I see it mentioned quite often that the people who tended to vote leave were older and wouldn't have to "live with the consequences for very long" but it's never mentioned that they were the ones who voted to join the EU (what was then called the European Communities) in the first place.

They voted to join 67% to 33% in 1975. They are all 60+ years old now, and polls showed 60+ voters voting to leave by over 60%.

Why were they in favor of EU membership then but against it now? If they voted to leave because of stupidity and xenophobia, as I keep hearing here on HN and on Facebook, why did they ever vote to join in the first place?

It's interesting how the people with the most historical context, the most experience with the system, and indeed the people who brought it about are seen as somehow not worthy of having an opinion on it and that their vote should count less or not at all.

Because they've had 25 years of anti-EU propaganda blasted at them, mostly by Boris Johnson.

By his own admission, when he was a journalist in Brussels in the 90's, he fabricated stories from whole cloth - he compared it to chucking stones at the neighbour's greenhouse for fun. He was fired for this repeatedly, and therefore entered politics.

A good question, and your numbers might be mostly correct, but there are some false assumptions leading to them (based on the information presented). Just because 40 years ago there was a 67% vote to join, that doesn't mean 67% of the people that voted to join are still alive (that assumes the voting results were fairly uniform across age demographics. It could be that young voters voted predominantly one way and older voters another back in 1975 (as it is reported they did now). That could greatly raise or lower the percentage of people still alive that voted to join.

If brexit is halted the leave camp will not take it lying down - and those with brains and money and means aren't going to stick around to see if it all pans out OK. Young brits, particularly Londoners, are very mobile, and generally willing to emigrate.

Additionally, even if they call the whole thing off, the already present uncertainty has dented the next decade or more for the UK economically, diminishing the prospects of the young and/or bright.

I feel for many of the leave voters, as they voted for an illusion they either lacked the faculties or tools to see past. Many are hateful, but many were duped - but nobody likes to admit that they were duped, so they'll either duck and hide, or become hateful in response to the unambiguous hate coming from the very betrayed feeling remainers.

It's an awful bind, and it's one that's played out before, very poorly.

There's lots of smart leave voters though. Leavers defy pigeon holing, my best effort counts 4 distinct leaver types and there's probably more.

It's a disservice to lump them all in the pitiful camp.

The leave voters are predominantly without a college education.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/bre...

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for providing evidence. I tried to upvote you to counter that.

Because HN is generally pro-brexit and right wing, and they do not want facts that conflict with their world view.

Ah, but smart does not mean worldly or wise - I chose my wording poorly for the sake of brevity. I know plenty of very intelligent people who are utter idiots!

And if Brexit does go through, it will also have consequences. The ratio of "leave for Canada" if Brexit fails to the "stay out of Britain" if Brexit goes through is kind of impossible to measure, however.

What we do know is that the vote was pretty close either way and that most of the MPs don't want Brexit. Which means that there are strong incentives to delay as long as possible. Whether this means next year, or until there's an actual deal that can be voted on by Referendum or Parliament, or until the next election brings in a new set of politicians is an open question as well.

Where did you get such detailed demographics for this secret ballot?

Because all I have found is inferences and supposition.

E.g. The New statesman meta analysis

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...

Actually those on government assistance were shown to vote mostly to stay, so that they could hold on to their government assistance. The EU helps the welfare of many poor people.

We will probably need a source for that - all the data I've seen suggests that 'leave' support was inversely correlated with income http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...

EU funding for research in UK is now precarious. I can't see why EU would fund research in UK if UK isn't properly in EU.

I see Brexit as EU being able to say "properly in, or out, but no more half measures".

That's what EU leaders are saying. “Marriage or divorce, but nothing in between,” said Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel. “Those who want free access to the European domestic market will have to accept the basic European freedoms and the other rules and duties which are linked to it” - Merkel. The UK will not be allowed to pick just the features they want from the EU.

Yeah, and nothing that they say on that topic matters. As long as the UK still lives up to its treaty obligations, they can't make them leave. And the EU so far has refused to negotiate anything before the UK starts the leave process in order to keep the best negotiating position it can. There's going to be alot of foot dragging whatever the outcome.

You realise all the "EU funding" is just them giving us back our own money, right? We're a net contributor. We could replace all the EU funding/subsidies with payments from Westminster and still have cash left over.

That's a bit of a faulty sum that excludes externalities though. If we end up outside the single market and the economic cost is substantial, then any reduction in EU contributions will be outweighed.

UK is a net beneficiary for research funding.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/uk-scientists-rely-on...

> RG: What do you think Brexit’s impact on research and science in the UK will be?

> Wilsdon: On top of six years of flat funding from our own government, we now have to contemplate a significant reduction in research funding from Europe. It’s important to remember that the UK is a net beneficiary in this area: between 2007 and 2013 the UK received an estimated €3.4 billion more than it paid into the EU in terms of funding for research and innovation. So losing those funds will further destabilize our research system, and for some subjects, particularly in the social sciences, the proportion of EU funding is 20, 30 or even 40% of the total.