But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
What's hurt us from leaving is the single market. It's now vastly more difficult to trade with the EU, our closest geographical neighbour. Lots of post-referendum talk about amazing trade deals with Australia and the USA and Canada and India came largely to nothing, and they're all so far away and much more difficult to manage the logistics of. Plus the awkward situation where Northern Ireland is still kind of in the single market and kind of not, due to the need to preserve various agreements about trade and movement over the Irish border.
Ultimately, EU membership was what helped us get out of the economic pit we were in in the early 1970s. It's what helped us build the massive services economy which fuelled the 1980s on a wave of consumer credit and London skyscrapers. I'm not saying those are necessarily good things, but the day to day impact of EU membership was actually enormous - just most people weren't consciously aware of it.
Which is why it was possible for a bunch of charlatans to convince a tiny majority to vote to leave it.
there was (and still is) no single market for services, so how could have joining the EEC have caused any of these things?
the 80s boom this was purely a result of Thatcherite policy (for better or worse), it had nothing to do with the EEC
In that case, yes. But other kind of services do take advantage of the single market. The issue is the language barrier, so Germany, Austria benefits a bit more than other, but with non-english speakers aging out of the workforce, this is changing (we used to be mostly franco-belge, we now work with Spain, Italy and Romania. Weirdly our bad accent makes it easier to understand each others than Oxford English)
Well, let's address the "there still is no single market...". You are entitled to your opinion, but it differs to the official stance from the EU.
Here the page about the Single Market for Services: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/ser...
Now let's have a look at the Treaty of Rome (1957): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
The summary says:
> It created a common market based on the free movement of:
> goods
> people
> services
> capital.
I assume we can differ in the opinion of how much of that has been achieved and at what time, and I agree it is far from perfect, but your statement is rather undifferentiated and categorical.
the EU taking credit for things for which it was entirely uninvolved? imagine that
> Now let's have a look at the Treaty of Rome (1957)
the Treaty of Rome (1957) was, and still is, an aspiration
the signing of it did not spontaneously unify the laws and regulations of its parties, create a common market, unified defence policy, and create a political union. this took time and is still ongoing
> I assume we can differ in the opinion of how much of that has been achieved and at what time
the Single European Act itself, the instrument which created the EU single market did not enter effect until 1987, so clearly it could not have been the catalyst for the changes to the UK services economy in the 70s
the EU single market still does not encompass most services: professional qualifications are almost entirely controlled by member states, there is no banking union, there is no capital markets union, and it goes on
it does not exist in any functional way whatsoever
you don't have to make my word for it, you can read it in the EU's own reports on the subject, such as the latest here: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download... (1.1 Barriers in the Single Market)
this is very different to the single market for goods, which is extremely effective and functionally complete
but why debate this, when we have a direct example to refer to? a member state with significant intra-EU service exports leaving the single market
if being part of the EU single market for services was important, you would expect that UK service exports to the EU would decline significantly as a result
so, what happened in reality?
the exact opposite: UK service exports to the EU have increased since brexit
this should confirm to even the most pro-EU person that the single market for services is woeful
There were 26 years between the UK joining and the euro being introduced. 29 between that and coins & notes being in people's hands (for the first three years the currency was primarily only used for accounting purposes not day-to-day, though in the run up to 2002 prices were often presenting in both currencies in preparation for the public switch starting).
> But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
There was a plan for joining. Leaving was a desire without a (properly thought out) plan.
After joining it took time to fully integrate and over the decades, unpicking all that was always going to be much more complicated than merging into it in the first place (the “we are not in any more, we don't have to do a thing or pay what we'd already agrees” ideas many brexit supporters seemed to have were pure fantasy). Most divorces are more complicated than the marriage that preceded them.
Of course, it is all us remoaners fault for not helping the leavers make their plan. :)
Then you start realising that the fab new modules you were thinking of using have all sorts of missing features and limitations and now your performance has dropped x% and memory usage went up instead of down.
...but you put the old module on the banned list and can't take the hit to your credibility of admitting that it wasn't as bad as the alternatives.
Does it? I feel similarly to your description of joining about it: maybe I can't join an EU line (more often I now join an EU + UK + ... line, so it's only a signing quirk) and my passport is a different colour, but otherwise it hasn't made a difference day-to-day.. at all? Maybe if I was an international lorry driver or something?
(I assume UK ETA is the same, but I haven't travelled in with anyone requiring one yet. My wife doesn't with a BRP which is also a euphemism for a visa if you like, and that is similarly straightforward.)
"Apart from [big long list of stuff people never thought much about before] what has the EU ever done for us?!?"
The Treaty of Rome indeed.
I also remember the Liberal Democrats advocating for a referendum on EU membership from the early 2000s onward. However, when the vote finally happened, the level of vitriol and disdain the party directed at Leave voters completely changed my perception of what "liberal" and "democratic" truly mean. Their stance no longer aligned with those ideals.
Corporate lobbying has a significant impact on EU policy, often overshadowing the interests of its citizens. The EU’s influence is a mix of positives, negatives, and deeply concerning interventions. One striking example was when the entire EU was forced to pay higher prices for imported solar panels to protect a single German company. Another was the rushed adoption of CFL lighting just before LED technology became viable—CFLs contain mercury, posing a serious health hazard if broken, and many have likely ended up polluting landfills.
While I support the idealistic vision of a united Europe, many well-intentioned policies have been poorly thought out, leading to unintended consequences. The depopulation of many towns and villages across Europe due to youth migration is a direct result of EU-driven policies, yet little thought was given to the broader impact.
The UK sought EU reforms, but when those were denied, a referendum became inevitable. Many who voted Leave did so because the trade bloc they originally joined had evolved into something they no longer recognized. For decades, key decisions were made without direct input from the British people. It's no surprise that those who had once voted to join felt compelled to vote to leave. Yet, the mainstream media labeled them as racists, disregarding the complexity of their concerns.
Beyond the UK's experience, France’s actions in African countries when it adopted the Euro are worth investigating—they reveal a shocking side of EU monetary policy. Meanwhile, Germany, whose strong currency transitioned smoothly into the Euro, benefited enormously—often at the expense of struggling nations like Greece and Italy, which found themselves locked into an economic framework that served German interests far more than their own.
Saddest part is, France blocked any reforms until the UK had left the EU, and had they only engaged back then and made some reforms, the UK could have justified a new vote on the EU, with a more informed opinion. That in itself is a tradegy, but then the UK being physically seperated from Europe, has always seen many cultures and approached, not as aligned as the Europe and subsequently the EU as a whole, which beyond cheap holidays, duty free, not many really embraced the EU as a whole and vice versa.
Can you elaborate on this? I know enough to know that I should not pretend to know anything.
It also touched on here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiD24uEvY1U
Basically, the CFA got locked into the Euro currency when France joined it penalised African countries (former French colonies) into it as the CFA was pegged to the French Franc. This made those former colonies crippled by exports to anywhere apart from France who with the CFA setup that those African countries having to store 50% of their currency reserves with France at a 0.75% interest rate. Combined with the subsequent Euro pegging, that alone penalised those former African colonies with the CFA. Equally, they gained nothing from France joining the Euro and lots more pain.