I spent nearly a year, on a small team, studying this subject at Wolfson Collage, Cambridge, for my then employers, IBM, advising them on effect on the computer industry it would be if the UK decided to join the EEC ( as it was then).
Our advice was to join the EEC/EU because we would lose any capability to influence any EU decisions if we were not a member of the "club".
I am under an NDA but I can quote some of the report.
"Holding a referendum on EU membership was a highly divisive and politically polarising process for the UK. The issue of European integration has long been a contentious fault line in British politics, splitting both the ruling Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party. A referendum campaign would exacerbate these internal divisions, pitting Eurosceptics against Europhiles in a bruising and acrimonious battle.
This polarisation was not limited to the political class, but also deeply fractured British society more broadly. Referendum campaigns have a tendency to bring out the worst in people, with rhetoric becoming increasingly vitriolic and personal. This has eroded social cohesion and will leave lasting scars on the national psyche.
Referendums are a blunt instrument of direct democracy that can bypass and undermine representative institutions. By putting a complex, multi-faceted issue like EU membership to a simple 'yes or no' public vote, a referendum sidelines the role of parliament and elected officials in the decision-making process.
This is problematic because members of parliament are meant to carefully deliberate on issues, weigh evidence, and make nuanced judgments on behalf of their constituents. Reducing this to a binary public ballot oversimplifies the debate and risks policy being dictated by populist sentiment rather than considered judgment.
Furthermore, referendums can establish a dangerous precedent of politicians outsourcing difficult decisions to the public, rather than taking responsibility for them. This risks hollowing out the foundations of representative democracy in the UK.
Directly putting a complex issue like EU membership to a public vote also raises the risk of undesirable or uninformed outcomes. Referendums tend to be more susceptible to emotional appeals, misinformation, and the whims of public mood rather than substantive policy analysis."
- not to mention the interference by a biased press and the impact of the plethora of unmoderated social media platforms out there in 2024.
"The 2016 Brexit referendum itself is a cautionary tale, where a narrow majority voted to leave the EU based on a campaign heavy on nationalist rhetoric and dubious economic claims, but light on concrete details about the process and consequences of withdrawal.
There is no guarantee that a future referendum would produce a more considered or ideal outcome for the UK. Public opinion on EU membership was swayed by short-term factors, knee-jerk reactions, or a failure to fully grasp the economic and geopolitical ramifications. This could lead to a decision that ends up being detrimental to the country's long-term interests.
The mere prospect of a referendum on EU membership generates significant economic uncertainty and disruption for the UK. Businesses and investors are reluctant to make long-term plans or commitments during the protracted period of political turmoil and constitutional upheaval.
This uncertainty manifests in reduced investment, capital flight, and economic stagnation - even before another referendum takes place. With the UK vote to leave the EU, the economic fallout is severe and prolonged as the country navigates the complex process of withdrawing from the world's largest single market.
Such economic disruption has tangible impacts on the lives of ordinary Britons, leading to job losses, rising prices, and a lower standard of living. Putting the country's economic future at risk in this manner is a high-stakes gamble that many would consider unwise.
A referendum on EU membership would also have significant ramifications for the UK's international standing and diplomatic influence. The spectacle of a major European power publicly debating its commitment to European integration would be interpreted as a sign of instability and wavering resolve.
This undermines the UK's credibility and soft power on the global stage, making it a less reliable and attractive partner for other countries and international institutions. It also embolden anti-EU, populist movements elsewhere in Europe, further destabilising the continent.
Moreover, the decision to leave the EU severely diminishes the UK's geopolitical heft and ability to shape the future of Europe in accordance with its interests. Surrendering this central role in a crucial geopolitical bloc is a major strategic setback for the UK."
While a referendum may seem like a democratic way to resolve the issue of EU membership, the potential downsides have proved to be substantial. The deeply divisive and disruptive nature of such a vote, the risks of an undesirable outcome, and the damage to the UK's economy and global standing all point to compelling reasons to avoid this course of action.
The better path forward would be for the UK to remain a committed member of the European Union.
I must disagree with you on your post.
I spent nearly a year, on a small team, studying this subject at Wolfson Collage, Cambridge, for my then employers, IBM, advising them on effect on the computer industry it would be if the UK decided to join the EEC ( as it was then).
Our advice was to join the EEC/EU because we would lose any capability to influence any EU decisions if we were not a member of the "club".
I am under an NDA but I can quote some of the report.
"Holding a referendum on EU membership was a highly divisive and politically polarising process for the UK. The issue of European integration has long been a contentious fault line in British politics, splitting both the ruling Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party. A referendum campaign would exacerbate these internal divisions, pitting Eurosceptics against Europhiles in a bruising and acrimonious battle.
This polarisation was not limited to the political class, but also deeply fractured British society more broadly. Referendum campaigns have a tendency to bring out the worst in people, with rhetoric becoming increasingly vitriolic and personal. This has eroded social cohesion and will leave lasting scars on the national psyche.
Referendums are a blunt instrument of direct democracy that can bypass and undermine representative institutions. By putting a complex, multi-faceted issue like EU membership to a simple 'yes or no' public vote, a referendum sidelines the role of parliament and elected officials in the decision-making process.
This is problematic because members of parliament are meant to carefully deliberate on issues, weigh evidence, and make nuanced judgments on behalf of their constituents. Reducing this to a binary public ballot oversimplifies the debate and risks policy being dictated by populist sentiment rather than considered judgment.
Furthermore, referendums can establish a dangerous precedent of politicians outsourcing difficult decisions to the public, rather than taking responsibility for them. This risks hollowing out the foundations of representative democracy in the UK.
Directly putting a complex issue like EU membership to a public vote also raises the risk of undesirable or uninformed outcomes. Referendums tend to be more susceptible to emotional appeals, misinformation, and the whims of public mood rather than substantive policy analysis."
- not to mention the interference by a biased press and the impact of the plethora of unmoderated social media platforms out there in 2024.
"The 2016 Brexit referendum itself is a cautionary tale, where a narrow majority voted to leave the EU based on a campaign heavy on nationalist rhetoric and dubious economic claims, but light on concrete details about the process and consequences of withdrawal.
There is no guarantee that a future referendum would produce a more considered or ideal outcome for the UK. Public opinion on EU membership was swayed by short-term factors, knee-jerk reactions, or a failure to fully grasp the economic and geopolitical ramifications. This could lead to a decision that ends up being detrimental to the country's long-term interests.
The mere prospect of a referendum on EU membership generates significant economic uncertainty and disruption for the UK. Businesses and investors are reluctant to make long-term plans or commitments during the protracted period of political turmoil and constitutional upheaval.
This uncertainty manifests in reduced investment, capital flight, and economic stagnation - even before another referendum takes place. With the UK vote to leave the EU, the economic fallout is severe and prolonged as the country navigates the complex process of withdrawing from the world's largest single market.
Such economic disruption has tangible impacts on the lives of ordinary Britons, leading to job losses, rising prices, and a lower standard of living. Putting the country's economic future at risk in this manner is a high-stakes gamble that many would consider unwise.
A referendum on EU membership would also have significant ramifications for the UK's international standing and diplomatic influence. The spectacle of a major European power publicly debating its commitment to European integration would be interpreted as a sign of instability and wavering resolve.
This undermines the UK's credibility and soft power on the global stage, making it a less reliable and attractive partner for other countries and international institutions. It also embolden anti-EU, populist movements elsewhere in Europe, further destabilising the continent.
Moreover, the decision to leave the EU severely diminishes the UK's geopolitical heft and ability to shape the future of Europe in accordance with its interests. Surrendering this central role in a crucial geopolitical bloc is a major strategic setback for the UK."
While a referendum may seem like a democratic way to resolve the issue of EU membership, the potential downsides have proved to be substantial. The deeply divisive and disruptive nature of such a vote, the risks of an undesirable outcome, and the damage to the UK's economy and global standing all point to compelling reasons to avoid this course of action.
The better path forward would be for the UK to remain a committed member of the European Union.