In my opinion, the key difference between the referendums in 1975 and 2016 is that the actual decision in the first one was made by parliament and politicians. It was in both main parties manifestos in 1970 and negotiations had already started under Labour but finished under the Conservatives of Edward Heath, a life-long Europhile. We joined along with Ireland and Denmark on the 1st January 1973. Labour then came to power in 1974 promising a referendum which took place on was of 5th June 1975.
So, we had about two and a half years of membership in which to experience Europe and the EU and to appreciate the sky wasn't going to fall in. Despite both parties being split in 1975, a big majority of MPs were in favour and so was the press. The vote was won decisively by 67% to 33%. Bear in mind the EU was growing much faster than we were and Britain was known as the sick man of Europe with rampant inflation and an industrial base that was a by-word for chaos and inefficiency.
Had we voted to come out, we could have done so without much damage except perhaps to our reputation. The process of integration had hardly begun and we could probably have picked up where we left off with The Commonwealth. In other words the referendum question of staying in or coming out provided two perfectly clear, realistic and eminently practical options.
But in any case it was a question of the people confirming or rejecting a previously taken political decision to join. Note, negotiations first, decision after.
We are now reversing out of the EU in the opposite way. First the decision and now the negotiations.
But negotiations are always two way things, even when both sides are clear about their objectives. We can see that after three years of trying we cannot get a consensus on the objectives we want, let alone what can be achieved when it comes to sitting down and agreeing something with our former partners.
In 1975, there was no overblown promises, those who wanted to could read the words of the treaty and knew exactly what we were joining. There may have been arguments about what the words meant and the future direction of Europe, but not the words themselves. They were cast in concrete.
In 2016 there were no words and no treaty. All we had was overblown promises, nothing else. It wasn't clear what we were voting for only what we were were voting against. The choice was between the status quo or something else - alternative arrangements in today's parlance. Quite what they are to be we have not yet learned,
This ought to be pointed out to those who object to a second referendum on the grounds that it would somehow be anti-democratic. Making uninformed decisions can never be democratic.
