UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
R.M.F wrote: "The EU, to my mind, is a bureaucratic monstrosity, actively sucking the democracy out of Europe, an enemy to everybody who believes in liberty and democracy. Re-visiting the treaty of Rome, Lisbon, and Maastricht deals, it struck me how blatant and honest they were about their insidious goals..."Can something be both insidious blatant and honest all at the same time? (asking for a friend)
As to notions of journalistic integrity, there is no such thing as a neutral, objective newspaper. They are corporations with shareholders or oligarch owners to satisfy, which means there is a news agenda and slant that has to be met in some way. That means there were non-objective papers for Remain and non-objective papers for Leave. The slow 30 year bandwagon for Brexit received its impetus from Boris Johnson's reports back from Brussels for the Telegraph about the curvature of bananas and other made up stories of EU regimentation of our consumer lives, taken up with alacrity by Express & Daily Mail. Boris Johnson who was fired by the Telegraph for making up stories.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Lots of leaders say lots of things, most of which don't happen."Well I hope that's correct about Juncker 's latest fundraising idea of charging non Schengen entry of €50 entry and exit. I can see that bringing in a lot of needed revenue for France etc. But I can't see people going back time and time again and it's commerces and people not Eurocrats who will be bankrupt.
Marc wrote: "As to notions of journalistic integrity, there is no such thing as a neutral, objective newspaper. They are corporations with shareholders or oligarch owners to satisfy, which means there is a news..."Euro-skeptics were around in the UK long before Boris Johnson rolled into town. My elderly father, 80 years old, is living proof of this.
Ever since June 23rd, I don't think I've seen him this happy in years.
Marc wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "The EU, to my mind, is a bureaucratic monstrosity, actively sucking the democracy out of Europe, an enemy to everybody who believes in liberty and democracy. Re-visiting the treaty of..."Ever closer closer political union. The European project, such rights (free speech, freedom of assembly) to be changed if deemed appropriate by member states...
and so on and so on...
It scared the hell out of the me, and the five presidents report was the final straw...
"It's funny. I could write almost the same speech from the other perspective.The EU is a democratically elected organisation which promotes trade and peace across Europe. It is a friend to everybody who believes in liberty and democracy. It has championed workers' rights, equalities, the protection of the individual and the balance between economy, environment and society. Revisiting the treaty of Rome, Lisbon and Maastricht it struck me how honest they were about their policy goals."
I think there was a guy called Keir Hardie who used to champion workers' rights, long before the EU was created...
"When I reflect on the forces that were aligned against the Remain voters: the blatant lies in just about every claim, the racism of Farage, the antics of Boris Johnson, the "we don't listen to experts any more" scheming of Gove, all aided and abetted by a media that has long surrendered any notions of journalistic integrity, well ..."
I could take any general election since 1707, or the EEC referendum from 1973, and showcase a whole collection of lies from both sides...
Politicians lying does not invalidate a campaign. Remain gave as good as they got..
R.M.F wrote: "Marc wrote: "As to notions of journalistic integrity, there is no such thing as a neutral, objective newspaper. They are corporations with shareholders or oligarch owners to satisfy, which means th..."that's not the point, of course there were anti-EU folk from when we joined. But a sustained campaign to persuade the British public to leave the Eu started in the 80s.
Here's where I have a problem with Will's argument:'The EU has championed Worker's rights'
Most of the rights were already in UK law, and a number of them are more generous than the EU granted. The EU has done nothing to protect those vunerable to abuse who have been viciously attacked by Osborne.
'It has championed the balance between economy, society and the environment'
Tell that to the youth in Greece, or the elderly, both of whom are being driven in extremes of poverty by the EU.
'It is a democratically elected institution'.
No, it isn't. The Parliament is: but it cannot initiate any legislation, only argue if they don't like it until it is presented back to them to rubber stamp. The Commissioners are appointed, not elected. Did you vote for Neil Kinnock's sinecure? I didn't have an invitation to do so. Nor did any of us vote for Junker the tax evader to become a President. Until the officials elected by the citizens are the ones who initiate legislation, it is not a democratic organisation.
It promotes trade: Does it? On what terms? Let's not forget that TTIP was being agreed by the bureacrats of Brussels until one MEP braved the wrath of Junker and leaked the details to a horrified people, who were being denied any transparency in the deal. Only then did we find out how the much vaunted deal would make US corporations more powerful than our governments.
And on Remain's basic honesty, Will: do you recall Osborne stating as 'FACT' that BREXIT would cost every household £ 4300?When this actually turned out to be a projection that growth might be lower after Brexit to the tune of £ 4300 in five years time, if all the negative conditions prevailed?
Easily as misleading as the £350 million figure, which at least had a basis in fact somewhere. (Although using it in the way Leave did was still wrong.)
That 350 million was never per week as I've seen quoted again and again in refuting the figures - if you look at the bus it says 350 million, even if the figure is wrong trotting out the argument that it was weekly is 52 times more wrong.
Will wrote: "Dig up some more like that please. The more that people understand the economic realities of Brexit, the better chance we have of surviving the next few months and years. ..."
And he made another important point
"My suspicion is that the same thing is happening here. Economists have very good reasons to believe that Brexit will do bad things in the long run, but are strongly tempted to sex up their arguments by making very dubious claims about the short run. And the fact that so many respectable people are making these dubious claims makes them seem well-reasoned when they aren’t."
And then they wonder why people dismissed the opinions of 'experts'
Because they could see they had become players in the game rather than providing expert advice
Will wrote: "championed workers' rights,..."tell that to the young people of southern Europe who have no hope of a job in the near future
TTIP was being negotiated by the bureaucrats of Brussels and France has been against it from the very start. The idea that this one brave MEP saved us from being under the cosh of US businesses is daft.There are many reasons why Greece is currently buggered, many of which have nothing to do with the EU... like hosting the Olympics in 2004 and having absurd levels of corruption.
Many of the laws that the UK had for protecting workers were introduced to comply with EU standards.
Will wrote: "And on Remain's basic honesty, Will: do you recall Osborne stating as 'FACT' that BREXIT would cost every household £ 4300?When this actually turned out to be a projection that growth might be lo..."
Ah, no. This is what Osborne actually said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
A short extract:
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
In other words, he made it perfectly clear how the figure had been arrived at. It was a median figure and not a worst-case scenario. The calculations were laid out in a publicly available document.
And that is still the best and most reliable estimate we have of the cost of Brexit. Compare that with the wholly fictitious £350 million a week figure, and we can easily see which campaign was open and factual and which was dealing in lies.
I know it makes for a good story that both sides were equally dishonest. But it simply isn't true. The Remain campaign's analysis was published in a 90 page Treasury report explaining exactly how it was calculated. The £350 million was added up on the back of a fag packet. It is nothing more sophisticated than the UK's most recent gross contributions divided by 52 - taking no account of wider impacts on the economy of Brexit.
The two figures are in no way comparable.
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "championed workers' rights,..."tell that to the young people of southern Europe who have no hope of a job in the near future"
How much worse off would they have been without the EU?
But hang on a minute - the Leave campaign wants to stop immigration. They don't want the freedom of movement that is a part of the core principles of the EU. If you really care about the young people of southern Europe, you should be fighting for their right to move to a country which actually needs young immigrants to balance an ageing workforce.
And let's deal with some of the other claims."The EU isn't democratically elected". Oh yes it is. It has a democratically elected Parliament and Commissioners appointed by the member states who are themselves democratically elected. Yes, it has civil servants. But then so does the UK. And every other Government.
"The Remain campaign lied as much as Leave." Nope. Not even close. The Remain campaign had the civil service to help them. An unfair advantage, perhaps, but it kept them honest.
"The EU hasn't helped ... " We don't know what would have happened to that struggling country if the EU hadn't been there to help them out. Would they have been better off or worse off without the EU? It is a nonsense to point to Greece or Italy and say that their economy "proves" that the EU isn't a good thing.
"The UK invented workers' rights before the EU." So what? The main reason that the Tory right wing want to get out of the EU is because they want freedom of trade and a reduction in workers' rights.
"Experts have been exaggerating the short term economic impacts." It depends which newspaper you read. Pro-Brexit papers like the Telegraph or Mail do exaggerate to make their point. More reasonable papers like the Times and Independent online are more balanced.
one main reason Greece is screwed is that it should never have been admitted into the Eurozone not really meeting several of the requirements, but that was finessed away by the EU to allow it to enter
That was an incredible decision. Britain couldn't meet the fiscal requirements under Gordon Brown but Greece could. It was a farce. I like 'finessed' away, It sounds so much better than fiddled.
Will wrote: "But hang on a minute - the Leave campaign wants to stop immigration. ..."please note, the leave campaign is not synonymous with leave voters
I would suggest the vast majority of leave voters had decided to vote leave long before the referendum, and the antics of the leave campaign are an irrelevance. I didn't vote leave with the aim of stopping immigration, immigration wasn't an issue, as it wasn't for a lot of other leave voters.
Will wrote: ""The UK invented workers' rights before the EU." So what? The main reason that the Tory right wing want to get out of the EU is because they want freedom of trade and a reduction in workers' rights..."And the left as personified by Jeremy Corbyn wanted to get out because they want the reduction in workers rights?
Marc wrote: "one main reason Greece is screwed is that it should never have been admitted into the Eurozone not really meeting several of the requirements, but that was finessed away by the EU to allow it to enter"Absolutely, a really stupid decision. Along with the decision to not actually impose the various stages of fiscal discipline on other member states because it would have been politically embarassing
Will wrote: " More reasonable papers like the Times and Independent online are more balanced. ..."no, pro-remain papers like the Times etc
The media were players in this, they were not mere reporters
Jim wrote: "please note, the leave campaign is not synonymous with leave votersI would suggest the vast majority of leave voters had decided to vote leave long before the referendum, and the antics of the leave campaign are an irrelevance."
Bingo! That's the one I was waiting for. That shows the problem in a nutshell.
We know from the many polls that have been carried out that people voted leave for many different reasons.
Some like you, had a hatred of the EU which has been built up over many years. For them the Leave campaign confirmed what they already thought about the EU, but probably didn't change their decision one way of the other. For that matter, this group of people probably didn't pay any attention to the Remain campaign either.
We might disagree about whether this group of people had a rational reason for hating the EU or whether they were taken in by the constant EU bashing from the Tory press over many years. But let's park that one. We have identified one group of voters - the EU haters.
There were other groups of voters who had made their mind up before the campaign. The people who were opposed to all immigration. The Tory right wing who want to reduce workers' rights. Let's park them too.
Then there were the floating voters. The people who weren't sure. The ones who changed their mind as the campaigns unfolded. We know that there were huge numbers of these people because the polls showed that the vote moved massively during the campaigns:
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/
I ran a polling station for the full 15 hours on polling day. Many of the people who came in were confident about their vote. Some even told me what they were voting for. But some people who came in were not sure what to do even to the point when they went in the polling booth to mark an X in the box. They told me they hadn't made their minds up. They agonised over their decision.
This includes Jeremy Corbyn who I think was being totally honest when he said that he was about 70% for remaining in the EU. Labour have traditionally voted for the EU because of its support for workers' rights, equalities and the environment. But Corbyn being further to the left is unsure because of the EU's support for right wing policies like free trade.
You may be set in your views about the EU. You've made that abundantly clear. You have also recognised the problems with the Leave campaign - in your words "the antics of the leave campaign". But your point of view isn't the only point of view. We know that there are many people who were influenced by what you admit was a faulty campaign.
And if just some of those people had voted differently we could have had a different result.
That's the main problem here. We need to see this through other people's points of view. If we are going to reach what the Conservatives are calling "a national consensus" we shouldn't be so blinded by own feelings that we assume everyone thinks the same way that we do.
And we need to sift through the lies, the myths and the vague shadowy threats. Bananas. Turkey joining the EU. An undemocratic organisation. An EU army. £350 million a week to spend on NHS. When you look at this with any degree of dispassionate rigour you see how silly those claims are.
Ultimately what this country needs is to reach at least a 60/40 position with the public being given honest information. That's not going to happen while people are refusing to look at evidence or thinking that everyone else thinks the same way that they do.
maybe a minimum requirement of 60/40 either way should have been stipulated when the bill for the referendum was passed. It wasn't. Can't do it retrospectively.
We can't keep on rerunning referendums until one side gets the result they want. That would be silly and undemocratic.But equally we can't have a situation where we have a dodgy referendum like the one we have just had. A referendum ought to offer a clear choice. The information to the public should be accurate. There should be a clearly stated winning margin. We should all be able to accept the result, even if it wasn't the one we voted for.
We didn't get any of that. We still don't know what kind of Brexit we are going to get - a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit? The information provided to the public was woeful. There was no winning margin - any majority would do. Many of us can't accept the result because it is possible that an honest campaign would have produced a different verdict.
I would accept a remain verdict if it was the genuine will of the people following a reasonable campaign. But it wasn't.
So we shouldn't rerun the old referendum. It was rubbish then and it will be rubbish next time.
What we should do is to run a referendum for the next phase of the decision. We should get a vote on what kind of Brexit we want, with a full and impartial description of what each choice would mean - costs, risks, benefits, disadvantages. And the option of remaining should also be on the ballot paper with the same impartial description of what it would mean.
There would need to be a weighting mechanism so that the different options for leaving didn't split the leave vote and give remain an unfair advantage. That shouldn't be beyond the wit of man or woman.
Do that, and there is a chance that the majority of people will accept the decision. Whatever it is.
Do you mean the majority of the population or the majority of voters Will? The majority of voters have accepted the decision.:o)
Will wrote: "And if just some of those people had voted differently we could have had a different result..."
except the latest poll shows that more remain voters wish they'd voted leave than leave voters wished they'd voted remain
Will wrote: "We should get a vote on what kind of Brexit we want, with a full and impartial description of what each choice would mean - costs, risks, benefits, disadvantages. And the option of remaining should also be on the ballot paper with the same impartial description of what it would mean..."which is a total impossibility, as Brexit is something we will negotiate.
And the EU will only negotiate if we activate article 50
And if we activate article 50, negotiate and the EU doesn't give us the deal we apparently want, what do we do then, because we've already left.
This isn't the fault of whatever you class as the leave campaign, this is the fault of the EU commissioners
The problem Will, with not knowing what kind of Brexit we will get is because this is a new process. No country has triggered Article 50. No country thought they would when in was put in the treaty. The drafters of the treaty never thought it would be triggered and therefore didn't give it any thought. After all, why would you give consideration to something that would never happen. The complacency of the EU.
From my perspective, and the scale mentioned above, I am 35% in favour of being in the EU, hence my vote to leave. No, we are not EU haters. That is a very emotive term that doesn't have any place here.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Do you mean the majority of the polpulation or the majority of voters Will? The majority of voters have accepted the decision.:o)"Based on flawed information.
That's the problem. We will never know if the referendum would have reached the same verdict if the truth had been told. Except we can find out by having a referendum on the type of Brexit that we want, including the option of remain.
Aaah. truth, that depends on who was telling it too. It's negotiable these days
Jim wrote: "which is a total impossibility, as Brexit is something we will negotiate. "No. That's far too simplistic. There are some elements of Brexit which we can only achieve through negotiation and some elements we can decide right now.
It is true that we can't know the trade terms of Brexit until we start the negotiations with the other EU states. That's why the Leave campaign were telling porkies when they said that we could easily get a deal with free trade and no free movement of people. That is highly unlikely.
Even Davis and May can't agree on that, as we have seen when number 10 "corrected" Davis' statement in the Commons earlier this week.
But we can take decisions now about whether we want to prioritise the economy over immigration or the other way round. We can clear up the confusion about the economic impact and the cost to the NHS. We can say whether we are going to have a points based immigration system or not. Whether we are going to do a deal to stay in the single market or get out altogether. We can clear up myths like the bendy banana, EU army, Turkey et al which still seem to be doing the rounds.
It's not the fault of the commissioners. Article 50 was drafted and agreed by the member states. I can see why it was written the way that it was. The EU didn't want to be held to ransom by a state who was threatening to leave unless it was given a heap of concessions. It is in the EU's interest that a State has to formally leave before it can negotiate - although we all know that some informal negotiations are taking place.
You asked a great question: "And if we activate article 50, negotiate and the EU doesn't give us the deal we apparently want, what do we do then, because we've already left."
That's absolutely the right question to ask. The Leave campaign promised you that they would be able to negotiate a highly favourable deal with access to the single market without free movement of people.
What they didn't tell you is that is a huge risk. The negotiations might give us a super-favourable deal. The UK is still a reasonably strong economy. They are going to want to trade with us somehow. But the negotiations could also give us a very poor deal. The EU won't want to give us all the goodies with none of the costs. We could end up with a much worse deal than we have now.
So let's be honest with the public. Brexit is a huge risk. We might get a good outcome, we might not. If we know the risk and still want to do it, then fine. But let's not pretend that it's all going to be plain sailing because it isn't.
There is a rich heritage on this island of freedom and the struggle for a better future: the suffragettes, the Chartists, the levellers, the diggers, the Independent Labour Party, and so on and so on...Long they fought, and much suffering did these men and women endure, so its insulting to their memory to argue that the EU has been a force for good for workers' rights and human rights...
History shows that the British people are more than capable of standing up for themselves...
And the other argument often presented is equally as risible: the Tories are going to remove all of these rights...
That will only happen if the British people allow them too.
The progresive left in this country are so feeble, they've more or less rolled up the white flag and abdicated responsibility to Brussels...
That's just a load of emotional and vanity-ridden guff.
Michael Cargill wrote: "That's just a load of emotional and vanity-ridden guff."The previous post? Part of the previous post? The whole thread? Not particularly illuminating reply, Michael, if you don't mind me saying.
Going back to your point Will, most people knew there would be risks. Hell, life is a series of risks. At the end of the day, is the risk worth pursuing the advantages? I believed, and still believe, the answer is yes.
Geoff - that's good. But I wonder how many other people fully understood the risks? Gove and Johnson blithely said that we would definitely get a good trade deal. They would definitely implement a points-based immigration system. We would definitely save money to allow us to spend more on the NHS.Very few people in the debate talked about risk. While it does feature strongly in the Treasury report, how many people are going to read a 90 page Treasury report?
And when the Remain side tried to explain about risks they were shot down for scare mongering and being project fear. That's one of those "you say, I say" things, isn't it? I say risk, you say project fear.
Will wrote: "No. That's far too simplistic. There are some elements of Brexit which we can only achieve through negotiation and some elements we can decide right now...."ok, so what elements of Brexit can we decide right now, which don't give away bargaining chips?
For example we could decide that we'd allow all EU nationals resident here to stay here, but then in the negotiation the EU could demand we give up something else to ensure that all UK nationals living on the continent could stay there is they want
Will wrote: "You asked a great question: "And if we activate article 50, negotiate and the EU doesn't give us the deal we apparently want, what do we do then, because we've already left.".."yes and you've not answered it. Because it utterly negates the value of a second referendum
Will wrote: "Very few people in the debate talked about risk. ..."nonsense, the remain campaign talked about nothing else. One reason they did so badly is they never appeared to have anything positive to offer, it was all fear if we were so stupid as to ignore them and vote to leave
R.M.F wrote: "As I said before, this EU vote is done and dusted. Looking to the future is a lot better than looking to the past. I'm not a left-winger, but it's a shame that the Left have this malaise, this de...
There is a rich heritage on this island of freedom and the struggle for a better future: the suffragettes, the Chartists, the levellers, the diggers, the Independent Labour Party, and so on and so on..."
If you wouldn't class yourself as left-wing, then why are you citing Independent Labour Party, Diggers, Levellers, (both capitalised by the way, show them due respect), Chartists & Suffragettes all of whom are classed as left-wing (with possible exception of Suffragette movement which was broad-based)? Have you no examples from your own political perspective?
Will wrote: "We can't keep on rerunning referendums until one side gets the result they want. That would be silly and undemocratic.But equally we can't have a situation where we have a dodgy referendum like t..."
this is why Germany's constitution forbids plebiscites and referenda. Produced some dodgy results back in the 1930s...
Seems one can't trust the people with democracy.
Our system is broken and I for one have no idea how to fix it. The disconnect between people and their political representatives is I believe beyond repair.
Marc wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "As I said before, this EU vote is done and dusted. Looking to the future is a lot better than looking to the past. I'm not a left-winger, but it's a shame that the Left have this ma..."
Don't be so pedantic. I was merely highlighting our rich historical tradition when it comes to democratic struggles, as well you knew...
Marc wrote: "Will wrote: "We can't keep on rerunning referendums until one side gets the result they want. That would be silly and undemocratic.But equally we can't have a situation where we have a dodgy refe..."
Any system will produce dodgy results when one faction is prepared to use violence to achieve their aims.
Michael Cargill wrote: "That's just a load of emotional and vanity-ridden guff."To hell it is :)
Marc wrote: "this is why Germany's constitution forbids plebiscites and referenda. Produced some dodgy results back in the 1930s... ."
And Ironically we're the architects, at least in part, of the German constitution :-)
R.M.F wrote: "Michael Cargill wrote: "That's just a load of emotional and vanity-ridden guff."To hell it is :)"
actually "emotional and vanity-ridden guff" probably sums up most politics
Let's be brutal, standing on a platform of, "Vote for me, it'll boost my income, guarantee me a pension beyond your wildest dreams, and you never know, I might even do a bit of good" is never going to catch on :-)
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "Very few people in the debate talked about risk. ..."nonsense, the remain campaign talked about nothing else. One reason they did so badly is they never appeared to have anything pos..."
And they were right to highlight those risks, as we are now finding out.
As to your great question, I have answered it. Let me answer it again. If we trigger article 50 and we don't get what we want in the negotiations, we are royally stuffed. We will have thrown away a highly advantageous trade agreement that we have built up over 43 years for a vague hope that we might be able to negotiate something better on the outside. The whole of the Leave campaign was based on the premise that the EU will rip up its core principles of free trade with free movement of people, just because we are the UK and that makes us a special case.
Vote remain and we know what we are getting. It's what we've got now. No-one is saying that it's perfect but it is a damn sight better than any of the alternatives that are realistically on the table.
That's the massive risk that the Leave campaign wouldn't talk about. That's why the sensible commentators did talk about risk, even though it might not have been positive enough for your tastes. That's why large parts of the public were duped by this talk of project fear.
That's also why we absolutely must have a second referendum. You've just about said it yourself. The antics of the leave campaign. The lies and dishonesty. The need to give the unemployed of southern Europe a chance to find a job. The huge risk we take if we trigger article 50 and we can't negotiate this ridiculously rosy outcome promised by the Leave campaign.
Put all that together and there is only one logical outcome.
We know a remain vote wasn't for the status quo, though. Ever closer political union was always the aim of the game. We have Romano Prodi on record as saying that any recessions as a result of the Eurozone, would be a good thing, as it would force Eurozonecountries to surrender sovereignty in order to relieve any economic crisis.
Greece, as we all know, is living proof of that...
But look at it another way, Will.
Even if we stayed in the EU, the major problems of this country, especially its structural weaknesses with regard to our economy, would still be there. At least with BREXIT, we'll have to take a long, hard look at them...
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
The EU is a democratically elected organisation which promotes trade and peace across Europe. It is a friend to everybody who believes in liberty and democracy. It has championed workers' rights, equalities, the protection of the individual and the balance between economy, environment and society. Revisiting the treaty of Rome, Lisbon and Maastricht it struck me how honest they were about their policy goals.
When I reflect on the forces that were aligned against the Remain voters: the blatant lies in just about every claim, the racism of Farage, the antics of Boris Johnson, the "we don't listen to experts any more" scheming of Gove, all aided and abetted by a media that has long surrendered any notions of journalistic integrity, well ...
I'm proud of myself for doing the right thing and voting to remain.
Here's the thing. At the very least, you have to admit that there was an avalanche of propaganda on both sides. You also have to admit that the press was biased. This was not a poor honest Leave campaign being bullied by the big boys.
Then you need to look at the actual claims made by the two sides. The Remain side was basically honest but dull (and Corbyn was AWOL). The Leave side was more exciting and emotional but they constantly lied.
Yes, the Remain campaign had more experts on their side. Well, virtually all of them. And more businesses. Well, virtually of those too. And more foreign states. International organisations. Nearly of all of those.
There is a very good reason why the Leave campaign was outnumbered. The "forces aligned against Leave" were the honest voices of people trying to tell you what a big mistake you were making.