In my opinion some people are looking at things in the wrong way. There’s another way of looking at the EU, which is this. However much characters in the past, and characters today like Juncker think it’s ‘their’ project, it’s no such thing – it’s an inexorable development in a world of free trade, globalisation and individual freedom. It makes no sense to have hard borders, to people or goods, between countries that are geographically and culturally so close together. For this to happen, though, requires some commonality of regulations, laws, shared interests, shared institutions, economies of scale… In some form or another institutions like the EU are as inevitable as evolution. And even those nations that don’t want to be formal members (Norway, Switzerland, etc) are still bound by, and benefit from that institution.
Brexiteers are like Canute trying to hold back the tide. (And yes I know he was trying to demonstrate the opposite.) We are part of Europe, and will remain so. Some form of BINO was highly likely, and it’s the least worst of possible outcomes.
I have no problem with free trade, customs unions, common regulations, etc.
I do have a problem with free movement of labour when it skews the domestic labour conditions, handing over large sums of money to fund a political aim and having to accept european laws in a domestic setting.
It is/should be possible to share common goals and ambitions such as free trade, customs unions, etc without signing up to the EU. plan of ever closer political and social integration.
The countries of the EU are in many cases neither geographically nor culturally close, even some parts of the UK don’t meet that description. The EU has arisen from the desire for the Germans to stop kicking seven bells out of the French and that is obviously an admirable aim and an achievemant that the EU can be proud of. This doesn’t make the Germans or the French either like each other or become closer its just an accepted, by many but by no means all, part of their lives. The EU is becoming what its founders always envisaged and something that we’ve found ourselves part of due to the faiure of successive UK governments to either resist the temptation to sign up to various EU treaties, to hold a proper debate about the EU as these various treaties appeared and in some cases to actually promote further expansion of the EU itself. The UK population had sleepwalked into it’s pre referendum position because for many people life was apparently good.
Unfortunately there are many people who didn’t share this good life and didn’t see membership of the EU as being able to solve their problems. In fact many people saw the EU, either rightly or wrongly, as a contributing factor if not the major cause of their woes.
Having said all that you miss out the fact that people even when faced with irrefutable evidence don’t always act in a reasonable, sensible or logical way.
That gives rise to the question of how do you deal with people who won’t do what is blindingly obviously in their best interests?
Hold another referendum until thay do what you want?
I don’t think that quite covers this case. People were assured it would be in their best interests eg £350m a week for the NHS, you will keep all the same rights, countries will be queuing up to sign trade deals, it can all be sorted in a couple of quick meetings etc etc. Well it’s not quite panned out like that so I believe people should now be allowed to vote on the realities rather than the promises. I began the referendum campaign as eminently persuadable to leave but it became ever more apparent that there was no serious plan and I voted Remain. This is not a case of ‘Keep voting till you get it right’ but rather one of ‘You agreed this in principle but now you have the due diligence report, do you still want to go ahead?’