A look at the Remain and Leave campaigns – and a narrow 52:48 Leave result
Referendums can be valuable, but only if three essential conditions are met, as outlined in part 2: first, there must be a clear binary choice between two well-defined outcomes; second, a robust Referendum Commission or similar independent body must exist to prevent misinformation and malpractice; and third, there must be sufficient time to fully and accurately inform the electorate about the possible outcomes and trade-offs.
None of these conditions were met during the EU referendum. In fact, the complexity of leaving the EU was so overwhelming that a referendum was an entirely unsuitable mechanism for such a decision. Even the most knowledgeable experts would have struggled to grasp all the consequences of a Leave outcome.
Additionally, as discussed in part 1, a significant protest vote – already likely to skew the result towards Leave – was further intensified by the deliberate omission of a definition for Leave. This was a referendum in name only, a deeply deceptive exercise. I feared Britain was sleepwalking into disaster.
To make matters worse, the referendum was further skewed towards Leave by the franchise rules: approximately two million Commonwealth citizens living in the UK – many of whom were unaffected by the outcome and were promised favourable migration rules to replace Freedom of Movement – were allowed to vote. In contrast, a similar number of EU citizens directly affected by the result were excluded from voting. Additionally, many UK citizens residing in the EU were also denied a vote.
Yet despite all of this, Brexit itself seemed such an obviously bad idea that it was hard to believe Britons would actually vote for it.
There was no Referendum Commission, but Britain did have the BBC – a broadcaster with a global reputation for integrity. One would expect that, under its charter, the BBC would provide impartial, accurate, and thorough information to the public. This role was particularly vital because public knowledge of the EU was severely lacking. Decades of ‘Euromyths’ and relentless anti-EU propaganda from the right-wing press had left many with deeply entrenched misconceptions.
Whether campaigns truly change minds is debatable, but it was clear that Remain would need a much more effective campaign than Leave just to have any real chance of winning.
Anti-Remain headwinds
Immigration was always going to be a major flashpoint. For decades, the right-wing tabloid press had pumped out near-daily headlines blaming immigration – and by extension, EU membership – for many, if not all, of Britain’s problems.
Blair made two disastrous decisions in 2003/04: one was immediately obvious – the Iraq invasion; the other, less so at the time, was his failure to apply the seven-year emergency brake on freedom of movement for citizens of new EU member states after the enlargement championed by the UK (A8 accession).
The A8 accession refers to the 2004 enlargement of the EU, when eight much poorer Eastern European countries – most notably Poland – joined the Union. Under EU rules, existing member states could have suspended Freedom of Movement for citizens of these new members for up to seven years. However, only the UK, Ireland, and Sweden chose not to implement this safeguard. Instead of the forecast of 50,000 Poles migrating to the UK, by 2016 the actual number was closer to 1 million. This influx proved highly beneficial to the UK, both economically and culturally. Yet, scapegoating foreigners for hardships caused by Tory austerity is the oldest trick in the right-wing populist playbook, and it was exploited to the hilt.
The Iraq invasion destabilised the Middle East, triggering a refugee crisis across Europe. This crisis came at a particularly unfortunate time for the Remain campaign and, depending on the region, heightened tensions within the UK itself. More importantly, the Leave campaign weaponised the refugee crisis – most infamously through Farage’s Breaking Point poster and baseless claims that 70 million Turks were poised to join the EU – stoking fears of the UK being ‘overrun’ by Muslims.
Another major issue was that, for many Conservatives, the UK’s relationship with the EU was always begrudging and transactional. While membership was seen as economically advantageous, it was viewed as a threat to British culture and a dilution of national sovereignty. For Tories convinced of Britain’s innate superiority and exceptionalism, mounting a positive case for the EU was virtually impossible.
While it was no surprise that the right-wing press continued to churn out anti-EU propaganda and ramp it up to fever pitch, I was deeply disappointed by the BBC’s failure to meet its responsibility to inform the public accurately. Instead of prioritising factual reporting, the BBC conflated “neutrality” with truth, repeating the same mistake it made by giving equal weight to climate change deniers and renowned scientists. In the process, it failed to challenge misinformation on the level of industrial-scale dishonesty, leaving the public ill-equipped to make an informed decision.
Although the country appeared evenly split, as discussed in part 1, a substantial anti-government protest vote was brewing. If Leave managed to galvanise these disaffected voters, the outcome was likely determined even before the campaign had properly begun.
The referendum campaigns
Before the campaign began, David Cameron travelled to Brussels seeking special concessions for the UK – dubbed ‘Extrawurst-Großbritannien’ – in areas such as the emergency brake on migration, restrictions on child benefit, protections for non-eurozone countries, and limits on ‘ever closer union.’ Uncertain whether he would ultimately back Leave or Remain, Cameron declared victory upon his return, announced his support for Remain, and officially launched the campaign.
However, as Anthony Barnett notes in The Lure of Greatness, Cameron’s preparations were woefully inadequate, mistaking rhetoric for fact-backed analysis, and the outcome of his negotiations amounted to little. Many observers, especially in the right-wing press, saw through this ‘victory‘ and shifted their support to Leave.
The tone of the campaign quickly became toxic – coarse, ugly, bitter, and deeply divisive, even bordering on the obscene.
The Leave campaign recognised that rational arguments would not be enough to sway voters, so it had no hesitation in pressing emotional buttons – English nativism, xenophobia, patriotism, and exceptionalism – with frequent appeals and outright falsehoods. These themes, beloved by the right-wing press, were hammered relentlessly.
The campaign became so unpleasant that many simply wanted it to end. While I had previously argued that four months was too short for an informed debate, it now felt interminable as emotions reached a fever pitch. A Neverendum, as it were.
I largely tuned out the official campaign, choosing instead to read substantive works like J.C. Piris’s If the UK Votes to Leave: The Seven Alternatives to EU Membership – Piris being one of the EU’s leading legal minds. Richard Barfield’ Brexit Fact Base was and remains an excellent resource. I also sought out blogs that fostered rational debate, especially Professor Richard Murphy’s Tax Research UK (now ‘Funding the Future’), which approaches economics from a Modern Monetary Theory perspective.
The lacklustre Remain campaign
In short, the Remain campaign was uninspired – Cameron’s so-called ‘Project Fear’ failed to energise voters, and Labour, led by the ‘Lexiter’ Corbyn, put forth only a tepid effort. The campaign’s heavy emphasis on economic risks may have worked during the Scottish Independence referendum, but it was ill-suited to the unique and emotional dynamics of Brexit. Cameron, accustomed to unwavering support from the right-wing media, was blindsided when they turned against him.
The Remain campaign warned of severe economic fallout if Brexit proceeded. However, because Brexit itself was so vaguely defined, many of these warnings – especially the threat of an Emergency Budget – lacked credibility. While Brexit was almost certain to harm the economy, its negative effects would unfold slowly, more like a gradual decline than a sudden crisis, leaving the UK lagging behind its EU neighbours. The only immediate and tangible impact of a Leave vote was likely to be a sharp fall in the value of the pound.
Ultimately, Remain failed to offer an inspiring vision or a positive narrative. One of the few exceptions was Gordon Brown’s speech at Coventry Cathedral, which powerfully reminded voters that the EU was fundamentally a peace project – not only across Europe but also within the UK, as EU membership was instrumental in enabling the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and removing borders. Another rare bright spot was Anna Soubry’s passionate advocacy for Freedom of Movement, although Cameron was quick to suppress her message.
The passionate and ingenuous Leave campaigns
Two distinct Leave campaigns shaped the referendum battle. The official Vote Leave campaign, orchestrated by Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings with Boris Johnson as its public face, aimed to appear ‘respectable’ and win over middle England. In contrast, Leave.EU – led by Aaron Banks, Andy Wigmore, and Richard Tice, and fronted by Nigel Farage – ran a relentlessly aggressive, anti-migrant campaign. Exploiting widespread confusion between Freedom of Movement and broader immigration, Leave.EU resorted to fearmongering tactics disturbingly reminiscent of fascist propaganda, pushing the debate into dangerous territory.
The Leave campaign was not wholly negative; a key part of its appeal lay in the seductive promise of a golden future outside the EU. Their vision was a kind of Mirror of Erised – each person saw their own dreams reflected, a future in which they were happier and more prosperous. The pledges were so fantastical that ‘unicorn’ became shorthand for impossible Brexit promises. I felt real sympathy for fishermen, who were sold the most extravagant fantasy of all: a glorious post-EU revival that was never going to materialise.
The official campaign launched with the now-infamous Brexit Bus proclaiming, “We send the EU £350 million a week; let’s fund our NHS instead,” accompanied by a slick, fanciful ‘before and after’ video. My wife – a senior ITU consultant and one of the few to have held the top two national leadership roles in intensive care – was outraged by this claim. In reality, EU citizens working in the NHS were typically younger and healthier. As patients, they were rare; as doctors and nurses, they were indispensable. She was adamant that the NHS would deteriorate rapidly post-Brexit, as many EU staff would likely return home and recruitment from Europe would dwindle.
Tory Remainers attempted to challenge the £350 million-per-week figure, but in doing so, they inadvertently amplified the message – an own goal. The figure was always misleading: the economic benefits of EU membership were, in reality, worth about ten times that amount.
Another low point came when Penny Mordaunt falsely claimed that Turkey was joining the EU and that the UK would be powerless to prevent it. This was a blatant and cynical lie – a textbook example of the old adage, “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on.” Instead of swiftly debunking this falsehood, the BBC allowed it to circulate unchecked for hours, only correcting it after the damage had been done – a grotesque dereliction of duty.
Towards the end of the campaign, I began noticing strange Leave.EU posts appearing on my Facebook timeline. I later learned these were part of an illegal microtargeting campaign orchestrated by AggregateIQ (AIQ). This covert tactic may well have tipped the balance in Leave’s favour, as it focused on ‘left behind’ and other likely Brexit-voting communities, intensifying the protest vote.
Another oddity was the appearance of a full wraparound pro-Brexit cover sponsored by the DUP in the Metro newspaper, which I saw on my commute into work on the Tyne and Wear Metro. The cost of such an ad far exceeded the DUP’s annual advertising budget, raising serious questions about the source of the so-called ‘dark money‘ that funded it.
The absolute nadir, for me, was Farage’s infamous Breaking Point poster, which cynically suggested that EU membership enabled mass, uncontrolled immigration from outside the EU. This was not just misleading – it was overtly racist and bore all the hallmarks of fascist propaganda at its most blatant.
Personal interactions
Despite the fire and fury of the Leave campaign and the ineptitude of Remain, I was struck by how nearly everyone in my immediate circles – academic colleagues, friends, sailing club members (Kielder), and even all the farmers in my rural Northumberland community– intended to vote Remain. The only exceptions were my brother-in-law and a handful of Lexiters I debated online, both groups unwavering in their support for Leave.
My brother-in-law, a loyal Telegraph reader and fervent supporter of ‘Take Back Control’ and later ‘Believe in Boris’ slogans, was utterly impervious to reasoned argument. I dutifully read the Daniel Hannan articles he sent me, but he seemed genuinely wounded when I dismissed them as lacking credibility – ‘ cloud cuckoo land stuff,’ often demonstrably false from the very first sentence. He ignored every source I recommended in return. In an attempt at humour, I appealed to my Irish Republican instincts: “What’s bad for England is good for Ireland. If Brexit creates an Irish Sea Border and brings a United Ireland a generation closer, I’m sold.” When I asked what would convince him to vote Remain, his answer was emphatic: “Nothing”.
Far more exasperating were the Lexiters. Although my online political presence in 2016 was limited, I engaged in debates on the TRUK blog, where Lexiters were adamant that the EU was a Hayekian Neoliberal construct and that leaving it would pave the way for a socialist nirvana. I argued, with growing alarm, that the tribalism fueling Leave made a far-right takeover vastly more likely – perhaps even inevitable. My warnings fell on deaf ears.
As the campaign wore on, my sense of dread deepened: I became increasingly convinced that Leave would triumph. I hoped, perhaps naively, that Jo Cox’s murder on 16 June might prompt a collective pause for reflection, but I doubted it would change the outcome. Among the TRUK blog community, there was a grim expectation that Cameron and Osborne would resign immediately following a Leave victory, leaving others to pick up the pieces. Theresa May was widely seen as the likely successor – not the worst option, but disastrous for the future of Freedom of Movement.
Final thoughts and election night
The referendum campaign was horrendous and pointed to a dystopian “post-truth” future where attractive lies would trump more mundane truths, and wedge issues would divide.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
W B Yeats: The Second Coming
As discussed in part 1, the outcome ultimately depended on the protest vote—those who, under the first-past-the-post system, felt completely disenfranchised and rarely, if ever, participated in elections. If these voters turned out in significant numbers, it would be enough to swing the result in favour of Leave.
On election night, I watched the BBC’s coverage and heard Iain Duncan Smith remark that, in 24 years of politics, he’d never seen such a high turnout on council estates. At that moment, hope all but vanished. I stayed up for the Newcastle result—narrowly Remain—and Sunderland’s dramatic swing to Leave. With that, it was clear: Leave had won. I went to bed. The next morning, I woke to a brilliant rainbow outside my window, mocking me as the 52:48 Leave result became reality.
In truth, I had expected a 60:40 vote in favour of Leave, and it was much closer than I expected. In some ways, 52:48 was worse, guaranteeing a divided country, which would take years, if not a generation, to heal.
Conclusion
Was Leave inevitable after the May 2015 general election delivered an unexpected Tory majority, as Steve Richards suggests in Turning Points? Or was it, in Nasseem Taleb’s terms, a Black Swan Event – a cascade of malign coincidences that exposed how the UK’s apparent stability and its vaunted ‘world-leading’ democracy were, in reality, fragile illusions?
Whatever the answer, Leave came as a shock to most – including many on the Leave side. Whitehall was utterly unprepared: Cameron considered a Leave result unthinkable and barred the civil service from making any contingency plans.
Was it, as I would argue, a ‘Frauderendum’ – or was it truly ‘the will of the people’? Millions of Leave voters were usually politically disengaged. They seldom, if ever, voted, yet saw Leave as a moment of glory: a great victory and an act of national liberation. For them, the meaning of Leave was crystal clear – they had ‘taken back control’ and felt ‘Free at Last!’
Would industrial-scale lying and cheating, foreign interference, particularly from the US and Russia, be an issue? Would the referendum stand scrutiny? If so, could the country be healed, and would parliament be up to the task? Would the far-right seize a Leave victory to take control of the agenda?
Perhaps most crucially, how would the EU and the wider world respond? Would Brexit trigger a domino effect, leading to the EU’s collapse and Ireland – still seen by some as dependent on the UK – being the first to fall? In the revolutionary fervour of ‘Independence Day,’ as Farage proclaimed, had a new dawn broken and the UK’s destiny of greatness finally been fulfilled? Or would reality prove otherwise?
The series continues with “A House Divided against Itself Cannot Stand.”
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
