This briefing note (HERE) was, I understand, obtained from the Electoral Commission website although there is no attribution on it. I assume it was submitted by Aaron Banks' Leave.eu as a spoiler when both organisations were bidding to become the designated leave campaign and the recipient of government funding. It looks like a professionally researched and written document but looking back now to March 2016 when it was dated, is fascinating. On the question of a second referendum the two sides have totally reversed positions.
Remainers like Osborne and Cameron, anxious to play up the fear element kept repeating that in the event of a Leave vote there would be no second referendum. The vote would be a one off and we would definitely leave. It quotes Cameron (HERE):
"David Cameron has slapped down the plan favoured by Boris Johnson, one of the leading candidates to succeed him as Tory leader, for a second EU referendum in the event of the first one resulting in a vote to leave. A senior Cameron aide said the PM is clear that it is simply not going to happen. From the outset, he has been clear this will be a straightforward in-out choice and that's what it will be. Leave means leave".
This wasn't an isolated example either. The briefing note gives any number of links to reports from senior politicians on the remain side saying, in terms, exactly the same thing - see page 43 onward. They were adamant there would be NO second referendum.
But on the leave side, they tried to portray a leave vote as the safe option, that there would be another referendum when the terms of the divorce were known. So, no need to worry that NO would be final. There are any number of quotes from senior people at Vote Leave, which became the official campaign saying explicitly a second referendum would or could happen, viz:
"Dominic Cummings is the man drafted in to put together the putative No campaign for the EU referendum. Cummings has a tendency to surprise and he has done that today with a piece that pushes the idea that the No campaign should say that there would be a second referendum if Britain votes Out (HERE)"
"London Mayor Boris Johnson has hinted he is in favour of voting no in the EU membership referendum. Ultimately, he says he wants the UK to remain in the bloc, but hopes voting to leave will shock EU leaders into giving Britain a better deal. According to sources who spoke to The Sunday Times, he told friends he wants a two-stage referendum, where the public initially votes in favour of an exit, and then votes to stay in once a better deal is offered …" (HERE)
"This starts with Dominic Cummings, the mad genius who helps run the Vote Leave campaign. He has suggested that if Britain voted to leave the EU, it wouldn't actually leave immediately. Instead, a negotiation with the EU would ensue, in which the UK agreed its terms of severance. Those terms would then be put to another referendum". (HERE).
Again, these are not isolated examples, the note gives plenty of others - see page 37 onwards. Now of course, the positions are totally reversed. Remainers want another vote while leavers are adamant there won't be one. Bizarre isn't it?
And there is some other fascinating stuff. What about this:
At a recent European Council on Foreign Relations event, [Bernard] Jenkin was also reported as saying, "Legally it is just an advisory referendum – it puts the ball back into the government party's court. [It is for them] to decide how to respond to a no vote". (HERE). The comment implies that a leave vote doesn't necessarily man Britain must leave the EU; just that the government must decide what to do next. (page 15)
This came from a man who now speaks as if the 2016 referendum was the ultimately expressed view of the British people and must be followed through at all cost regardless of what the government or parliament thinks. And note this with regard to the recent Electoral Commission's £60,000 fine for Vote Leave's overspending:
The report quoted leading figure Steve Baker MP – co-chair of Vote Leave off-shoot Conservatives for Britain – claiming that the group had devised a way to spend as much money as is necessary to win by creating a series of front organisations. The leaked email, written by Baker, talked of an intention to create separate legal entities that would each enjoy distinct, additional spending limits.(page 20).
Remember this was written in March 2016, They knew they were going to do everything necessary, legal and illegal, including overspending to get the result they wanted.
The conclusion of the report (page 10) was prescient:
"The overall picture is one of disruptive characters, dysfunctional internal organisation and a lack of willingness – clearly, at times, even an inability – to work with others, particularly those of a non-Conservative political persuasion, and even those with significant support and long-standing history of campaigning for the leave outcome. Coupled to the shallow level of representation offered by their backing from MPs the vast majority of whom did not campaign to leave the EU at the last general election and, in the case of the Conservatives, whose local party organisations are committed to a neutral stance, Vote Leave's claim to be able to represent those campaigning for the leave outcome is, at best, is, at best, extremely superficial, if not virtually non-existent beyond narrow Conservative lines".
In spite of this, they won and we are all now paying the price.
