Shropshire Star Brexit survey results: We still want to leave the EU

A majority of people in Shropshire say they still support the decision to leave the EU – six months after the landmark referendum.

eu flag stock

But a huge majority say they are unhappy with the way the process has been handled so far – according to new figures released following a Shropshire Star survey.

The poll saw more than 2,000 people respond to five questions about what readers thought of Brexit since June’s vote.

What you said in March 2016

In total, 63 per cent of voters said they would still vote to leave the EU.

At the referendum on June 23, people in Shropshire and Mid-Wales overwhelmingly voted to leave with 56.9 per cent of the 183,324 votes in the Shropshire Council area, 63.2 per cent of 89,704 in Telford & Wrekin borough and 53.7 per cent of voters in Powys all saying they wanted out.

Six months on, that is largely unchanged, but people say they are unhappy with its handling so far, with 73 per cent saying they are unsatisfied with the current progress.

How you voted in June 2016

A further 58 per cent said they did not think Brexit would happen before April 2019, the date set by Prime Minister Theresa May.

A legal challenge which could force the government to give MPs a say before the leaving process starts has been heard in the Supreme Court, with the final decision expected later this month.

It all comes as the PM used her New Year’s message to call for the country to unite after the “divisive” Brexit referendum. Mrs May said she would use the next 12 months to ensure Britain negotiates the right EU withdrawal deal for people whether they voted Leave or Remain. The Prime Minister said the UK is positioned to seize the “great opportunities” ahead.

Our survey found that 77 per cent of people think their MPs should vote the same way as their constituents if there was a Commons vote.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Comments for: "Shropshire Star Brexit survey results: We still want to leave the EU"

'Owd Monner

Get on with it. Europe is failing and we need to act


Perhaps you could elaborate, in some detail, upon precisely what we should get on with.

Is it Brexit with trade tariffs which would severely damage our economy?

Is it Brexit with the loss of a significant part of the UK's financial services industry, which replaced much of our industrial economy, and which Brexit now threatens?

Is it Brexit with Britons working abroad no longer able to do so, and coming back here?

Is it Brexit where we still have some access to the single market and some element of freedom of movement of labour?

Is it Brexit where we further damage the pound and see high prices and levels of inflation as a result?

Is it Brexit where we see the break up of the United Kingdom?

It's clear that the government have no plan, and the angry Brexiteers are simply pushing our economy to the edge of an economic cliff. Even if you favour one of the suggestions above, I can guarantee that there will be others in the 'leave' camp who vehemently disagree with you.

How do we decide which Brexit we are going for? Are you happy to leave it all to Theresa May and to Boris - the man who lied to everyone about supposed extra funding for the NHS? Or should we have some say in the outcome, even if it's only via our parliamentary representatives?

And in the end of course, it won't be Brexiteers who decide the terms of our future relationship with our biggest trading partner - it will be the remaining EU countries - all of whom have the power of veto over any proposed deal that doesn't suit them.

One more thing, since you are in such a hurry to leave.

We have many uncontroversial but important laws which we adopted whilst part of the EU, partly to ensure consistency of law across the trading bloc, but also to save the cost of parliamentary time and other legislative processes in getting these laws in place.

When we leave the EU we will need a small army of government-funded lawyers to redraft these laws, and an large amount of parliamentary time to get them on the statute books. Constitutional lawyers estimate that this will take anything up to 10 years, and will not be anywhere near completed within the 2 year period post-triggering of Article 50.

Are you suggesting that we simply manage without these laws for however many years they take to reinstate? I'm sure the criminal fraternity would be delighted to do so, but the rest of us should be very worried.


Reasonable points but all of these issues were debated during the referendum they were the basis of the scare stories we were showered with on a daily basis.

Right or wrong the people of this country democratically voted to leave the EU despite all of these issues in the full knowledge of the dangers associated with leaving.

That is one of the things that gives May her mandate to trigger article 50, after that it will be up to the negotiators to do the best deal, with of course Parliamentary oversight which was never in doubt.

There is also the point that the questions you are asking are not possible to answer at this juncture because they involve negotiations with third parties. All we can do is say what we will try to achieve and as we know where the EU is concerned that is not always possible. You might ask David Cameron if he got everything he wanted.

Tony in BC

The EU is the world's largest trading block and exports more to the rest of the world than it imports - largely due to the dynamic economies of countries like Germany. The people of Europe enjoy a standard of living far better than in other large trading areas and enjoy excellent health care, pensions, unemployment benefits etc.

Not exactly a trading block that is failing - is it?


People do not forget having their prices under-cut, so their livings actually at risk just because someone from Europe finds UK payments more beneficial than those from the country they were born in. They are laughing all way to a bank in EU.

People have voted LEAVE and now it is up to Government who they put their trust in to treat ALL issues raised including migration/border control. Can you really believe anyone who wanted to stay here for life would not have ensured they could by becoming citizens, their lack of action has validated a compulsory return, along with their family.


More than half of our immigration comes from outside the EU. We've always had full control of that, and we don't see compulsory deportations of those who have come here legally. It will be the same with EU citizens - they won't be deported - only the sort of knuckle-dragger who supports the EDL would believe anything that extreme.

And don't forget there are millions of Britons who live in the EU. If got into a tit-for-tat, we would be the big losers. As it is, we will see many pensioners returning from living abroad due to the likely loss of reciprocal health care provision. Do we really need that many more pensioners putting pressure on an NHS which is already struggling to cope with the increasing number of elderly patients? Don't forget your 'extra £350 million per week for the NHS' was a lie all along!


Millions of Britons living in the EU? You mean under 1.2 million (Source: UN) and most of which live in Spain and own property out there.

2.9 million from the EU living in the UK. Most of which are Polish migrants. It's no surprise why:

- The average wage in Poland is 688 EUR PCM. The average wage in the UK is 2600EUR PCM.

- You don't pay tax on the first £11,000 you earn, and then there is also Working/Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit to bump up wages and whatever have you.

jim jams

Good old, PJS, always mixing up his facts with the real truth....never mind, bless.


I don't think I'll be taking any lessons from Brexiteers on facts, given that their campaign was based upon bare faced lies, gross exaggerations. and small minded racism.

The 12. million figure doesn't include the large number of British pensioners who spend their winters abroad to take advantage of milder climates. They will now be less likely to do so because a) the damaged pound, which is nearing parity with the much derided Euro, and b) the likely loss of reciprocal healthcare benefits when we leave.

jim jams

You should have watched the Tv programme about Benidorm the other night, where everyone living there was saying how much cheaper than the UK it was to live there...probably all lies in your mind though....or you could get some reality experience and go out there yourself....take yourself some euros at the exchange rate of 1.12 to the pound though or change them out there and get 1.15...much better than the Euro was in 2005.

All made up nonsense, no doubt.


"More than half of our immigration comes from outside the EU. We've always had full control of that"

PJS as usual these things are not as simple as we would like to think

Fact Sheets on the European Union...

"The Lisbon Treaty also made it clear that the EU shares competence in this field with the Member States, in particular as regards the number of migrants allowed to enter a Member State to seek work (Article 79(5) TFEU). Finally, the Court of Justice now has full jurisdiction in the field of immigration and asylum."

I wonder when or if, those who support the EU will accept the fact that it is a nation state in the making, no present power of a member state is set in stone, everything is set to be directed by the Central EU government eventually.


One wonders what the repercussions would be if the UK said to Brussels..."That's it, the UK from this date is no longer in the EU", would they stop selling us BMW's/Audis/Mercs/Renaults/Peugeots (however it's spelled). The UK is a 'treasure island' for their motor industries, not to mention wines and other food products. Trade is not only the UK selling to the EU but also the other way round and it is independent on politics. If politics was THAT important to business we would not be dealer with the Middle East or China plus other dreadful criminal countries.


18% of EU exports go to the UK. Over 50% of our exports go to the EU.

Do the maths - who will be the biggest loser in a trade war?


Looking at the UK as separate from the EU:

The UK is the biggest export market for the EU, it exports more to the UK than it does the USA.

So, I don't think the EU is going to go and upset its biggest single export market...


Wishful thinking on your part. Both the EU and the UK would be harmed, but there is no way we are going to get free trade without free movement of people. We would without doubt suffer the greater harm.


The EU is not the world...

Have you not heard of the Commonwealth?

52 nations promoting free trade, the rule of law and world peace.

Tony in BC

The EU already has free trading agreements with many of the Commonwealth countries including the larger economies such as India - and soon Canada. The Commonwealth is no longer a trading block and Britain opted for trade with the EU forty years ago. To reverse the situation would be difficult as - for example trading with all the countries of the EU is preferable than with just the UK for many of us who live in the former colonies!


But Tony, a country does not need a trade agreement to conduct trade, I think companies in Canada already trade with companies in EU states even though Canada's trade agreement with the EU is presently stalled.

Tony in BC

Then what was the point of Canada's free trade agreement with, for example Switzerland? Was that just a waste of time and money or does it promote trade between our two countries?


Tony, I am making the point that we do not need trade agreements in order to trade, they are in effect political arrangements that control trade. Some of these recent ones like for instance TTIP are nothing more than massive Corporate power grabs that have the effect of undermining governments as they transfer regulatory powers from elected governments to arbitration panels.

I make the point because some might think that we are not allowed to trade before a trade deal is in place that is not the case. Whether they help or hinder trade or undermine national governments depends on the fine print in the various deals.

Tony in BC

I agree with you regarding TTIP... but you cannot have free-trade without some kind of agreement between nations otherwise customs duty will go up and down willy-nilly and business people will not know where they stand.

For example, Switzerland has duty on certain types of fruits at certain times of the year to protect its own farmers. Those who export to that country know this in advance and can produce product accordingly - New Zealand and Ontario apple producers for example.

Let's not forget that it was the continentals who vetoed TTIP and with good reason.

As for trade agreements such as NAFTA - it has worked for some industries and not others. The BC wine industry has prospered from the competition - improving product enormously. But it has also given the Americans free-for-all regarding our advanced technology in several fields and factories have been moved to low wage areas in the US or Mexico. Which is what could happen in Europe - but the Europeans have a much heavier axe to wield than an economically vulnerable country (all its eggs in one basket) such as Canada of course.

Now, Trump has threatened to tear up NAFTA (a kind of Brexit for Canada) thus closing down the market place for much of our product - the C$ has lost 26% and is forecast to lose a further 10% over the next year.

Challenging times ahead for both our countries....


One of the reasons we sought to join the EU in the first place was that members of the Commonwealth, having successfully shed the baggage of empire (unlike many Little Englanders!) were making better trade deals elsewhere than with the UK, often closer to home.

You're kidding yourself if you think they will simply come running back to us because we've made a poor decision in respect of our largest export market and need some replacement trade to cover the damage done.


Tony, A Free Trade agreement is different matter which brings us back to my point we do not need a free trade agreement in order to trade.

I believe it is important to make the distinction because just using the term trade instead of Free trade agreement implies we need the latter before we could trade anywhere.

I have not looked at the figures but the claim is made that we would be better of just using WTO terms and not paying to be a member of the EU club. Not that I think that would be the best way to leave the EU in perfect world.

PJS as the 18% is much larger than the 40% it is clear that should we move to WTO terms we would in fact gain as we would charge tariffs on a higher amount.

Tony in BC

Of course Eu... but the most important thing in trade is to have a product that will sell in the world market place. Germany and the Netherlands have been doing so much better in this respect than the UK - both countries having large trade surpluses.

So the EU hasn't hindered these and other EU nations in prospering - and a prosperous nation tends to pull the strings, especially the political strings. The general complaint has been the cost of the EU - few argued politics before the referendum the focus being on money and migrants. But, taking the examples of those two nations, the EU hasn't been holding Britain back - but more likely internal policies: in government, in industry, in social programmes etc.


To think that we will not be out by April 2019 is effectively to say that the Government will not trigger Article 50 by April 2017. Once Article 50 kicks in we will be out of the EU by April 2019 because the EU nations will ensure this. It would take a unanimous vote of all EU countries to prolong the Article 50 process beyond two years. If Article 50 is triggered next April then the only way we can remain in the EU beyond April 2019 is to back out of the leaving process indefinitely (and that may be illegal).


Forgive me if I am wrong - but it did not take ten years to get "signed in". We were told it was a "Trade deal" - but we buy three times as much from them as we sell them.

So who was the beneficiary?

We should be out by March 2017 - not April 2019.

Our Government should be saying "the electorate voted for us to leave - Goodbye, and we are no longer paying in with immediate effect".



It's interesting that the Star hasn't published full details of the responses to the individual questions they asked in their latest survey. If there had even been a small shift towards 'remain'. even in a county like Shropshire, which is has a largely elderly and conservative demographic it would indicate a great deal of uneasiness with Brexit - don't forget, only a 2% shift would be needed to put Brexit out of favour.

But as I recall, the Star studiously avoided asking the direct question, presumably because it would have risked not allowing the result to be made to fit the pre-determined agenda. And of course, it's the knowledge of that which has meant that many Brexiteers, who had much to say about parliamentary sovereignty before the referendum, have now become less enthusiastic about parliament having a say in the type of Brexit, for fear that the very same sovereign parliament might temper some of the more extreme views on immigration, or take a responsible view over the damage done by Brexit to our economy - don't forget, we're already £250 million per week worse off thanks to additional Brexit-related interest payments - and £250 million per week is far more than any net contribution we ever made to the EU.

Let's not forget, this is a Tory, provincial newspaper, which has always been in favour of Brexit. Its surveys are always going to be slanted in favour of that, and it's readership demographic inevitable leans towards right-wing politics. If you are looking for a balanced view, then you should never rely on the Shropshire Star.


I'm surprised you read it.


It's a case of 'know your enemy'. Perhaps you should broaden your reading matter a bit too?


You seem to forget that it wasn't just Britons that could vote in the EU referendum.

Irish (yes, another EU country), Commonwealth and some other EU countries citizens resident in the UK could vote too.

If England had its own vote, the results would have been massively in favour of leaving.


PJS YOU lost so go and watch your film which is coming out this month it might cheer you up ?


You've lost me I'm afraid. I'm not a great cinema-goer, most of the films these days seem to be aimed at children.

Oh, and your statement is not in the form of a question, so why end it in a question mark? Did they not cover punctuation at your school?


PJS The film is called La La Land and at school they did punctuation but has you class me as a kipper you have your answer ? They taught us to not to be bad losers that is more than be said of some one on this site ?


Why do you end every sentence with a question mark?

I'm afraid you're simply living up to the demographic data that indicated Brexit voters came in large part from under-educated sectors of society.

jim jams

Here we go, more lies without proof.

jim jams

And remoaners were largely from the more gullible in our ex bank teller told me that down the dole queue.

Cunning Linguist

Good to know he got another job not that dissimilar to his previous one.


PJS I might be under - educated but I have for got more then you will ever know I live in the real world not in La La Land but you will happy to know that your film is coming out on January 12 and if you are good little person one of your elders might take you to see and your will get in for half price ? I like question marks and it is still free county thanks to Brexit ? When you grow up you will find out what goes on in the real world ?