If the REFERENDUM were a RELATIONSHIP

[PastoralCare]

The marriage wasn't a great one, but wasn't terrible either. You did ok with your DP but you read it could be so much better.

Then some don comes along and promises the moon. He utters words that sound very exciting, "sovereignty" "more money for your health care" "in control".

And then you realise he just wanted a quickie. He just wanted to feel important and it was just a way to get your of your current DP.

He had no plan to carry out his vague promises.

news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-plan

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

You would really stay in a relationship that you weren't happy in?

It's an ok relationship. We did better than some and perhaps worse than others. It wasn't a tragedy. We broadly move in tandem with others partners.

But I can always imagine there is something much better.

Therefore I ditch my DP and look for a new one that has promised me the moon.

But your comparison is like comparing apples to oranges.

Your analogy doesn't fit.

See, I see it more like LTB from an abusive relationship when one partner was more powerful and controlling than the other...

and yet with all the presumed abuse (what are you referring to exactly, no tariffs to trade?) GDP, employment, exports, house prices, etc... were not catastrophic.

Some years went positive, some not. For some people in some regions things have been very difficult, for others they are great.

If leaving the EU means erecting barriers to trade so as not to allow cheap imports from China and protect all sectors of industry then the policy should be explicit from the start and fight it under a communist manifesto.

Conversely, if "leave" means no rules and unfettered capitalism, again the policy should be clear from the outset.
You are assigning causality from one factor - belonging to a club - but it doesn't hold. If it were true, all countries should be doing dramatically worse because of the club.

Here is the UK's GPD growth 2011/2015

United Kingdom 2.0 1.2 2.2 2.9

not great, but not bad either.

data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

Some indicators make the UK look even better, (house prices) some not so much (debt per capita).

data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

And by the way, here are the British commisionners en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Commissioners_by_nationality#United_Kingdom

and yet with all the presumed abuse (what are you referring to exactly, no tariffs to trade?) GDP, employment, exports, house prices, etc... were not catastrophic.

Some years went positive, some not. For some people in some regions things have been very difficult, for others they are great.

If leaving the EU means erecting barriers to trade so as not to allow cheap imports from China and protect all sectors of industry then the policy should be explicit from the start and fight it under a communist manifesto.

Conversely, if "leave" means no rules and unfettered capitalism, again the policy should be clear from the outset.
You are assigning causality from one factor - belonging to a club - but it doesn't hold. If it were true, all countries should be doing dramatically worse because of the club.

Here is the UK's GPD growth 2011/2015

United Kingdom 2.0 1.2 2.2 2.9

not great, but not bad either.

data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

Some indicators make the UK look even better, (house prices) some not so much (debt per capita).

data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

And by the way, here are the British commisionners en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Commissioners_by_nationality#United_Kingdom

For some people in some regions things have been very difficult, for others they are great.

this is why you can't base your analogy on a relationship.

It isn't about just one thing and if you are going to use the analogy then how does GDP growth etc. fit into it?