5 ms·

I'd argue that it was less honest on the basis that the Leave side didn't have the equivalent of a general election manifesto. Cameron had his negotiated deal a

by mcintyre1994 3y ago

I'd argue that it was less honest on the basis that the Leave side didn't have the equivalent of a general election manifesto. Cameron had his negotiated deal and Remain was continuity his government. But Leave didn't present any concrete document of what they wanted to happen next if we left, and if they had created such a document the referendum wouldn't have given them the power to put their plan into practice. The whole referendum design made it impossible for them to be honest IMO even if they wanted to. The Scottish referendum in 2014 didn't have the same problem because the SNP campaigning for independence were in power in Scotland and had negotiated the referendum with the UK government.

gadders 3y ago
I take your point - it wasn't like Labour was Remain, and Conservatives were Leave - in reality all major parties and much of the establishment was remain. But I'm not sure that's dishonesty in that people were deliberately saying things that were not true - people were instead saying "These are the things made possible if we leave the EU and you vote for a party that wants this in a general election."
- n4r9 3y ago
  The point as I understand it is that there was no unified vision for what leaving the EU would look like. There was instead a multitude of voices making (in many cases) grandiose and outlandish promises. For example: "So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU." - David Davis [https://conservativehome.com/2016/07/14/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain/ https://conservativehome.com/2016/07/14/david-davis-trade-de...] Coming to a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest in human history" - Liam Fox [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40667879 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40667879] Brexit would leave arrangements on the Irish border "absolutely unchanged" - Boris Johnson [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452] This meant that even when Leave won, there was a great amount of confusion and turmoil over what that actually implied. That's why the Chequers deal fell through despite fulfilling the outcoem of the referendum.
  - gadders 3y ago
    As other people have pointed out in this thread, though, there were equally outlandish claims made by the opposition of what would happen after a vote to leave by the likes of George Osbourne and Mark Carney.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      Sure, which adds further weight to the argument that it was a particularly dishonest process.
      - gadders 3y ago
        That's fine if you are saying both sides were equally "dishonest" but the implication seemed to be from the original post that only Leave lied.
        n4r9 3y ago
        I don't think the implication was that only Leave lied. The point is that there was a clear plan of action if Remain won, but nothing of the sort if Leave won. That means that no one really knew what they were voting for beyond the technicality of leaving the EU.
        gadders 3y ago
        That's what happens when you all of The Establishment in favour of one policy. I don't think you can blame Leave for that. It's more the fact that the main parties were (demonstrably) out of touch with the majority of the electorate.
        n4r9 3y ago
        Well, Vote Leave was the official campaign. And they did set out a post-Brexit plan. They had the opportunity to define what Brexit meant, but they didn't do it. I wouldn't have minded this so much if there was a continued democratic process to decide between various possible Brexits. There's an argument that the decision of elected MPs constitutes a democratic process, and I am sympathetic to that argument. I guess I would counter that this was such a momentous change and that very few people had elected their local MP on the basis of what their position on the EU was.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > wasn't like Labour was Remain, and Conservatives were Leave I wouldn’t even say that Labour’s top leadership was really pro-remain at the time. Cameron was at least being honest (in this instance).

gadders 3y ago

I take your point - it wasn't like Labour was Remain, and Conservatives were Leave - in reality all major parties and much of the establishment was remain. But I'm not sure that's dishonesty in that people were deliberately saying things that were not true - people were instead saying "These are the things made possible if we leave the EU and you vote for a party that wants this in a general election."

n4r9 3y ago
The point as I understand it is that there was no unified vision for what leaving the EU would look like. There was instead a multitude of voices making (in many cases) grandiose and outlandish promises. For example: "So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU." - David Davis [https://conservativehome.com/2016/07/14/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain/ https://conservativehome.com/2016/07/14/david-davis-trade-de...] Coming to a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest in human history" - Liam Fox [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40667879 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40667879] Brexit would leave arrangements on the Irish border "absolutely unchanged" - Boris Johnson [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452] This meant that even when Leave won, there was a great amount of confusion and turmoil over what that actually implied. That's why the Chequers deal fell through despite fulfilling the outcoem of the referendum.
- gadders 3y ago
  As other people have pointed out in this thread, though, there were equally outlandish claims made by the opposition of what would happen after a vote to leave by the likes of George Osbourne and Mark Carney.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Sure, which adds further weight to the argument that it was a particularly dishonest process.
    - gadders 3y ago
      That's fine if you are saying both sides were equally "dishonest" but the implication seemed to be from the original post that only Leave lied.
      - n4r9 3y ago
        I don't think the implication was that only Leave lied. The point is that there was a clear plan of action if Remain won, but nothing of the sort if Leave won. That means that no one really knew what they were voting for beyond the technicality of leaving the EU.
        gadders 3y ago
        That's what happens when you all of The Establishment in favour of one policy. I don't think you can blame Leave for that. It's more the fact that the main parties were (demonstrably) out of touch with the majority of the electorate.
        n4r9 3y ago
        Well, Vote Leave was the official campaign. And they did set out a post-Brexit plan. They had the opportunity to define what Brexit meant, but they didn't do it. I wouldn't have minded this so much if there was a continued democratic process to decide between various possible Brexits. There's an argument that the decision of elected MPs constitutes a democratic process, and I am sympathetic to that argument. I guess I would counter that this was such a momentous change and that very few people had elected their local MP on the basis of what their position on the EU was.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> wasn't like Labour was Remain, and Conservatives were Leave I wouldn’t even say that Labour’s top leadership was really pro-remain at the time. Cameron was at least being honest (in this instance).