Problem is: almost everyone thinks he is well informed while almost none ist.

As soon as the fuzzy "imagine anything you want" of the referendum collapsed into "you must pick one and come up with a plan to mitigate the consequences" of May's government!

Any specific result would always have had a minority - the 'majority' vote was made up of people wanting opposite things.

OK, so...

Political necessity?

The reason why it happened is that the Conservative Party government was wildly unpopular in 2013-2014 with all of the indications being that Ed Miliband's Labour Party were going to storm the Conservatives at the 2015 General Election. Furthermore, ever since the Thatcher governments of the 1980s, the Conservatives were weakened by the 'Eurosceptic' branch of their party often being vocal, disruptive, difficult to work with, and harming the 'Not the Nasty Party' narrative Conservative Party Central HQ (CCHQ) had often tried to push in the 90s and the 00s.

Offering a referendum on the European Union therefore had two advantages:

• It was a substantial, concrete policy idea that would be easy to implement and massively popular with a certain portion of the populace, not massively unpopular with the other portions, and which Labour would never offer.
• By having a popular 'stamp of approval' on the European Union, CCHQ believed it would permanently weaken and weaken the difficult Eurosceptic portion of their party.

This is of course on the assumption that the referendum passed. And never let anyone tell you otherwise, David Cameron (then-PM) and George Osbourne (then-Chancellor; finance secretary and 2nd most important cabinet member) absolutely would not have proposed the referendum if they believed it had any chance of failing.

Furthermore, they assumed they'd be out of government and the referendum would never see the light of day. To the arrogant, and out-of-touch Cameron and Osbourne the policy was all upside.

As it happens, for a variety of reasons, the Conservatives actually won the 2015 General Election with a majority (whereas they were in a coalition before). And, as promised, a referendum was planned.

Ideological basis

For a substantial period of time (late 18th-century to mid-20th century), Britain was unquestionably the most powerful empire in the world. This is within living memory. The culture and expectation of Britain being a 1st rate world power is something that has only begun to fade within the past couple of generations. But a significant number of older people (people who vote) were raised and educated with the fair understanding that Britain was a superpower. For example, all of my grandparents and most of great Uncles and Aunts were being educated at a time when Britain still held all of India and most of Africa.

Since the Second World War, Britain's place in the world has unquestionably declined. We no longer have the Empire. We racked up tremendous amounts of debt to the United States. For periods in the 1970s, Britain was widely considered the 'sick man' of Europe. The feel good moments of the 1990s and Cool Britannia were quickly doused by the War in Iraq, where Tony Blair was universally seen as a puppet of the Bush administration.

Since the 1980s in-particular, life has changed for many in the United Kingdom beyond recognition. Trade unions were razed. Income disparity has skyrocketed. Town centres have become neglected. Internal tourism has been decimated. Cities like Leicester started becoming majority-minority. 2008 and the Great Recession tumbled the New Labour government and brought in a Conservative government. All parties at the 2010 general election bought into the consensus that the only way the country would survive would be to gut public sector spending. Healthcare would worsen. Education would worsen. Adult social care would worsen. Local government services would worsen.

A very large number of people came to the rational conclusion that, at least for them, their lives had gotten worse and would continue to get worse. But how does one consolidate this very clear observation with:

• The Queen
• Rule Britannia
• Two World Wars; One World Cup
• Largest empire ever known to man
• The Second World War in-general, and the Battle of Britain in-particular

A lot of the media attempted to bridge this issue with a scapegoat: the European Union.

Euroscepticism

Euroscepticism first found a voice with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. She often disagreed with a significant number of the leaders on the continent and didn't appreciate being limited in how she could act.

Thoughout the 1990s and the 2000s, the whole media knew they could gather attention by blaming various problems on the European Union. A notable young journalist, Boris Johnson, was particularly renowned for the ludicrous and inaccurate stories he wrote on European Union directives.

The European Union was an outstanding scapegoat:

• It was 'foreign'
• It was 'undemocratic'
• It was 'bureaucratic'

It had something for everyone. Before the result of the referendum, you'd never hear anyone defend the EU. It was seen by most of its defenders as a necessary evil in a world we could no longer rule, and isn't it nice you don't need a visa to go to Spain? No positive case was ever put forward by anyone. There was little point to. There was never any risk of us leaving.

Now, the European Union is an imperfect project. However, thanks to the economic and cultural connections brought about by the EU, Western Europe is at the lowest risk of internal armed conflict in millennia of history. Europeans are more familiar with one another than they've ever been before. Smaller states such as Ireland remain independent and sovereign but now have defenders, and allies, and representatives that allow them to assert themselves globally.

These arguments hold much less weight on an island nation, that hasn't known armed conflict within its borders since the Glorious Revolution (excluding Ireland), who within living memory had the power and the influence to dominate half the globe.

No one appreciated the EU until it was already too late. And all of the rich newspaper editors who made bank on peddling lies about this foreign government to a lost, and disaffected public thought it'd be consequence free.

Conclusion

What was it supposed to accomplish? Nothing. The referendum was never supposed to happen, and if it did, it was never meant to pass. No one with any power or influence had any idea on what to do. What Brexit would look like. What some fringe politicians had promised was an emotional return to self-government, wealth, power, influence, independence. A turning back of the clock.

Remain "More of the same but we will try make it better"

Brexit "the current situation is shit and everyone's giving you the same old arguments again don't trust them. If you vote Brexit we can have all your dreams come true"

Remain was one option. Brexit was about 5 different options depending on who was pushing it. So Brexit offered a lot more options in a sort of Schrodinger's paradox.

Basically what was being offered was more freedom to make our own choices and not have the EU pulling us down. Not having to have the stupid EU rules and not having to pay the stupid EU money, we could keep all our fish and be rich. It offered power, freedom, growth, wealth. (In reality we had great veto powers, we could help form rules, the EU membership was a bargain, who gives a fuck about fish).

Also Boris Johnson is a massive [can we swear here?]. And would sell his own children for his own personal gain, but for some reason is loved by the British, seen it as a way to make a name for himself by going against the grain and pushing for something no logical person would vote for. When that unexpectedly came true he hid in a fridge and ran away for a few months (actually true).

It was an absolute shower and just shows how uneducated the British public is. It's their own God damn fault all the info was out there, someone just said what they wanted to hear and they believed it.

• The campaign talked of frictionless trade deals with Europe, but while it looked good on paper the small print came littered with problems that made trade slightly harder than it had been as a member. The new customs processes has seen haulers transporting goods needing to fill out extra paperwork while new infrastructure has been needed to deal with queues.
• The UK adopted a new points based immigration system, a promise of the Vote Leave campaign, in January 2021. This removed the right for EU workers to come to the UK without a visa and implemented the target to cut immigration to the tens of thousands. The target does appear unlikely, given the number of residence visas issued was higher in the year ending June 2022 than in any year since records began - with 1.2 million issued. Meanwhile, Brexit has created a shortage of 330,000 workers in UK.

If you click the link to the article about him saying it failed, he says:

Asked if the U.K. would have been better off remaining in the EU Farage insisted he didn’t “think that for a moment.”

So I think he's sticking to his guns that leaving was better than staying. The situation sucks for everyone in the UK :(

Well, he made so many contradicting promises. It would be impossible to implement his Brexit. Pretty sure tha was his plan. When he offered full control over our trade laws and migration. While also claiming we could be like EEA nations.

Regardless of butthurt feelings on either side, it can't happen. The EU doesn't do special treatments anymore, so Britain would be forced to adopt the Euro, and would not benefit from any of the special "opt-out" clauses it had negotiated before leaving. This is unacceptable to everyone who voted for Brexit, as well as to the moderate pro-Europe crowd. i.e. completely politically untenable.

For better and (mostly) for worse, Britain will spend the next few decades isolated on the European level. Best case scenario would be, in a decade or two, for the UK to join the EEA, but that's still a huge downgrade in every way compared to full membership as British companies would be subject to all the rules of the European Single Market without getting a vote in any of them, in exchange for getting access back to the EU market.

Honestly. Not any time soon.

To many brexit voters think it was done wrong. Rather then a bad idea in the first place. So any attempt to rejoin will constantly face a fair and balanced news media. Presenting people who will outright lie about what is possible

The whole of the UK has to accept that the version of brexit they got was the version they asked for. That the promises of all the benifits of trade. With no restrictions in rules. Do not exist. Any trade we do anywhere in the world requires products to meet that nations standards. Borderless trade will require us to follow those ae rules. 1 Until the nation is willing to accept that. We cannot be a nation the EU will want back.

Maybe someday one of the politicians will grow a pair and either launch rejoin agenda or at the least a Norway/Swiss model.

It should be clear to anyone with more than an 🦠 for a brain cell that it is a failed ideal.

Propaganda is a powerful drug. They didn’t listen because Rupert didn’t want them to.

That's ridiculous though. I'm part of a worker coop and we wouldn't pass even the more frivolous proposals without a 75% majority.

Nah, just YOLO & send it! Fuck around & find out is really entertaining for everyone except those that are impacted. The funny part is that those that are impacted are the same to those that voted. Oh no, wait, it's sad. I'm sorry for confusing the situation.

"Cor blimey, leopards ate me face, innit!"

Cheers mate, try to tell that to Sunak and co. They don't care. Will of the people. Etc.

I like Brits, you're very smart

As Brexit should have taught you: no, no we are not.

I think the point is to make sure everyone else aware that Brexit failed, in case any other country starts thinking about copying it

I mean, yeah, it looks like it failed… are you going to do anything about it? Are you asking back in? You can’t take it back, can you?

Inevitably, in the coming years brits will be working towards "reducing red tape" to "improve trade with EU" which basically means re-joining the EU without actually having to say that's what you're doing.

So yeah, I think things are being done about it, and this sort of expression of public sentiment can only enhance that process.

So are you arguing for anarchism?

Every member has a veto right and it is more important for small members than big countries like France and Germany.

Non EU Schengen states should not have a say in the EU signing treaties. If they want to, they should join the EU and thus be bound by any treaties the EU signs.