There are two reasons to read this article by Liam Halligan. He calls out the British government’s blatant attempts to manipulate the Brexit vote. This is also one of the best written pieces you’ll ever find in the blogosphere. From Halligan at telegraph.co.uk:
Earlier this month, the government published a leaflet strongly urging us to vote “Remain” in the European Union – and sent it to all 27m UK households.
Not only did the multi-million pound cost of producing and distributing this leaflet undermine the carefully-negotiated spending rules relating to the referendum on June 23, designed to stop the campaign becoming a money-driven free-for-all.
The text itself was blatant propaganda – full of statistical sleights of hand disguised as reasoned arguments, a master-class in passive aggressive manipulation. It turns out, though, this tawdry leaflet was just the start when it comes to “Remain” using taxpayer cash and “the government machine” to bolster its cause.
For last week, Chancellor George Osborne launched a thumping 200-page “Treasury study” into the long-term implications of leaving the EU, which “forecast a £4,300 fall in GDP per household” if we leave For many millions of voters, that’s a scary number – around a quarter of today’s average disposable income.
Once again, this huge Treasury document represents a clear breach of long-standing rules that Whitehall remains detached from political campaigning, rules of particular relevance during a knife-edge referendum contest. And, reading through it, one is constantly stuck by the grotesque extent to which, for all the scientific pretence, the “analysis” is deliberately skewed.
The sole purpose of this “sober and serious” text, there can be no doubt, was to produce one conclusion – an alarming headline “finding” which, however dubious, can be repeated again and again in the weeks to come, until it lodges in the public consciousness.
Rather than Her Majesty’s Treasury, this document could have been produced by Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Unusually for a newspaper pundit, perhaps, I’m a trained economist. And in all my many years of studying official economic documents – budgets, comprehensive spending reviews and the like – through all that sifting and weighing of fine-print, I’ve never come across methodology and assumptions so blatantly rigged.
A few months ago, it seemed the government, and the broader Remain camp, would focus their campaign on public “security” concerns. Much was made of the role of the EU in keeping us safe from terrorists. There were frequent references to “a resurgent Russia” wanting Brexit.
Former M16 Boss Sir Richard Dearlove, and others, put paid to that. Our security and peace over the last half century has stemmed not from the EU, but from Nato. The UK is one of the “five eyes”, sharing serious intelligence only with the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Senior security figures privately deride EU intelligence sharing as “limited”, given the inherent lack of trust.
That’s why Sir Richard said the security costs of Brexit would be “low” and there could even be “positive benefits” – given enhanced border controls and extradition powers the UK could introduce outside the EU. The Government now seems determined to scare voters away from Brexit by posing threats to their economic security instead.
To continue reading: A pro-EU ‘study’ straight from the Ministry of Truth
