Thread by @EmporersNewC

1. OK, John, since you’ve asked this question, let me try to explain this issue.

2. In their application Vote Leave made it clear they weren’t seeking to set out future relationship with the EU, but instead their “sole purpose” was to campaign to leave the European Union and maximise voter participation and turnout.

3. The application also states that the campaign will represent smaller groups. That the full range of options arguing for a ‘Leave’ outcome deserve to be heard, and they have to be heard for a successful outcome.

That all their concerns are ‘legitimate’ and ‘equally valid’.

4. It goes on to add GO and Leave.EU into the groups that “deserve to be heard and have to be heard for a successful outcome”.

5. Leave.EU were at some point pushing for a Norway model but without Freedom of Movement. Something they believed was possible.

6. They also include BeLeave who were tweeting we wouldn’t leave the Single Market as this retweet by Brexit supporting MP Marcus Fysh shows.

7. The Vote Leave application also refer to the Bruges group, who Vote Leave say they have ‘a very close constructive engagement’ with, and who included the Norway option as a possible outcome in their FAQ of June 21st.

8. Another campaign listed is Labour Leave, a group Vote Leave said had a “broader divergence of views”, and who tweeted about the Norway model as part of their campaign.

9. And in the additional campaigners were also Dr Richard North who was supporting the Flexcit model.

10. With a large collection of groups making contradictory remarks about the Single Market who had “to be heard for a successful outcome”, it would be undemocratic for Vote Leave campaigners to suddenly claim their view was definitive, or even clear.

11. Vote Leave campaign requested and received no remit to determine our future direction. Meaning that people like Michael Gove could only say what ‘should’ happen, which, incidentally, is exactly all he did.

12. And this is why the Prime Minister made a clear distinction between Vote Leave saying we were going to Leave and what was actually going to happen, in his major speech May 9, 2016

13. It was made clear on news programmes, such as BBC Newsnight, that it would not be Vote Leave deciding our future, but officials, ministers, and MPs.

14. Any scholar of democracy knows, that in democratic theory, the technical term for the political weight that a statement of conjecture carries, such as the one Boris Johnson made here, is actually: “Damn all”.

15. Even the “mini-manifesto”, the formal framework agreement sent to the press, was not on the ballot paper, and when Michael Gove was questioned on this, he stated these were only things that ‘could’ happen.

16. And this goes for the Remain campaign’s ability to determine the future relationship too. Multiple views were held about what position we would take if we leave. The Remain campaign did not, and could not, speak for all Remainers.

17. If the Leave campaign had any greater remit it would have resulted in the Electoral Commission deciding our future relationship, this would have been a massive subversion of our democratic system.

18. How we were to choose our future trade relationship was detailed in the documentation produced as part of the Referendum Act 2015.

Section 7 (1)(b) required the government to provide a list of possibly countries that were outside the EU and their various trade-offs.

19. This resulted in a document detailing the Norwegian, Swiss, Turkey, and WTO models with the trade-offs the government would have to be considering.

20. In both in the introduction and the conclusion of that document, it is explicitly specified that these trade-offs will be decided by the government after a vote to leave.

(Who are both democratically elected and accountable, unlike the campaigns)

21. To back this up, everyone in the country was sent a leaflet making it clear of the trade-offs that were mentioned in the document.

22. The Treasury impact reports also refer to this document, and indicate it could lead to Freedom of Movement, and that was the policy of the government before the country entered Purdah on May 27. (As per the Referendum Act 2015)

23. Michael Gove also referred to these models in his ‘Major speech’ in a section explaining that “Once we vote to leave we decide the terms of trade”.

24. This is consistent with the Vote Leave director Bernard Jenkin’s speech to King’s College London. He declared the Single Market as just a detail, and that we could tell them how to trade with the rest of the EU after we leave.

25. It is consistent with Vote Leave director Graham Stringer who said that we were not voting for “one particular model, but the freedom to decide what we want to do”.

26. Consistent with Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Liam Fox who stated there was no prospectus and people were voting to give future government’s greater choice on the actions they could pursue if they wanted.

27. Consistent with Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Dan Hannan who suggested that all of the models had tariff free trade and what we keep and how far we stayed in would be for a government to negotiate.

28. Consistent with Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Frank Field who said he didn’t accept we wouldn’t be in the Single Market.

29. Consistent with Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Chris Grayling who suggested that there were multiple ways to trade and cited Turkey as an example of how we could come to a solution.

30. Consistent with David Campbell Bannerman MEP Co-Chair for Conservatives for Britain, and someone who Vote Leave described as ‘key personnel’.

David wrote that “the agreement on what is the best form of association will follow the referendum and a Brexit result”.

31. Consistent with Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Andrea Leadsom who said she believed we’d leave the Single Market but she wasn’t saying how we’d operate and we’d discuss it “one we get to the other side of June, 23“

32. Consistent with Vote Leave’s Graham Simpson MSP who said that the EEA was a good option if parliament should vote for it, and not to worry about immigration because the Prime Minister could “pick and choose”.

33. Consistent with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor who both said we’d be out, but we might negotiate our way back in.

34. Consistent with Remain campaigner Wes Streeting MP’s belief that parliament would almost certainly get a say.

35. Consistent with the nature of the interviews immediately before and after June, 23, conducted by respected journalists such as Jonathan Dimbleby and Evan Davis.

36. Consistent with an interview with the Prime Minister gave where the context was how he, as Prime Minister, would interpret the result after a vote to leave

37. Consistent with a Prime Minister who had resigned and made it clear he would not interpret the vote, and it was a matter for the Prime Minister and the parliament.

38. It is consistent with the polls before and directly after June, 23.

39. And consistent with the print media directly before and after June, 23.

40. Consistent with the Freedom of Movement debate during the campaign including people such as Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Frank Field, the Remain campaign’s George Osborne, and “the most trusted man on Brexit” Martin Lewis.

41. Consistent with an ex-Vote Leave chairman Lord Lawson arguing we need to ‘respect the edict’ of the Single Market and GO founder Kate Hoey saying we need to tell people we can’t be a member of it.

42. Consistent with Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Frank Field suggesting we could leverage our deficit to gain membership of the Single Market and Vote Leave Campaign Committee member Iain Duncan Smith saying we shouldn’t attempt to get membership for an efficient exit.

43. Consistent with the Secretary of State for leaving the EU declaring all of those models as ‘market outcomes’ again....and again....and again.

44. And on the basis that no campaign had a remit and it was clearly stated by both sides that our trade policy would be decided after the vote, then it must be made by our government with the meaningful involvement of a parliament of the people. As it was always intended.

/End