Why the Remain campaign was so weak?

[SnowBells]

I was speaking to DH about this last night. I couldn't understand why the Remain campaign didn't do a better job, really, and concentrated on London too much (London was never going to be "Leave" territory). I work in finance, and we repeatedly had politicians come in from both camps to debate why we should vote for either side. Everyone knows George Osbourne was at JP Morgan, alongside its CEO, telling employees that thousands of jobs would be at risk, if the UK voted leave.

I can't find one single account where they did anything similar with car manufacturers up north. They would be similarly affected. If we left the EU, their jobs would be at risk. The "Remain" campaign was too London-centric, too focused on white collar voters, when London was always going to be a clear win for "Remain". It made people in other regions think they wouldn't be affected. That they didn't count. Most people vote based on what they think will affect them. So you have to tell them as plainly as possible how leaving the EU may impact their lives. It's what some US politicians excel at whether you like them or not.

I thought that Cameron should have attacked BoJo's lies more. But then my DH pointed out they were both from the same party. There was no unity within the same party. And that's the problem. Had BoJo and Gove been from another party, I think Cameron would have not have held back. In some ways, attacking BoJo and Gove properly would also mean weakening your own party. So, it was a bit 'party over country' to be honest.

What do you think?

Best metaphor I read was that the EU was like a market place (not that much of a metaphor then ) and that our contribution was like the fee for having a stall there (after all, no-one expects the market place to run for free). As a good and loyal stall holder, we get a rebate. We also get a bit more back as there are some of our own suppliers who are struggling but the market sees the benefit in supporting them. So overall it's worth it, because we make a profit on the stall.

Some of the other stall holders are subsidised as they're new or their businesses are struggling.

However, the market place wants to be able to offer a service to everyone and recognises that it's in the overall interest to support the smaller/struggling stalls, in the hope and expectation that they will get bigger and stronger.

Every stall holder has a veto on potential new stall holders - they have to meet the rules of the marketplace.

In return for our fee for the stall, we actually make a profit - not just selling to the other stall holders but also because other people are attracted to this market place.

We also use the marketplace to go and buy our own provisions. Because we've got a stall, we don't have to pay an entrance fee to be a customer.

If course, we don't need to take a stall in this market place. We can take and pay for a unit outside - or even in our own house. It might be a bit cheaper - but then we have to be sure that people will come to us and we have to make more of an effort to go and find them. We also need to pay an entrance fee to go and see the other stall holders.

But once we've served notice on this marketplace, we have no further say in the running of the market. We can pay the entrance fee and go and shop (and even to have a pop-up stall) if we want - but can't have a place on the organising committee nor have a say on the layout, rules or who else can buy a stall at that market.

Very interesting Margrethe. Sounds right to me too.

Considering the vast majority of political parties including the main two wanted to remain part of the EU, I'm honestly surprised the campaign was so weak. Not that the leave one was any better.

Mother, my dad is 94, was a desert rat in WW2 and voted remain!

Yes juneau, I don't think the explanations that the voters were 1. stupid, 2. confused, 3. lied to, stand up to scrutiny. Speaking to in-laws outside of London, it was pretty clear that everyone understood the BS about the NHS bus, etc. They understood the potential consequences/downside of leaving and frankly didn't give a flying f*ck. They were angry, this was their shot, and they were going to take it.

"They were angry, this was their shot, and they were going to take it."

Who were they angry with?

Successive governments and the Murdoch -led press have happily blamed Europe for all the ills of post-industrial areas of Britain, because they haven't had a clue how to effectively regenerate them into proud productive regions.

Then Remain was faced with having to argue for Europe, and people rightly going "Oh, it's not all their fault? Then whose? Ah, yours. Screw you, then. And don't think I'll now vote the way you want me to."

Both Labour and the Conservatives faced that problem. No idea what they will do now.

Everyone, Bertrand. Past politicians who've ignored them or patronised them, current politicians who patronise them and have a general air of 'Well, they are all just so backward-looking and stupid, aren't they', experts who are considered remote and London-centric, and generally appear to have no idea what it is like to live somewhere which is not in the South East.

Frankly, most people round here are just angry in general. The referendum happened to be what was going on, so some other clever, patronising people directed their anger towards it for their own gains.

Remainers, as far as I can tell, thought the rest of the country would simply fall into line, because of course they know best, and we should all appreciate that without question.

Remainers, as far as I can tell, thought the rest of the country would simply fall into line, because of course they know best, and we should all appreciate that without question.

This is a good point when you consider all the changes from the nine-nation trading bloc of the EEC that Britain joined after the last referendum in 1973, to the 28-nation monstrosity that is the EU today. In all that time the government never asked the British people if they were happy to continue being a part of this rapidly growing and vastly changing entity. In all that time the leaders of this country decided that they knew what was best for Britain and didn't give the people a choice. And clearly a lot of Brits disagreed with them, but had no opportunity to express that disquiet ... until now.

Such a fucking shame that the first chance for a protest vote wasn't an election but something permanent................

adagio I think you make excellent points, with the exception of one.

I also believe that in the whole, people just are not engaged with politicians and politics in general, so were somewhat appealed to doing the opposite of what they were told to by those 'in charge'.

I think that in fact, people would like to engage in politics. The large turnout in the Brexit poll demonstrates this but they want change and they want their vote to count.

The constituency method means that many constituencies can only hope to vote in one of two parties as the third may have reasonable local support but it will never be enough to get their preference into power. Not necessarily cons/labour but in some places con/lib dem or labour/lib dem. People in these constituencies have the choice to vote for their choice, which would be a wasted vote or vote for another less preferable option to them. Unsurprising then that many just don't vote at all.

In saying this I acknowledge that this prevents UKIP having a greater number of seats in parliament I think this is a good thing but in addition it means that many voters feel their vote will be wasted.

That's a good point AnnaChronism I hadn't fully made that connection as I was just thinking of this referendum but you are right, elections are usually at best a 2 horse race but often in 'safe seat' areas a complete waste of time. 😟

perhaps if more than 35% of the 18-24 year olds had voted and Jeremy Corbyn had pulled his finger out Remain would have stood a better chance.

I agree. I refuse to engage with arguments about those horrid older voters, and all these distressed children when the 'young' vote couldn't be arsed to drag their feet to the polling booth. Sort out your own house.

Plus the assumption that voters REALLY appreciated being lectured by celebraties (Eddie Izzard, Geldof etc) who thought, because they were comedians, actors, pop stars or footballers, that their opinion had some kind of intellectual heft. Sheila Hancock saying she'd be heartbroken if we left the EU. Well that's a shame.
Junker announcing, the day before the vote, that, if we voted in, there would be no further negotiations. Nice timing. Combined with Cameron coming back with nothing much from the pre referendum negotiations.

Mary Beard on a Question Time recorded in Boston, after a member of the audience raised concerns about immigration, smiling gently and telling them (who lived there!) That she had read a report about it and there was no problem.
That kind of thing goes down well.

I'm told that, in Liverpool, the Remain campaigners went round the city and slapped "This was paid for by the EU" on those buildings that were EU funded.

I haven't had that confirmed, but it would seem to have been effective. That, and having banned the Sun from darkening their newsagents for the last 30 years...

I think the conservative remainers had a hard road to hoe.

It's been so easy for years to allow the right wing press to blame immigration for the underfunding of the NHS, for the ridiculous mess of Gove's education experiment and for the huge divide between the rich and the poor, (etc) which are all actually due to government policies.

And now it's all come home to roost.

On the other hand, labour moved too far to the right, so as to be barely indistinguishable from the Tories, losing many of their traditional voters to UKIP. They ceased to be the party of workers, who looked elsewhere for solutions.

And the Lib Dems lost so much political ground as part of the coalition. Voters thought that they had little clout in the coalition (I think wrongly, because the subsequent government has had far more right wing policies, without the tempering hand of the Lib Dems.) In any case, they currently have so little presence that they were unable to have much influence on the electorate.

For many people whose employment is unsure, who live from pay packet to pay packet, the message "take back control" must have been very reassuring. When they asked themselves "what do I want?", the answer was "something different to what I've got now", which is what Brexit offered.

Good point about The Sun in Liverpool, Tanith.

Manchester also voted strongly for remain. That's a city that has had lots to be grateful to the EU for, as well. (More so in the past, of course.)

Usual condescending stuff on this thread.

The Remain campaign were not particularly weak. They had everything on their side - money, power, political elites, the Establishment, the American President, every single European political leader etc etc. However in the end, all of these elements had vested interests in Remain which Leavers were able to see straight through.

Remain relied on Project Fear but people rightly didn't buy the threats and scare stories. Because, in actual fact, aside from a guaranteed period of uncertainty and instability, nobody could predict the consequences of Leave. However, funnily enough, neither could anyone predict the outcome of Remain. The EU has changed massively in the last 40 years. It will continue to change. The UK had to decide whether to remain as a passive partner to that change, having virtually no control or influence (as Davy Cameron's pathetic 'reforms' so painfully proved), or whether it was going to be brave enough to go it alone, like other nations such as Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland, and countless others do.

So people knew that regardless of the result - Remain or Leave - uncertainty lay ahead.

I like countless others voted Leave because I did my own research and concluded that I valued sovereignty and democracy over an economic and political union which was gradually but systematically eroding our hard-won democracy and parliamentary government. I like others on this thread have a degree in history. (In fact I have several higher degrees in the subject.)

Obama telling us to go to the back of the queue? That pissed me off, but I didn't pay much heed, he was just trying to do Dave a favour. He has since revealed his true thoughts on the EU - he sees it as a project towards an eventual fully politically integrated United States of Europe, which the UK has currently pressed 'pause' on. Now THAT pisses me off because I can't imagine him approving of the US being forced into a political union with any other country.

What made the Remain campaign weak? They didn't spot the line of division. In the 21st century, there remain serious social and economic divisions in Britain. But the principal line of division now is one of culture. It is a conflict of values, between those who have opted to affirm national sovereignty and those who embrace a cosmopolitan outlook that is self-consciously detached from Britain's historic or traditional legacies. The referendum brought this into sharp relief.

What the Remain camp refused to believe was that there could be 52% of the population for whom national sovereignty outweighed a love of money. And let's not forget, just a few days after dismissing a voter as a 'horrible racist', the Labour MP Pat Glass told party supporters in the run-up to the referendum: 'Go and speak to your mother, your grandmother. Don’t speak to your grandfather — we know the problem are older white men.'

Apparently the elderly, especially old men, are not worthy of being taken seriously in public discussion. In the eyes of too many Remain strategists, the uneducated working classes have few redeeming qualities. They were frequently portrayed as parochial xenophobes who hate immigrants, who hold on to outdated values, and who fear uncertainty and change.

This is what made their campaign weak: They did not listen. They had no respect. And they sneered. As Nigel Farage triumphantly asked: Who's laughing now?

" like others on this thread have a degree in history. (In fact I have several higher degrees in the subject.)"

Several, eh?

But you don't seem to realize that Switzerland and Norway, to name but two, do not "go it alone"

Tulips, thanks for your great post.

I didn't vote remain because I value money above all else.

I voted remain because I believe the UK should be an outward looking country, cooperating with our neighbours, encouraging the economies of poorer countries of Europe, (and the rest of the world via aid commitments) and striving for peace.

The UK is less, not more, democratic than Europe, which at least has proportional representation, and far fewer bureaucrats (I.e. Civil servants) than the UK. I know if I, for example, vote labour in a general election, it will make no difference to the outcome. A Tory MP will be returned. But if I vote labour in the European elections, there is likely to be a labour MEP representing me, alongside a Tory one.

We can cooperate without being tied.

And we are the only EU member that meets it's foreign aid commitments