No I didn’t miss it at all. But the key phrase there is short term. I think most people, even the thick/naive ones accept that there will have to be some short term pain for long term gain. I still don’t think it would have made a difference.
At least a short term contraction. With no real idea for how long it will last.
So our truthful bus now reads:
“ The EU costs us 250 million a week but we get a lot more than that back in overall economic activity due to our membership. It’s going to take some time to recover from losing that, if we ever do. Let’s leave and work out whether to cover the shortfall by making cuts to the NHS or somewhere else instead, which hopefully won’t be for too long. Some people will lose their jobs in the meantime but they should be able to find new jobs in whatever sectors end up replacing financial services and what have you after Brexit. Well, unless they are too old to be hired into a new sector of course. But their kids will be ok. Probably.”
A winning slogan for sure!
Thing is, if as everyone now says “of course we knew and accepted there would be short term pain” why were Leave so keen to shut down any discussion of that pre referendum? Surely if everyone was ok with it, getting it on the table could only have strengthened their case, defused the Remain objections and (glory be) actually started shaping what Brexit should be going towards not just what it should be going away from.
But instead we had “easiest deal in history”, “they need us more than we need them”, and not forgetting “let’s fund our NHS instead”. If no one believed this stuff and everyone knew it would be hard, what did they gain by saying it?
Even without the bus at all, the result was always going to be what it was.
As I mentioned before, Dominic Cummings who ran the Leave campaign absolutely does think the bus swung it. Far from “always going to be as it was”, I think it’s more realistic to say “No bus, no Brexit.”