With The Brexit In The Bag, 'Vote Leave' Starts Vanishing Away Its Promises And Faulty Math
from the nothing-is-ever-truly-removed-from-the-internet dept
In the aftermath of what is generally considered to be a Bad Idea, the forces behind the UK's exit from the European Union has pulled up stakes on its website and shut the whole thing down. The problem is that it looks more like an attempt to bury the past than to warmly greet the future it helped create, as Wired's Matt Kamen notes.
While this may simply be the campaign closing down in the wake of its victory, this removes all clear record of speeches, editorials, statistics, and information the Leave campaign used on the run up to the referendum on membership of the European Union on June 23.
The content is still there, but links to information have been removed and the landing page is nothing more than a static image. Visitors looking for promises that may be broken in the future (like rerouting of EU fees to the NHS) will have to know the page's URL in order to access it. Given comments made by those involved with the dubious promises and dubious math, the quasi-wipe of the site's content may not just be Vote Leave's idea of a victory lap.
Senior Leave politicians such as Iain Duncan Smith have, in the days since the referendum, denied the money was promised to the NHS, despite other figures in the campaign saying "the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS".
Vote Leave has yet to comment on its post-exit scrub, but others have noted that the internet (almost never) forgets. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has preserved Vote Leave's promises and other statements for posterity, ensuring that it won't be able to easily decouple itself from its assertions.
The movement spent plenty of its own money talking about all the money the UK was handing over to the EU, rather than spending on its own citizens. Tracing backwards from its still-live YouTube account, one can still access its £50 million giveaway -- supposedly the amount turned over every day to the EU. This number was referred to by the UK Statistics Authority as "potentially misleading," due to the fact that Vote Leave based it on gross contributions without factoring in rebates received from the EU or any flow of offsetting income resulting from trade agreements.
In addition, other claims made during the Brexit campaign -- mostly related to stemming the flow of immigrants into the UK and preventing Turkey and handful of other nations from joining the EU -- have proven to be just as false. The original narrative of cutting back the flow of immigrants to the UK by "tens of thousands" now appears to have been replaced with a more hesitant assertion that not a whole lot will change. As for concerns about Turkey joining the EU and bringing with it thousands of jihadists from neighboring nations, the best guess is that the nation's possible inclusion is still several years -- if not several decades off. (UK Prime Minister David Cameron suggested the year 3000 as a good estimate based on current progress. Turkey has been moving towards this since 1963 and hasn't budged the needle much over the past 50 years.)
If Vote Leave is truly trying to bury its misleading math and promises it can't keep, it made its first mistake by publishing them to the web where things tend to live forever.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brexit, internet never forgets, promises, streisand effect, vote leave, web
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ha ha ha....
Anyone wanting these jobs are the people we should be taking all privacy away from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ha ha ha....
b) the internet is rapidly stripping privacy from politicians. Just not rapidly enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ha ha ha....
A good example is Trump. Clearly a turd, but a turd that fucking scares the current turds. And that is a value in and of itself! Trump getting in might encourage others to run, and we might yet again have someone worth voting for.
Candidates in a party work for and on behalf of the party, NOT THE PEOPLE! A fact that everyone keeps forgetting! Sure the people are sometimes served because the parties interests align from time to time, but any fool that thinks a party is ever in their court is well... a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googl ing-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/
How can you live somewhere and not know its origin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You just asked a dumb fucking question!
This is actually the norm the world over.
Most people know very little about a lot of things. And don't forget the statistics either.
There are lies, damn lies, and then you have statistics. Take it with a grain of salt. I often still do searches on subject matter that I know a great deal about but just happen to be looking to confirm some minor detail or a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Meh, that story was overblown. There were very few such searches.
https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Brexit is NOT in the bag yet.
There are various sectors of the EU that would love to see the back of Britain as it would significantly enhance a specific country's position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Brexit is NOT in the bag yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't a matter of stupidity. It's a matter of how easy it is to hack people's brains. And no one, even those who expend the effort, is immune.
Case in point: thinking that your fellow citizens are stupider than you are is a sign that at least that aspect of the over propaganda effort has worked on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I meant "overall propaganda effort". Ack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your kidding right? Have you learned nothing of life? A persons ability to see themselves as better than someone else for any reason has NOTHING to do with propaganda!!! It is entirely the human condition, it's in our very nature! When accusing idiots of being stupid please avoid blaming the wrong thing.
Propaganda just uses this stupidity to great effect! Congratulations, you are a victim of your own farce!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You may correct that a sense of superiority is part of human nature. The connection to propaganda is that this tendency is used to further divide people into "us"s and "them"s.
"Congratulations, you are a victim of your own farce!"
I absolutely am! I am no more of an exception than anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is quite the claim, probably needs some supporting data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same as in every democracy - the problem is that the moron voting for someone because they liked the tie they were wearing gets the same voice as those who research and understand the policy positions. What's your solution to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was the hard left and the hard right who oppose immigration; the left for protectionist reasons and the right because they're xenophobic. The neoliberals actually wanted to stay in.
People voted out because they bought the line about being flooded by "the foreigners." It's hard to laugh at them when you see that many of our neighbourhoods are filled with people who speak English as a second language. People don't like having to compete with newcomers for basic services, which are under strain due to austerity measures. Due to the schizophrenic nature of Our Glorious Leaders in both parties, they blamed the EU and immigration for all our social problems while making sure there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay for dealing with them. Result: fed-up Brits voted Brexit.
The buyer's regret we're seeing in places like Cornwall may be funny but they do need the funding they get from the EU - which Brexit lied about supplanting if they won.
This is why I'm cynical about Boogeyman politics. Generally speaking, the more histrionic the tone of the argument, the less attention I pay to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or as I call them, easily led fools.
"It's hard to laugh at them when you see that many of our neighbourhoods are filled with people who speak English as a second language"
I live in an area of Spain filled with people who speak Spanish as a second language. Not just from the UK, but Germans, Scandinavians, Polish, Belgians, etc.
I'm sure some Spanish locals feel the same way as the local Brits, and there certainly are some clashes in the poorer areas of the country where Spanish youth feel they shouldn't have to compete for jobs. Yet, I don't hear many calls from them for removing themselves from the EU. Catalonian / Basque independence or "taking back" Gibraltar, sure. But never a call to leave the EU.
"People don't like having to compete with newcomers for basic services, which are under strain due to austerity measures"
Well, in that case I wish they'd look a little bit into what those austerity measures are, who implemented them and why rather than whining that they have to fight over the crumbs left. Not that half the tabloid stories they're reading go into facts, but the scapegoating is so ridiculously transparent. I can't feel sorry for people who don't bother to understand what the problems actually are.
"Result: fed-up Brits voted Brexit."
...many of whom are now claiming it was a protest vote and wish they had voted differently. Or, who voted based of the lies of people like Farage and now regret having believed them.
This is why I have a major problem with the vote. People were lied to. However, I have no respect or sympathy for those people who voted as a protest then whined that they didn't think their vote would count. Idiots, the lot of them. The problem with democracy is that fools and superficial morons have the same voice as someone who understands what they're voting for.
"This is why I'm cynical about Boogeyman politics. Generally speaking, the more histrionic the tone of the argument, the less attention I pay to it."
I agree here, which is why I have no respect for those who do buy into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for people not thinking, one of my bosses (when I worked in London) said to me once, "You're not supposed to think." I went, "Excuse me?" but it was too late, the cat was out of the bag. It explains a lot. Challenging the general consensus takes an effort of will. We make the effort, but getting others to do so is an uphill struggle.
The problem with democracy is that fools and superficial morons have the same voice as someone who understands what they're voting for.
Yeah, but what do we replace it with? What we actually need is to persuade people to actually think. Now how do we convince them their brains won't explode or that they'll turn into Dwayne Dibbley if they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A good part of it, yes.
"The Far Right parties are driving that."
The interesting thing about Spanish politics is that the parties on the left are the ones driving a lot of the conversation at the moment. Now, the parliament is more in the hands of the main right wing party (PP, roughly analogous to the Tories in the UK), and there's still not a real majority anywhere. But, it's left wing parties, most notably Podemos (a party set up only a few years ago, specifically to address inequality and corruption) that have been driving the national conversation recently.
Now, that's not to say that there isn't a right wing element in places (some of the older generations even pine for the Franco regime!), but it's very interesting how different the national conversation is. Perhaps it's down to the lack of Murdoch/Express/Daily Fail influence on the minds of the less inquisitive but I do find it fascinating.
"Yeah, but what do we replace it with?"
Therein lies the real question. The current system depends on an informed, engaged populous in order to work, but we also can't disenfranchise the ignorant and lazy - since, who makes that judgement and what's to stop them abusing that power?
Honestly, I don't know. I'm just painfully aware of how much of global politics is driven by people who don't know what they're voting for and/or are so driven by a single issue that they actively vote to make life worse both for themselves and others in the hope that their pet issue will be addressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bit more to this
Lots of numbers were spouted by both sides, few of which connected to reality, but only the highly gullible will do anything but laugh at them.
The leave campaign promised nothing, because *they were not running for government*, what they spouted started out as examples to provide the scale of the gross contribution.
This was then hijacked by the 'official' leave campaign, who don't really want to leave but were set up to shoulder out the actual leave campaign.
You need to have been born here to stand even a slender chance to follow it and the farce it's made of politics for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bit more to this
Either way, I'll give leave one thing, Nigel Farage is the most entertaining politician since Rob Ford. I seriously enjoy watching him take the piss out of folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next Up:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next Up:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Engaged
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Engaged
- Ash Williams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you care?
I can sympathize with people who are concerned about foreigners flying in without a passport and collecting generous welfare to send home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do you care?
Not true. It will greatly affect North America, both economically and politically.
"don't all you guys complain about TPP and NAFTA all the time?"
I complain about specific aspects of them, yes. I don't object to the notion of treaties and economic agreements generally, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do you care?
What I find amazing is all the liberals who only ever complain about the rich are now spouting off about the financial impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why do you care?
But it will affect you. Perhaps not on the same scale as we are affected by the crap the US gets up to, but the impact is not zero.
"What I find amazing is all the liberals who only ever complain about the rich are now spouting off about the financial impact."
So, you don't understand the impact it will have on trade, pensions, employment, housing, tourism, etc.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
Now if you'd care to argue that Brexit will negatively affect AC's (or my, or any other person's) right to self-determination, well that's an argument I'd be interested to hear. Scotland would probably be a decent place to start that argument, but they can always have another vote on whether to leave the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
But, if it will affect him (and it will), doesn't that make it his business? As a random metaphor, it might not be my business whether or not you can be bothered to maintain your own property, but it becomes my business when the disrepair starts lowering my property value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
IMO No it does not. If you did not buy in a HOA and he's not breaking any laws, then it's not your business at all. Just because you don't like something, and it's impacting you, doesn't make it "your business".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
I disagree. If it's impacting me, it becomes my business. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, as the saying goes.
Now, I'm not saying that I have the right to directly intervene or take action against the property in my analogy. There are processes to go through, and even having a friendly chat with the neighbour might get results. But to say it's none of my business is wrong. Anything that negatively impacts me is my business. We're not talking gossip or me interfering in someone else's affairs without provocation, we're talking about me being interested in things that directly affect me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
This can't be such a black-and-white thing, since pretty much anything your neighbor does impacts you to some degree or another. There must be some amount of impact that triggers it becoming your business.
What level of impact is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
I don't know... Noticeable? Quantifiable? Worth the time to be concerned about it?
I'm not sure, but "country makes an apparently disastrous political decision that may negatively directly impact my country" is something that should be a person's business, whether that country is the US, UK or other, no?
Remember, I'm not calling for any specific action here, I'm just arguing against the idea that the above is not the business of the OP and therefore they should ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
The implication is that because there is some amount of impact on me, that gives me some say in whatever it is that's happening. I don't think that automatically follows.
Take the Brexit thing, for example. It is undeniable that it will impact everyone to some degree or another. But I don't think that changes the fact that what England does is entirely England's business. The rest of us have to handle the fallout in whatever means we can, but it doesn't give us a say in the underlying question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
Same as for me - I don't get a say as to whether Donald Trump becomes president, but it's sure as hell my business and my right to voice my opinion because whatever he does in office will impact me, and negatively IMO. Not having a US vote and respecting the opinions of those who do, does not mean that the outcome is "none of my business"
It's none of my business whether the woman across the street is seeing multiple partners. It is my business if in the process of doing so, her boyfriends are causing a disturbance, making a mess, etc. even if they never come near my property. I might not get a say in who she sees, but it's certainly my business to state that they're causing problems. It might be a terrible analogy, but that's what comes to mind right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
Example:
You could make the old sailboat sitting in my front yard up on blocks that I'm restoring your business if you think it's an eye sore. But according to the law, and because I'm not in a HOA, there's not a thing you can do about it. At least not where I live.
"Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, as the saying goes."
If your nose happens to be on my property illegally, the rules for my fist change significantly. Where I live; you are allowed to defend not only yourself, but your property as well.
Point being; The law will decide what is/is not your business. Everything else is a matter of opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
The people I'm replying to seem to think nobody in the US should care at all what happens in the UK. I'm not arguing a legal structure, I'm arguing that if someone over there does wish to care about the decisions made, they should do as it is their business - since it is impacting them. We don't know how or to what extent yet, but there is an impact and therefore it is the business of whoever wishes to take interest.
"If your nose happens to be on my property illegally, the rules for my fist change significantly. Where I live; you are allowed to defend not only yourself, but your property as well."
Great. What the hell does that have to do with what I'm saying?
"The law will decide what is/is not your business"
No it won't. Not unless I'm taking action, in which case obviously the rules change. Until that point, I'm free to take notice and offer my opinion on the subject.
"Everything else is a matter of opinion."
That's all I'm attempting to offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you care?
Ahh, I understand now, and I agree. I thought that you were making a different argument entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why do you care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why do you care?
Yeah, I never hear any of those filthy libtards complain about anything other than the hard working dedicated rich folk who only want what's best for this great country. How dare them spout off about things - like they have some sorta right to free speech or something - criminy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do you care?
Ah, typical American, assuming that they're the only ones who matter and the only ones talking.
"I can sympathize with people who are concerned about foreigners flying in without a passport and collecting generous welfare to send home."
I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything being discussed, but it sounds right for the level of ignorance on display here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
It is eternally interesting how people like you know this is just a fact? You don't know any more than the "experts" on what deals can be made. Every trade deal that exists is a product of current circumstances.
A trade deal from 20 years ago is exactly what will happen if conditions matching that of 20 years ago reappear! There is NOTHING new under the sun!
Heck since you know so much Mr Smart man why in the heck are you here on TD posting instead of kicking Soros off his throne by taking his money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
We will, of course, ignore the journalists who are guilty of [once more] "getting it wrong" in their brown-nosing efforts to become one of the said elites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
48% of the voting population are "elite"?
"We will, of course, ignore the journalists"
Most intelligent people did, hence the facts that the "elites" are complaining about the vote based largely on xenophobia and lies and calling the people who fell for obvious fiction idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
As always after an election the side to play is the winners. While I see the vision, what is to happen before? So far I have seen Boris Johnson called dilusional by experts and Farrage doesn't seem to have much real policy behind his rhetorical skills.
Brexit is a fact. The winning side has to move. So far it seems the leave-campaigners are struggling to dig anything resembling a plan up. As much as the stay-campaign may have been an elite plot, I don't see what people voted for here except a dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
"Remember, Brexit was all about immigration, whatever the politicians would have you believe. The poor people and the Middle Englanders who voted Brexit will tell you that if you ask them."
Well, they swore blind that it wasn't just about immigration when called on it before the vote. Perhaps they're begrudgingly admitting it now that they've seen how quickly the other promises were abandoned and how quickly the cockroaches leading the exit campaign are fleeing once expected to come up with a plan to implement. But, they used to deny that it was just about immigration.
But, funny thing - between the requirements to keep freedom of movement to not only trade in the EU but avoid mass migration of both British ex pats and productive immigrants from the EU, and the fact that many of the migrants being complained about were not from the EU to begin with, the immigration concerns were never going to be satisfied with an exit vote anyway. If that's what the vote was about, it was a vote wasted without concern for the other consequences such a vote would have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brexit, baby: it's not just for the UK
Here's an idea ... stop the wars.
I know it's difficult to comprehend, but give it a go anyway - what if.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faith is a tricky thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faith is a tricky thing...
When faith is lost the first time, it's always because people never had proper expectations to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Faith is a tricky thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a Scot up here who wants both unions to live I LITERALLY CANNOT EVEN RIGHT NOW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly, you can say the same for the shower who can't work out what they want to do next, or even who they want to do the work. Saying the EU is corrupt but then trusting the Tories is laughably dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]