,
7 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Ken Clarke nailed the problem of not defining the Leave option back in 2015 when the referendum legislation was debated in parliament: "What does out mean?" (Note the incredulous head-shaking from John Redwood when Clarke talks about the WTO option.)
Clarke concluded by saying we need a question and campaign that was absolutely clear, warning that a vote to Leave would be "a fanciful escapist route into isolated nationalism which would greatly diminish our influence in the world and greatly damage our economy."
Clarke took an intervention from Brexiteer @OwenPaterson who insisted he was an "enthusiastic proponent" of the "European market". Paterson has since become a No Dealer, proving Clarke's point that his position was an absurdity to begin with.
@OwenPaterson A few days later, Clarke made a prescient comment about how naïve it was to expect the referendum campaign to be conducted rationally based on evidence.
@OwenPaterson A footnote: at the time of these debates, @PhilipHammondUK was the Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary introducing the legislation. Hammond mocked Clarke for pointing out that sovereignty and political integration featured heavily in the 1975 referendum campaign.
@OwenPaterson @PhilipHammondUK Hammond feigned ignorance about the 1975 referendum campaign, but he was literally in the room for the main televised debate that took place at the Oxford Union a few days before the vote and featured Peter Shore and Barbara Castle facing off against Jeremy Thorpe and Ted Heath. 
@OwenPaterson @PhilipHammondUK .@PhilipHammondUK would have seen Ted Heath arguing that the real issue was not about trade but about moving beyond the level of organisation of the nation state. This makes a mockery of Hammond's argument in 2015.
