,
40 tweets,
15 min read
Read on Twitter
Last week I looked into a montage that the @BBCPolitics had used to argue people knew a vote to leave meant leaving the Single Market.
It didn’t hold water, but there is always the possibility that people would hear what was said and assume.
It didn’t hold water, but there is always the possibility that people would hear what was said and assume.
So based on the Andrew Marr argument that “You can’t say people didn’t know”, I looked at the behaviour of politicians after the vote in that context.
For example, this was Chris Grayling saying “No, we’ve just voted to leave the Single Market”.
For example, this was Chris Grayling saying “No, we’ve just voted to leave the Single Market”.
I learned from the Andrea Leadsom prime ministerial campaign that although we are almost certainly leaving the Single Market, she almost certainly hadn’t thought it through, and it was almost certainly not that certain we would be leaving the Single Market.
David Cameron, unaware that everybody thinks we had just voted to leave the Single Market, told parliament 3 times that we could be a member of the Single Market but everybody was too polite to tell him. (I assume they hate conflict in the House of Commons)
So polite is British politics, in fact, that Michael Gove became a cofounder of an organisation set up to “propose” that the government do what everybody just voted to do in the way everybody knows it will be done.
Which is, obviously, completely normal in any democracy.
Which is, obviously, completely normal in any democracy.
It was apparently the case that, even though everybody knew that we were leaving the Single Market because Boris Johnson said so, nobody actually knew if Boris Johnson wanted to leave the Single Market. 
Boris didn’t even know if Boris wanted to leave the Single Market.
Or at least, somebody told him to tell nobody in case anybody found out what everybody knew.
Or at least, somebody told him to tell nobody in case anybody found out what everybody knew.
And I found George Osborne acting like he was at the end of #MontageGate (Part 1): As if Membership of the Single Market is on the table, discussing parliament having an active role.
Something that seemed like a good idea at the time and seems a bloody good idea in hindsight.
Something that seemed like a good idea at the time and seems a bloody good idea in hindsight.
Stephen Phillips resigned because, despite the fact he definitely voted to leave knowing that we would be leaving the Single Market, he didn’t actually know that we’d be leaving the Single Market.
Owen “Everything changed after the referendum” Paterson turned up in the BBC studios to say he couldn’t see why we could not have a brake on the Freedom of Movement that we wouldn't have because we wouldn't be in the Single Market (which everybody knew).
Some in the EU said we couldn’t have “what we voted not to have”. Iain Duncan Smith said we should save time by not asking for “what we voted not to have”, and Bernard Jenkin and Andrew Neil said we should make “what we voted not to have” part of our initial negotiating position.
David Davis said Single Market membership was improbable, Frank Field was wondering if we were going to have membership, Nigel Lawson said we should respect the rules of the Single Market, and Kate Hoey suggested people should be told we could not be members of the Single Market.
But after October those same people saying: Both sides said, both sides said, both side said, both sides said, and now, apparently, it would be patronising to tell people we cannot be members of the Single Market.
There is also a new feature “The Customs Union”. Frank Field said it was never in question. Although technically it was a question on the survey written by Change Britain, that Frank Field co-founded, under the question about membership of the Single Market.
In fact, it was definitely a question, because when the Remain campaign were distributing literature stipulating the EEA was an option, Vote Leave were distributing a formal document saying that leaving the Customs Union, FoM, and the ECJ were purely options for government.
That is where the argument started, nut it actually wasn’t long before “It’s not for Vote Leave to tell future governments what to do” became a select number of people arguing “They must do as we said”.
It is an argument that then becomes “both sides” in October 2016.
It is an argument that then becomes “both sides” in October 2016.
The “David Cameron and George Osborne” part of that argument is so unique it can tracked from a Pepe the Frog account to the time it begins to get traction, when it first appears in parliament, it’s first mainstream media appearance, and then when politicians began to lie.
Then the BBC lies. Going from: ‘Do we join the Single Market’, ‘Not everybody voted to leave the Single Market’, ‘Boris wasn’t clear’. To: ‘We have to leave the Single Market’, ‘everybody voted to leave it’, ‘Boris was explicit’, ‘I don’t believe you if you say you didn’t know’.
Interestingly, having been asked on multiple occasions about membership of the Single Market, the government only begin to use the “Both sides said” argument until it has formally announced it is planning to leave.
Notably, if the government do not believe what they have said, they have lied to committee, the House of Commons and the House of Lords and this is a bit awkward.
Then again, it is just as awkward if it did believe this.
splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017…
Then again, it is just as awkward if it did believe this.
splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017…
And since the government estimate that this policy means a difference of £30,000,000,000 to our economy, if they are justifying their position with out of context clips from a Pepe the Frog account, I think this story can be justified as a “Gate”.
But that isn’t the only thing I found:
The “Leave said” argument wasn’t predominant before the montage, and the use of it helped reinforce the notion of a single Brexit: “The one people voted for”. (The implicit one that Vote Leave explicitly said we were not voting for)
The “Leave said” argument wasn’t predominant before the montage, and the use of it helped reinforce the notion of a single Brexit: “The one people voted for”. (The implicit one that Vote Leave explicitly said we were not voting for)
Probably made worse by 'due impartiality', an example of which is when everyone knows the Norway option exists, but then politicians lie and say “that isn't leaving the EU” and the BBC amplify those lies and gives their bullshit credibility instead of holding them to account.
They then argue that someone isn’t saying something they are definitely saying by showing a partial quote and omitting vital context, while lying and saying it is the full quote in the full context.
At the same time continuing to source propaganda from the internet and presenting it out of context, despite having a team who do lots of research who should probably check the things they got from the internet.
And consistently repeating the propaganda, or just repeating the lie, that it was clear that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the Single Market until the government announce their decision.
While not necessarily giving equal time to the other side of the argument.
(The Dan Hannan clips isn’t technically pro-EEA, but it’s the first time I can find them acknowledging Vote Leaver weren’t clear since the middle of October. I really is very thin)
(The Dan Hannan clips isn’t technically pro-EEA, but it’s the first time I can find them acknowledging Vote Leaver weren’t clear since the middle of October. I really is very thin)
OK, so I don't think I will ever understand how "due impartiality" is supposed to work, but the BBC combining those words with the 'Pepe propaganda' and then using words like “thwart” demonstrated they had learnt absolutely nothing about use of language that year.
Politicians supporting a perfectly acceptable outcome of a vote to leave were being basically being cast as traitors, and this has proved negative going forward.
Because an argument built on sand can shift, and this one did. The Single Market went from being an immigration issue to being Remain, the Customs Union then also became Remain, and the deal "that made it clear we'd have to leave the Single Market"? That is Remain now too!
When in reality, the government tried to do exactly what it said it would do in the event of a vote to leave.
And as a result the Prime Minister was labelled a traitor.
The politicians did their job. They held the government to account for what they said they would do as a result of a vote to leave, and those MPs who eventually voted for the government's deal were also labelled traitors.
Even the speaker has been labelled a traitor.
And it's fair to say that now people are just losing their shit because the government is doing exactly what they said they would do if there was a vote to leave.
Something, I think, will only get worse because politicians aren’t going to openly admit they tried to subvert and pervert the democratic debate by trying to shut out the opinions of millions of voters.
People who show scant regard for the fact the internet never forgets....
The same disregard BBC Politics demonstrated when they were happy to adopt an argument from a piece of propaganda, and in doing so, whitewash months of their own debates.
And things will get worse until our institutions learn to reject convenient lies in favour of object truth. You can't lie the problems of Brexit away.
/End
#MontageGate
/End
#MontageGate
