,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
“Stephen Crabb, former cabinet minister, said some of his Brexiter colleagues were being “deeply, deeply irresponsible” because they were making people think a no-deal Brexit would be acceptable”. This also explain an underexplored part of the ref. /1 gu.com/p/agdgx/stw
One of the main problems was that successive governments, Conservative and Labour, has underplayed the importance of the EU, tried to sideline it in debate or hide it under the carpet. Cameron set every interaction up as a 'battle', stoking the UK v EU myth. /2
In the referendum, for Cameron to then turn around and say that the UK needs to remain rang very hollow, as well as putting off anyone who did not want to be seen as allied to a Conservative government or wanting to give him an electoral kicking. /3
For the same government/PM to argue that leaving would be very bad also rang hollow, because if it was so bad - why on earth put it on a referendum ballot and make it even an option? /4
I don't like the term 'Project Fear'. 'Remain' had to argue for the status quo of EU membership and it is therefore natural to suggest what the consequences of the alternative (leaving) would be. But it does capture something about 'we give you this choice but don't use it..' /5
This is why any talk of 'no deal' beyond the extreme fringes is serious: it normalises it as an option, whereas no-one would have suggested it in 2016. And with a population rightly bored of Brexit, no wonder a significant group think that it would not make a difference. /6
Over the last 48 hours I have seen countless tweets, Vox pops etc which all point to either the us v them narrative (and we don't want to know where that leads when things get tough) or the 'nothing will change'. Crabb is right that MPs who do this are playing with fire. /END
