I don't think either campaign has done justice to their case.
The Remain campaign went far too far with doom and gloom. By going so heavy with predictions on everything getting worse such as GDP, employment, house prices, and even the impact on bees they made arses of themselves. If they had been more temperate in their views and saying that Britain would be worse off if we left and there would be some turmoil, I think they could have gotten away with being believed.
£4300 per household worse off by 2030 was the worst statistic used by remain. It was split as GDP per household, a completely bogus metric which isn't used anywhere else. Who knows the number of households by then, especially as this didn't take account of current levels of migration.
The worst move was George Osborne's threat of an emergency budget. Everyone knows that if we leave it will take at least 2 years for it to take happen, and so this had only one effect. It trashed the Chancellor's remaining credibility with half the Tory party and the public. I used to quite like him, now I wanted him moved or sacked.
The worst aspect of the remain campaign was that there was absolutely nothing positive at all. When confronted by this, they just said more jobs etc. (which cannot be disproved or affirmed) before going back to rubbishing leave.
Now that I've complained about it, I think it has worked to some extent and people are scared shitless to leave. A lot of people think there will be mass unemployment and disaster if we leave.It's such a shame.
The Leave campaign kept a few simple messages, but some of these could be easily challenged by commentators.
The worst was the £350m we send every week to the EU. It's not true, it's more like £275m of which we get a third back. If they had started with £275m then commentators would not have been able to challenge it and say its a lie. Maybe, though, it's my naivety though because, apparently, £350m was the one item of both campaigns that stuck in people's minds.
As someone on the Leave side, I was disappointed by the focus on immigration. Of course this was part of the wider but more intangible argument around sovereignty, but it was a negative and could be perceived as racist by anybody wanting to! Of course, if Leave wins then immigration probably won it, but it is a shame. The focus on Turkey was a shame, it may be true that they will join before we have a chance of another referendum but they are not going to imminently join.
The good side of Leave was that there were some positives about trading with the rest of the world. It's a message that works for me. I don't think the argument of how the custom's union works was explained well enough making it easy for Remain to scare people that EU trade will be turned off if we Brexit.
The one argument that was not made well enough at all was that the EU is on a certain path. It has been since inception and nothing is changing that. Our biggest threat was this referendum and to possibly leave but they couldn't account for any significant change of direction even with this threat. If we remain we will be discounted as all talk. It should have been said that if people genuinely believe in a United States of Europe then they should vote Remain, otherwise they should vote Leave - give the EU the shake it needs to reform itself.
Both campaigns were poor and people are voting on prejudice (immigration or economy) rather than facts, it's a shame as it could have been so much more impressive.
Squiffy.
No comments:
Post a Comment