he would stay on, but instead immediately ran away, causing a leadership contest. This led to Osborne's position being compromised and him getting the push from May.
Had Cameron kept his word, then yes, Osborne would have kept his job and there would almost certainly have been an emergency budget.

Coppersulphate - which ECJ rulings have upset you now? Not theoretical ones which weren't actually ECJ rulings when investigated, but ones where you can say 'I wanted to do this, and the ECJ stopped me'? Personally I am glad that there is a Court which has produced things like working time directives. However, I would also like Leavers to note that as members of the EU, the UK proposed some of the laws. An inconvenient truth for most Leavers.

Brexit is uniquely divisive because it appeals to national pride... "Great Britain, not a rule taker, take back control etc"
Internationalism vs Isolation,. Cooperation vs Individualism

Just look at the people who mention WW2, rightly one our greatest moments, yet the folk who fought in it are oft pro europe.... its the pretenders who want to give the Germans another bloody nose.

Brexit is also irreversible, so remainers are fighting in what is basically a last stand, if we brexit, that's it! e.g. i'll be emigrating as i ve an Irish passport, fuck giving my taxes to these morons, my DD will too, so one less degree educated health specialist.

Amazing that Coppersulphate still spouts shite about the ECJ.... its sole purpose is to interpret EU rules, mainly on trade.... it doesn't give a fuck about anything else.

Amazing that Coppersulphate still spouts shite about the ECJ.... its sole purpose is to interpret EU rules, mainly on trade.... it doesn't give a fuck about anything else.

True and there are hardly any cases.

I previously did a very long post where I worked out the stats. I can repost or link if anyone's interested.

There are very roughly in total over 3,800,000 UK legal cases controlled by UK courts every year

ECJ- In the 13 years 2003–2016 there were only 63 judgments handed down by the ECJ on UK infringements. This is 4.9 UK cases per year. Just under half (29) of those related to the environment. The ECJ always has a very very limited remit.

That is 0.00012 % of our annual cases. Why did the press bang on about the ECJ for years, and why do we not have a better perspective on this? It’s weird.

lonelyplanetmum - I'd be interested in the link, particularly the topic breakdown in relation to the judgments on UK infringements. Suspect the press highlighted(highlit?) the few cases that did impact the UK precisely for the purpose of building antipathy toward the ECJ and EU - sadly.

Most people confuse the ECJ with the ECHR... which we founded and presumably, will stay in.

But that fact is lost of these morons, who would rather moan about europe than tackle things like urgent cancer treatments NOT being carried out within 62 days, so long as we are out of the ECJ.... brainless.

I don't think copper knows the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ.

I asked Copper a question - despite her being on MN this evening, she hasn't come back to answer me. I would have hoped to see something like 'ruling XXX subsection b stopped me/a relative/ a friend doing....'

But no, it's as long as we are out any shit is welcome, or that is the message I get.