I disagree. I voted against it, but to properly have an informed enough opinion on it really required a good understanding of our economy and how it interacted

I disagree. I voted against it, but to properly have an informed enough opinion on it really required a good understanding of our economy and how it interacted with that of the EUs. I believe Brexit was such a complex issue that most normal voters could not be expected to be able to be informed enough to actually weigh up the decision by any useful means other than relying on superficial emotional decision making or their historical political leanings. I think there were possibly advantages of leaving had we made the most of them. (Not enough to persuade me, but the outcomes didn’t have to be all bad). Clearly we didn’t make the most of these potential upsides though and we were never going to because the gvnt was clearly not competent enough to see such a complex transition through successfully. Having said that, after some cursory reading on the topic, outside of the normal media spin, I believed that we were better in then out. But I disagree that it was trivially obvious for the average voter to determine this. Especially with the ridiculous campaign promises and misdirection of the leave campaign (and I think the remain campaign didn’t do great either). And even with my background reading, my vote to remain was based largely on a gut instinct rather than a deep conviction or understanding that I was taking the correct side. I think a lot of voters would say the same. And I know many leave voters who almost immediately regretted voting that way. Such was the “coin toss” decision making for so many people. Saying that Brexit was obviously a massive con (and the associated implication that leave voters did not sufficient inform themselves) is to risk drastically oversimplifying it. I will agree that it is very obvious in retrospect that it was a terrible idea.