Interesting question. I wonder if it is possible to have a rational discussion on this thorny issue? By rational, I mean without resorting to personal insults or inflammatory language.
Here is my view. I will try to be balanced across both camps.
First there were a lot of false predictions. I do not count these are lies. They are more like unjustified claims by people who hoped that they were correct - because if they became correct predictions then their case for remain/leave would be much bolstered. These were claims that began “there will be … if we …[leave / remain]”. I think most of the these false predictions came from the remain campaign - loss of companies that employ people in the UK, loss of jobs, hikes in prices. On the other camp, the false predictions largely followed the same issues but presented the other case - lower costs, lower waiting times for medical care, more jobs for British people, etc.
Second, there were claims without any justification or basis. These began with words like “we will get…” or “we will be able to…”. These are much closer to lies. The person making such a statement did not, in truth, whether their claim was correct or not. There might even have been known factors that meant the individual probably knew they were making a very doubtful claim. So lets call them lies. Examples include how easy it would be to get a new, perhaps even better trade deal, with the EU after leaving (as made by Johnson and others just prior to the referendum). They knew that was not true and they then had to work through the hard consequences of trying to get any sort of deal. The same for claims of an imminent trade deal with the US - known claims of unreasonable optimism. On the leave side the same sort of claim (example, by Osborne) was there will be a profound and negative shock to the UK economy. But he no doubt knew that it would take something like a no deal exit to push the UK into recession.
A third aspect are the lies of omission. Not mentioning something that the person / group knew to be very significant because it weakened their case. An example is the consequences of leaving the customs union and need for border controls. This was barely mentioned whilst trade tariffs were. Why? Similarly the impact of leaving the EU with no trade deal was not mentioned before the referendum. Yet it became a central element of the UK negotiating approach after the referendum. Both were negative issues that were not mentioned by the leave campaign - surely these were lies of omission.
My fourth category are lies of pure ignorance. Someone making a statement when any simple research or analysis would show that to be false. Example here - they need us more than we need them. This could simply never be true. Another was Johnson’s claim that there would be no change for Northern Ireland and its border with Ireland. I can only find examples of this type of lie from the leave campaign but I’m happy to be corrected.
There should not have been a referendum in the first place. Cameron was not qualified, not prepared, he was just playing politics: vote for me and I’ll give you a brexit vote. He got in, his second term, had to do as promised. A man who didn’t want/support brexit, he made a couple of trips across the channel, “negotiated”, they didn’t listen, weren’t interested, wouldn’t budge. The referendum went ahead, no plans, not even an outline of what would happen. We voted out, Cameron was out. Boris wasn’t a brexiter either, but he could see mileage in it for him: he could play the part of a brexiter, “£350/week to the NHS”, fast lane to Downing Street.
There is another tangible Brexit benefit: J. Hunt announced in the HoC that he will lower the duty on draught beer in pubs compared to beer in supermarkets. This is something that (as he claims) was not possible as a member of the EU.
As so often in these claims (the word “claim” is like a tag to indicate its Brexit benefit bollxs) the element of truth is outweighed by the bare faced lying.
The element of truth is that the EU directive on draft beer duty is that the excise duty levied on beer is based on the degrees of alcohol by volume of finished product - and the directive specifies that each EU country must may divide beers into categories consisting of no more than 4 degrees span and may charge the same rate of duty per hectolitre on all beers for each category. This bit, the span of any one category, is the bit Hunt says was limited under EU rules. Not the duty, nor the price of beer, nor anything else. The span of strength of beer in a duty category. That is what he changed. Whoop de bleedin’ do.
The tangible aspect of the claimed benefit, the reduction in duty for so many beers in the UK new extended strength category - has nothing to do with Brexit. The government could have changed this duty at any time. The government of each country sets the duty - not the EU.
But we should welcome anything that helps pubs and reduces the price of beer. Except…the measure will coincide with a rise in alcohol taxes in line with inflation, ending a freeze that has been in since 2020, and will result in no change in the duty paid on a typical pint poured from a tap in a pub. So not even a non-Brexit benefit. You’ve been doubly duped.
Probably a remark out of place in a serious thread but just when I think no more serious words can be said, a light-hearted remark can turn people bitter again and revive the firing of both barrels.