Advanced search

"There were lies on both sides"

(22 Posts)
BertrandRussell Wed 31-Aug-16 16:54:32

I have taken this statement about the EU Referendum campaign as read- but I have suddenly realized that I can't actually think of any lies from the Remain Campaign. Can anyone enlighten me?

GoblinLittleOwl Wed 31-Aug-16 16:59:58

You don't give up, do you.

BertrandRussell Wed 31-Aug-16 17:24:35

Sorry- I didn't realise I was supposed to.

tiggytape Wed 31-Aug-16 17:27:27

David Cameron led the remain campaign saying he would stay on as Prime Minister in the event of a Leave vote and also immediately invoke Article 50. Neither of these things turned out to be true (and it isn't like anything unexpected happened between him imagining a Brexit vote as a theoretical possibility and it actually happening to explain this u-turn). If asserting something that isn't true, knowing that it isn't true when you say it, is a lie then those are lies.

Osborne said an emergency punishment budget would be an immediate consequence of a Brexit vote (separate from the other gloomy economic prophecies made in the campaign) and then on June 27th he said that there wouldn't be an emergency budget at all and just the usual one scheduled for Autumn. Charitably though, things had changed by then because Cameron had resigned.

Everything else maybe a lie or may not be. Campaigns were based on what happens if we Brexit not what happens if we vote for Brexit and then spend ages in limbo so right now we don't know which way it will turn out. Those lies will be measured in retrospect. The claim about being £4200 worse off per household for example may turn out to be perfectly true and incredibly accurate (but even the remain campaign since the vote have said it was such a weirdly specific figure that meant nobody actually believed it whereas the Leave camp pulled it apart as being outright distortion using debated correlation made between a 1% difference in an estimated GDP 14 years from now with individual household income).

tiggytape Wed 31-Aug-16 17:28:34

(sorry typo - £4300 worse off per household)

YokoUhOh Wed 31-Aug-16 17:32:59

I'm struggling to think of anything truthful from the Leave side of the argument Bert.

I'm still utterly devastated about the whole thing. I've had to spend time in hospital this week and the nurses from the EU countries were so wonderful. How the hell are we going to be able to replace them?

ManonLescaut Wed 31-Aug-16 17:43:35

You can't claim Cameron's promise as a lie - for all we know he intended to stay on and changed his mind when he realised the enormity of the task ahead of him. He was always lazy. Equally he clearly didn't think Leave would win.

Osborne may have intended to post an immediate budget but Cameron left so he had no support, many Brexiteers were very anti for obvious reasons, and then he was fired.

The punishment budget is coming in the Autumn it's just been rebranded a fiscal 'reset'.

We can't claim that £350million a week was anything but a lie.

tiggytape Wed 31-Aug-16 18:30:41

I agree on the budget we will have to wait until Autumn to judge whether it is indeed the punishment budget promised.
If indeed there is 2p added on income tax and a increase inheritance tax plus petrol and alcohol duties in addition to enormous cuts to the police, local government, pensions defence and the NHS all in that very first budget after the Brexit vote then George Osborne was perfectly honest in saying this would be the immediate result.

Cameron - no. I don't think even Cameron's closest ally could stretch the argument to say that he was truthful.
A man who has been PM for years and served much of that premiership under the shadow of EU considerations and who instigated a vote to leave the EU does not wake up on June 24th and say to himself "Gosh leaving the EU is going to be much more difficult than I anticipated last week when I promised to stay on as PM. In light of this astonishing revelation, I will have to resign."
He said he would stay knowing full well what a mammoth task lie ahead if the vote went against him and he did not keep that promise. The speed with which he resigned implies he never intended to honour that promise.

Ninasimoneinthemorning Wed 31-Aug-16 18:34:07

Oh god not another one

fordpenk Wed 31-Aug-16 18:39:06

It's in the correct topic Nina hmm


I think remain focused too heavily on what would be lost and not what we had already gained.

Ninasimoneinthemorning Wed 31-Aug-16 18:40:35

It's unhealthy to obsess over it.

ManonLescaut Wed 31-Aug-16 18:49:18

I'm not getting into a discussion of what was going on in Cameron's head, it's absurd. I can't stand the man but I think he was in denial and was certain he was going to win. He only wrote a Remain speech, I don't think he'd seriously considered what he was going to do if he lost.

However, I have the sense to know that I haven't the remotest idea what he thought, and that why I said there is not enough evidence to claim this one as a lie.

tiggytape Wed 31-Aug-16 19:11:41

He made a promise and immediately reneged on it - I wasn't speculating about why but a more obvious answer is that he thought remain would win but promised to stay in the event of a leave vote because he didn't want people to vote leave just to get rid of him!

The fact he left within a couple of hours of the result implies he always intended to do just that because nothing happened in those 2 hours that he hadn't envisaged when he promised to stay in the event of a leave vote. Whatever his motivations, his promise he'd stay was not true.

And I also don't think the Autumn budget will be anything like George Osborne's promised punishment budget. I could of course be wrong but I think all the mutterings have been more towards it being investment based than the vicious cuts and taxes promised by Osborne.

Namehanger Wed 31-Aug-16 19:21:47

Nina - sorry but rather important and fascinating in a scary way.

twofingerstoGideon Wed 31-Aug-16 19:52:58

It's unhealthy to obsess over it.
Oh good. A new way to try to stifle debate about the biggest constitutional issue of our time. Maybe you could read this, Nina

Kaija Wed 31-Aug-16 20:16:32

Been wondering the same thing. Got nothing.

TheElementsSong Wed 31-Aug-16 21:05:44

It's unhealthy to obsess over it.

Even if this were true, which is bloody well isn't, that would make you hypocritical to come to the thread to even comment on it.

Peregrina Wed 31-Aug-16 22:19:19

He made a promise and immediately reneged on it - I wasn't speculating about why but a more obvious answer is that he thought remain would win but promised to stay in the event of a leave vote because he didn't want people to vote leave just to get rid of him!

I think a significant number of people did vote to give him a bloody nose - I thought of doing so myself. And as someone else has said, he was lazy and complacent.

smallfox2002 Thu 01-Sep-16 02:25:07

The £4,300 thing

Its worked out as lost income per household using a scenario of a deal like the CETA.

To get there what the treasury did is look at two models, UK in EU and UK with a CETA like deal, and project economic growth and conditions based on these models up to 2030.

You can then look at the 2 real GDP figures for 2030 and divide them up between the number of households and compare the final figures.

However what they didn't do is increase the number of households, they based in on the number of households now.

I'm not sure if that's dishonest, or a fairly complex bit of economics which they then tried to simplify.

Is it more dishonest than the £350 mllion? I don't know.

cexuwaleozbu Thu 01-Sep-16 05:44:19

I would consider Cameron's statement that he would stay on as PM if the vote was to Leave as a white lie that I don't blame him for.

If he had been honest and said that he would immediately resign if the vote was to leave, that would have been a massive skew to the whole result as there is suddenly a new headline "if you hate Cameron then vote leave to get rid if him"

Even if you are on the Leave side I hope you would agree that such a message would be a disaster for democracy because it would mean that such a huge step was being taken based on votes made for reasons which were utterly unrelated to whether or not EU membership is a good thing.

Peregrina Thu 01-Sep-16 07:54:39 Comments by the Electoral Reform Society about the 'Glaring deficiencies in the EU referendum.

cexu I think a certain number did vote leave to get rid of Cameron, thinking that since he won a surprise victory in the last election, he would safely do so again.

IMO, the result has been a disaster for democracy. It has made the country which invented Parliamentary democracy look a laughing stock in the world. It's meant Remainers being rebranded as Remoaners and told that Leave won, suck it up. As Ian Hislop said, if a party loses at a General Election, they don't shut up and stop opposing, but somehow with this Referendum, this is what 16 million people have been told to do.

twofingerstoGideon Thu 01-Sep-16 07:55:48

... based on votes made for reasons which were utterly unrelated to whether or not EU membership is a good thing.

I think we can safely say this happened anyway, unfortunately.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now