Thread by @_mattwalker

For me, 2 photos stand out from the 2016 referendum campaign more than any others. They’re below. Boris Johnson standing in front of his big red bus, suggesting Brexit will mean £350 million a week more for the NHS. And Nigel Farage with his infamous ‘Breaking Point’ poster. /1

Brexit will NOT mean we have an extra £350 million a week, however. According to the IMF, the IFS, the Treasury, the G20 and the overwhelming majority of economists, it will actually damage the economy. /2

Consensus Economics (a global survey firm polling 700 economists) warns the economy would shrink between 2.2% & 9.1% depending on a hard or soft Brexit. The only way to avoid an economic recession is to remain in the customs union and free market (or remain in the EU). /3

Johnson’s Brexit deal does not do that. Our economy will suffer under Brexit, according to the experts. Our NHS would too, which is why the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing both back a second referendum. /4

Then we come to what was possibly the most dishonest piece of propaganda we saw during the referendum. Nigel Farage standing in front of a line of SYRIAN refugees, with the caption “We must break free of the EU and take back control”. /5

Syria is not part of the EU, and Syrian refugees cannot use the EU free movement directive to move here. This poster was an example of pure wilful deceit.

Free movement comes with strict conditions. /6

A Member State can “refuse an EU national the right of entry or residence on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” And an EU citizen must after three months either have a job, or “sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s /7

social assistance system, and... sickness insurance.” (Directive 2004/38/EC) Otherwise they must leave. The idea that millions of Eastern Europeans can come to Britain and live on benefits is, again, wilful deceit and propaganda. /8

Then we have the ‘unelected bureaucrats making our laws’ argument. Aside from the fact that we elect MEPs to the European Parliament, and that we have ourselves an unelected Head of State, unelected House of Lords and a Prime Minister voted for by only 0.13% of the population, /9

of all laws passed by the EU since 1999 British ministers voted against just 2% of them. We can also veto certain laws, including those pertaining to foreign affairs, taxation, justice and the EU budget.

 /10

The fourth routinely cited argument is the following: “It’s democracy!” Yes, fine, except the country no longer wants Brexit. YouGov analysis of 300 surveys is pretty clear. Since July 2017, 204/226 polls have Remain ahead (with 7 for Leave, 15 ties). /11

In 2019 it’s 74/75 in favour of Remain. 2 million people have died since the 2016 referendum, most of them over 65. As 60% of over 65s voted leave, it has been estimated that between 700,000 and 800,000 leave voters have died. /12

Now consider that over 2 million people have reached the voting age of 18 since the referendum, and that three quarters of 18-24 year-olds voted to remain... it is clear. Brexit is no longer the will of the people. /13

Except the vote on December 12th is not a second Brexit referendum. It is general election. So let’s talk about the past nine years. Let’s talk about austerity.

But the Tories have had to balance the books! Well, let’s look at the evidence. /14

Firstly, there’s a very important difference between national debt and the deficit. A country’s national debt is not necessarily the best way to review economic policy. Britain’s debt is about 86% of GDP, which is sizable, but not unusual.  /15

Japan’s debt is currently 253% of GDP. Italy 123%. United States 105%. Germany 62%. France 99%. The difference between national debt and any of our household debts (and the reason we shouldn’t be overly alarmed at this seemingly alarming number) is because the majority of /16

this national ‘debt’ is money owed to the central bank, i.e. money we owe ourselves.

So it is unhelpful, with regards to economic policy, to point out that the national debt has risen under the Tories. It has, of course, but that doesn’t give a fair or accurate reflection. /17

What we need to look at is the DEFICIT - How much money the government spends compared to how much money it has coming in.

I hear an argument brought up constantly. It goes thus: “Labour spends too much money and then the Conservatives have to come in and sort it out.” /18

It does not, however, stand up to scrutiny. Look at the blue graph, showing UK historical deficits. The UK was in surplus until the mid 70s, when the global recession hit due to the oil crisis. /19

Conservative Edward Heath was Prime Minister at the start of the recession – does that mean he was responsible for the global oil crisis, or the subsequent power cuts? A deficit followed, all through Wilson and Callaghan (Labour) and then most of Thatcher (Tory), who endured /20

another global recession. The UK were in surplus for a few years at the turn of the 90s, but then Black Wednesday happened in 1993, when the UK had to withdraw from the Exchange Rate Mechanism. /21

You can see the deficit spike in the graph. This was caused by John Major’s (Tory) government economic policies, and almost led to his resignation. The deficit was then eradicated by Tony Blair (Labour). /22

Then of course we have another huge spike in 2010, but this was a worldwide recession, a crash caused by unregulated free market capitalism (the main reason the EU have since tightened fiscal regulations). /23

To say that Labour caused the global crash (which began two years before with the US subprime mortgage crisis) is absurd. /24

So, the UK had a massive – and worrying deficit – and the Coalition government vowed to sort it out. And, you know what? They did. Took longer than promised, but they did it. They’ve eradicated the deficit. So three cheers to the Tories, yes? Not quite. /25

Undoubtedly, the deficit was unmanageable and needed reducing. It’s actually very easy to do, if you’re just prepared to cut everything. But the extreme austerity implemented by this government over the past nine years has come at a terrible cost. /26

Record homeless. Record food bank use. Mortality rate UP for the first time in decades. Life expectancy down. Crime up, police numbers down. Record NHS waiting times. Severe, chronic underfunding of our vital services. /27

But not everyone suffered. The poorest suffered the most. The rich got richer. In April 2013, George Osborne cut taxes for the richest 1% of the population (from 50p to 45p for over £150,000). That represented a staggering £14 BILLION. /28

Whilst our services were getting cut, the government gave £14 billion to the richest 1% in our society. They LITERALLY took money from the poor and gave it to the rich. /29

It led the United Nations to conclude in a report on UK austerity that “Austerity could easily have spared the poor, if the political will had existed to do so... but the political choice was made to fund tax cuts for the wealthy instead.” (Philip Alston, Statement on visit /30

to the United Kingdom)

And such an austere programme was not necessary anyway. It was actually detrimental to economic growth, as Chart 2 shows. But then again Osborne has a degree in Modern History, NOT economics.
/31

Chart 2, sourced from the IMF, shows the following correlation: greater austerity results in LESS GDP growth.  According to the Centre for Macroeconomics, two thirds of economists disagreed with the proposition that austerity has had a “positive effect” on the economy. /32

Andrew Gamble, former professor of economics and the founder and director of the Political Economy Research Centre, wrote in 2015: “Most macroeconomists now agree that the austerity programme pursued by the Coalition /33

Government in its 1st 2 years was both too severe and unnecessary and set back the economic recovery"

The disaster of the last nine years was not necessary. It was political ineptitude at the highest level, resulting in over a hundred thousand deaths and millions in poverty. /34

Brexit will make things even worse.

WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS TORY GOVERNMENT, for the future of our country. /35

Unfortunately, populism is a curious beast, and this Prime Minister, sacked twice for lying, this “letterboxes, picanninnies, bumboys” bumbling manchild is still ahead in the polls.
/36

The only way we can defeat the Tories is to VOTE TACTICALLY. Vote for whichever party (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Green, whichever) is most likely to win your constituency seat.

If you’re a lifelong Lib Dem supporter /37

and you have to vote Labour even though you hate Corbyn, you hold your nose and you do it. The Remain vote is split. If we vote for who we want, we all lose. It’s time to vote with your head. Stop the Conservatives, stop Brexit, save Britain. /38 END