Well, ask why that was the case for starters: I could posit a few things, assuming the intent was 'serious' debate and not just any amateurish attempt to prop

Well, ask why that was the case for starters: I could posit a few things, assuming the intent was 'serious' debate and not just any amateurish attempt to prop up unequal-in-quality ideas: 1. Arguments to support it were so thin, that doing so would look fundamentally poor contextually (e.g. you can make an argument for Leave, but not any of the ones that were used to sell the idea, because logically they were either outright daft, or any arguments that could be used would have exposed underlying emotional, not factual, underpinnings that in light of day would appear either unsavory, or at the very least, self-sabotaging and indefensible under anything OTHER than agit-prop. 2. Given the political media environment, it became a third rail no self-respecting academic would want to touch (e.g. most academics won't argue for flat earth theory even as a mock exercise) I don't know what drivers for the debates were in play, but I suspect that depending on the seriousness (or lack thereof) would have played a key factor. There is also the simple idea that arguing for something that has no defensible premises (read: it will improve the economy when it won't, it will secure borders when it won't, etc...but will appeal to certain reactionary political contrivances. As a person who has historically leaned center-right on security and economic aspects, I had the same issue in the US over "the wall", an idea I found deeply stupid, still find even more stupid, and ultimately a boat-anchor that only bigoted imbeciles will support reflexively, regardless of cheaper, more effective alternatives existing...because goddammit they need the theater of 'winning' more than actual effective policy).