UK went in on a stable majority in a referendum in 1975 (or rather one to confirm whether to remain) and won with a whopping 67% support. So even that isn't a guarantee.
Restrictions on free movements were too weak and the UK was the only country to choose not to impose any (along with Ireland). This created a huge influc of Eastern Europeans into the UK, which resulted in a surge of support for abolising, or at least strongly limiting, free movement.
Then, fate struck and Merkel had the "good idea" to unilaterally have an open border policy towards Middle Eastern "refugees" right before the Brexit referendum... The rest, as they say, is history.
And yet the Brits don't seem to want these people. Fine - their country, their right. But instead, free of the yoke of the EU, they got themselves lots of immigrants from far abroad, while doctor and nurse shortages abound.
I guess sometimes it's hard to get the thing you want, and not the consequences of it.
Every local shop seemed to have a Polish person on the till back then and it was a real culture shock for most. Would they have been worse off if the position went unfilled? Perhaps, but I can also say as a then teenager looking for summer work I lost access to starter jobs.
I understand some people didn't like this experience, but I loved it.
In term of immigration the EU actually faces the same issue, and the people are voting more and more to make it known. This will end badly on both sides if governments don't get a grip.
The EU expansion that was promoted by the UK government (presumably after reading Machiavelli's Republics)?
> Restrictions on free movements were too weak and the UK was the only country to choose not to impose any (along with Ireland). This created a huge influc of Eastern Europeans into the UK, which resulted in a surge of support for abolising, or at least strongly limiting, free movement.
They didn't impose any because they were pushing for this expansion.
I would say in all areas of governance, post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased, despite throwing off the yoke of EU. And UK has one of the more professional civil service bodies out there.
I do.
>EU rules are generally good things: rule of law, sane deficit and debt rules etc
Those are all very obscure "rules" And we had such rules even without the EU.
> And in practice states have a lot of sway.
How do states not do what Ursula v.d. Leyen says? What is their say in the matter? Or more importantly, what's their citizens' say in the matter? Since citizens did not elect her to be their representative.
>post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased,
That's because their government is incompetent, not because they left the EU.
Not at all. Maybe you are thinking of EFTA, not EU. Or you are just revisionist.
EU was never just about free trade. Back when it was founded as ECSC it was about maintaining peace and putting community interest over national interest.
Quite soon after the UK joined, environmental regulations took hold that forced it to stop being the "Dirty man of Europe". Brexit opponents rightly feared that this would return after leaving the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/03/brexit-w...