GOVERNMENT REFERENDUM LEAFLET

With the National Crime Agency investigating Aaron Banks, I see some Brexiteers are starting to pushback against allegations about the amount and source of the money spent by the leave campaign. They are claiming the remain side was also guilty of overspending.  Isabel Oakeshott was trying this on TV's Politics Live at lunchtime one day this week. The main object of their criticism is the £9 million spent by Cameron sending a leaflet to every household setting out the government's position.

Our own MP, the Conservative Nigel Adams, actually said, had it not been glossy, it should have been used as toilet paper. This is what he said in The House on 11th April 2016 (HERE Col 85): 

"I believe the Minister [David Lidington] is a fair man and this should have been a fair campaign, but the spending of taxpayers’ money on this propaganda is clearly unfair. Does he not recognise the anger in my constituency, where there is pressure on public spending, at this level of taxpayers’ money being used on electioneering? Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to get my copy of the leaflet this morning. I was slightly disappointed that it was printed on shiny, glossy paper. Had it been printed on something a bit more absorbent, then at least my constituents would have been able to put it to good use".

So I think therefore it's good to look back at what it said (HERE): This is part of it:

"Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs.

The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.

But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say

• pay into the EU

• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force" 

Looking back over the past two and a half years, I think this is precisely what happened. 

The government leaflet is a model of balance and fairness, setting out the facts, many of which have already proven to be true. Compare it to the Vote Leave leaflet : The UK and The European Union - The Facts, reality checked by the BBC (HERE) to show that most of it was untrue or misleading. The two leaflets are not comparable and we should never allow the Brexiteers to claim they are. One was truthful, the other was propaganda.

Bear in mind under section 7 of the 2015 European Referendum Act, the government was duty bound to:

"... publish a report which contains (alone or with other material)—

(a) information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, and

(b) examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union (describing, in the case of each country given as an example, those arrangements)".

However, the worst mistake the government made was to write this on page 14:

"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide".

It turned what was legally a non-binding advisory referendum into a binding one, but without insisting on more safeguards such as a super majority of the vote (say 60% or two thirds) being needed.

This is what has put us into the bind we now find ourselves.