Sándor Kerekes’ exchange with Lord Peter Lilley on the deception of Brexit

In January this year Lord Peter Lilley, member of the Upper House, came to Budapest to the invitation of the Danube Institute to give a lecture about the Brexit and its prospects. (The video of the lecture can be seen here.) It was early days to form any judgement about it, but there were questions abound already. His presentation was polished and quite expert, but in the question and answer session I had to pose the obvious: how about the misleading propaganda preceding the referendum an thus distorting the outcome? And how about the predicted horrendous financial cost of Brexit?

Lord Lilley expressis verbis refuted any accusation of misleading the electorate and made light of the expected cost, predicting a temporary, slight increase in the cost of living. During the succeeding months I followed closely the meandering ways of Brexit in Parliament and in the press, and also found alarming events to suggest that Lord Lilley’s accounts of the unfolding of Brexit was partisan and less then reliable. So, as the latest news about Boris Johnson’s charging reached me I decided to revisit the issue of Brexit with Lord Lilley and sent him my firs email. To my astonishment he answered it almost instantly and that is how the correspondence between us ensued.

A message to Lord Peter Lilley, member of the Upper House of Great Britain.

Dear Lord Lilly:

A few months ago you were visiting here in Budapest, where you gave a presentation to the Danube Institute about Brexit. We, your audience, have understood that you were in favour of Brexit and poo-pooed any suggestion that it could be harmful in any way to the interest of the country. In the Q&A session I pointed out to you that the referendum was rigged by the misleading of the electorate and that there will be a high price the country will have to pay for breaking away.

In your answer, Sir, you denied the misleading of the public about the consequences and admitted only an ”insignificant” rise in the cost of living. I didn’t have the evidence available at the time, but in the view of the developements in the mean time since, we can safely say that you did not tell the truth. In fact, Boris Johnson is being dragged into court for ”lying and misleading” in the campaign.

Also, the Electoral Commission reported vast overspending and non-compliance with the election spending rules.

The Financial Times quoted on 1st of September 2016:

”Katie Ghose, ERS chief executive, called for “a root and branch review” of the role of referendums, saying the EU debate had been “dire”. She cited a “top-down, personality-based” campaign that “failed to address major policies and issues” during a campaign period that was “too short”, meaning that “misleading claims could be made with total impunity”.

It was also reported by the Independent that a quarter of all voters regarded the campaign as misleading…

In summary, Lord Lilley, we can assert that you continued the tactic of misleading in your presentation, ”economised with the truth” and in addition to your British constituents, you also mislead your Hungarian audience too. I wonder if you would still make the same fraudulent claims now after the recent events of the Brexit debate.

***

Soon enough unexpectedly an answer arrived from Lord Lilley.

Dear Mr Santos,

Thank you for your email – though your suggestion that I “did not tell the truth” in my presentation in Budapest is offensive, unspecific, unsubstantiated and untrue.

You clearly get your view of events in Britain from the Independent – a highly partisan journal. I always advise people to read publications representing their opponents’ views in order to get a more balanced view.

My country had a referendum in which everyone was free to express their opinions and criticise those of other people. The Remain campaign far outspent the Leave campaign – even excluding nearly £10m spent by the government in sending its pro Remain views to every household. The entire Establishment, US banks, Obama, IMF, CBI pumped out pro-EU propaganda. They lost and, despite promising to respect the result, are now doing everything to thwart it.

The £350m figure on the side of the Leave battle-bus was much disputed during the campaign so the electorate heard the arguments before reaching their verdict. It is based on the official figures in the Treasury Red Book (£19bn) of the gross amount the U.K. contributes annually to the EU. The EU then returns some £150m pw as a rebate or to be spent on its programmes in the U.K. So our net contribution is about £200m per week or £10bn pa.

I debated almost everyday, sometimes three debates a day since there was huge public interest. I always used the net figure of £200m. Remain campaigners always raised the £350m figure. I explained that was a gross figure and asked the audience whether – given that the net figure was ‘only’ £200m – was anyone less inclined to vote Leave? Not a single person changed their mind.

The fact that the EU is demanding that we pay £39bn in lieu of future payments for the privilege of leaving demonstrates how important our contribution is to them and how costly to us.

You assume that because Boris is being dragged to Court by hugely expensive lawyers he must be guilty. In Britain we assume everyone is innocent unless and until they are found guilty.

Election claims have never previously been subject to litigation. But if they are the Remain campaign will be very vulnerable – the Chancellor’s claim that a Leave vote would mean he would introduce an immediate budget cutting benefits and raising taxes and interest rates; Treasury forecasts that a Leave vote would precipitate a recession, unemployment would rise by 800,000 etc etc

I await your apology.

Best regards

Peter Lilley

However, I was not going to give in that easily.

Dear Lord Lilley,

I also await your apology for misspelling my name. And if I am not readily rushing to apologize that is because I am not quite convinced.

Without trying to extend a debate to boundless proportions, I merely intend to mention a few factors.

One is the fact that the court deemed worthy the accusation against Boris Johnson to accept the charge. The cost of the legal personnel is just as irrelevant as is the presumption of innocence at this stage of the case. It goes without saying.
The other is your claim that I am partial to the reporting of the Independent. Well, perhaps the Independent is not the most objective, but the most prompt in the reporting and therefore, comes up first on the search engines. My much more creditworthy source is the the Electoral Commission’s report that you wisely avoided mentioning in your reply.

It is also worth noting that the sources you call the ”Establishment,” advising again the ludicrous self immolation that Brexit was going to be and proves increasingly so, was a collection of reasonable and creditable actors, without any investments in either outcome, trying to save the British people from their own foolishness, hubris and the uninhibited egoism of their politicians. Alas, without any success so far. Your criticism of the Independent and suggestion in favour of ”other sources” also rings somewhat hollow, since the conservative, Brexit-toting press is not quite ready to discuss the actual risks and thus the supply of actual alternative sources is quite meager. And this is also part of the misinformation I mentioned. On the 10th of March Reuters reported that : ”More than 275 financial firms are moving a combined $1.2 trillion (£925 billion) in assets and funds and thousands of staff from Britain to the European Union in readiness for Brexit at a cost of up to $4 billion, a report from a think tank said on Monday.” The daily press was not in a hurry to forward this news, nor to refute it at all. The Bank of England announced a 2% shortfall in growth due to Brexit, on the 22nd of March. And so on.

In closing I must say I feel honoured that you took the trouble of answering my letter, thank you very much. I wonder if you would mind if I made your answer public. Or do you intend to keep it private?
For the moment I think, we do best by waiting for the development of events.
Best wishes.

***

And Lord Lilley’s farewell:

I apologise for misspelling your name – though pots calling kettles black come to mind since you miss-spelt mine! Surely a minor matter beside calling someone a liar, without identifying any lie, simply because you disagree with my views. I am sorry you cannot bring yourself to apologise for your offensive remarks.

Re the court case: At what stage do you think a presumption of innocence is relevant if not before a case has been adjudicated upon?

Of course you may use my views as you wish – preferably alongside my original presentation in Budapest which the Institute has released. But if you value your own reputation I suggest you do not publish your own letters.

Best wishes

Peter Lilley

***

And my farewell:

But of course I apologize for misspelling your name, especially because by the time I noticed it, the email was gone and I had a small laugh at my own expense. I also apologize for calling you a liar, if I did, although I am not sure. In any case, I had no intention to attack you personally, so I do apologize.

As to the presumption of innocence, it is always to be honored, ”goes without saying,” but it was not the issue, the court would observe it, therefore, it was irrelevant along with the price of the lawyers.

I thankfully take your permission and post your letter, unchanged in any way, on Facebook. My views are already there and will let the reader adjudicate.

Thank you again for your answer and best wishes

Sándor

Sándor Kerekes

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *