Yes won narrowly, but it left behind one argument while the No side wrote at length. The sole Yes voter, whose case carried a ★, took aim at an opponents' claim: “Not sure why a bunch of people are lying and saying we would have to join the Euro too.” Nothing else came from the winning side.
The No case was broad, and its top-rated arguments were joint: one looked ahead, saying “for the next decade or so the Brexit referendum should stand”, while the other was a flat four words, “It’s still a dictatorship”. Around them ran the democratic-mandate theme: “Democracy works by abiding by voters choices.” Others pointed to Poland, with one citing “the over reach of the EU into sovereign states’ affairs”.
The Euro rebuttal did meet resistance on the other side. One No voter warned “We’d have to sign up to Schengen and the Euro without a rebate”, and another said rejoining on the old terms was impossible. The Yes voter's point was therefore contested directly, even though no one Yes voter replied to the cost or Poland claims.
The most striking No voices were reluctant ones. One wrote “I didn’t vote for Brexit, and I think we’d have been better off now”, yet still held that “we had a vote on it and I lost”. Another called Brexit “a mess” but kept the referendum standing.
The sharpest argument in the debate was less about Brussels than about whether a past vote can be reopened.
108 Opinions
It's still a dictatorship
Possibly a future generation might decide after a referendum, but for the next decade or so the Brexit referendum should stand and we should remain independent. Instead the government should focus on actually improving trade and growth, and properly controlling our borders. Edited
There is no such thing as rejoin that would imply what we had before. The EURO would be terrible by itself, freedom of movement still provides little benefit for working class Brits as it floods the market and drags conditions down and the contributions we would be expected to pay would be far tooi much. All while the growth figures for EU countries are no better than ours. The cost of change would again be high for little benefit
No. No. No. No. Dear god, the answer is, and always will be NO. As stated before though, we WILL, inevitably, rejoin The EU State. It will be part of some backdoor, underhand, quadi-"democratic" stitch up, but we WILL be forced back in. Its just the way The EU State does these things!😡
Absolutely not !All we need is a decent pro UK ,pro Brexit govt to take advantage of the benefits that Brexit has to offer
We left the EU for a reason, and that reason did not change. In fact, it only got worse and it is easier to sort the country first without the EU being in the way.
No, we need negative immigration, not more. The betrayal from Boris and Co needs undoing. Looking to the EU to solve our problems is foolish. Edited
Absolutely not! I voted to leave in a referendum that was the largest democratic vote in British history and won by over a million votes. The fact that the EU-loving Government and civil service could not negotiate a better deal or take advantage of its opportunities means we need to change the establishment, not cede our sovereignty back to Brussels.
It’s an undemocratic cabal that costs £billions. I want a country that puts its own citizens first.
When France grasps its deficit issues and if we do not have to join the EUR we should go go back in. Right now the price is too high for any benefit we would get.