And considering how close the margins were in both these voting events, I think it is very safe to say that neither would have gone the way they did if it wasn't for those absolutely massive campaigns.
If you focus on the straw that broke the camel's back, then just about any factor can be said to be the one that swung it.
The Remain campaign, and more specifically media presence of those that supported it certainly caused enough people to vote Brexit to have swung it too. Patronising and insulting people with genuine concerns
really motivates them to vote against you.
The most common reason given for supporting Brexit was sovereignty, which is as much a moral issue as a political one.
The 2nd was economy, and it is clear that EU membership, even if good on average, was far better for some than others.
The campaign of remainers tried to use reason and walked the classic pathways.
Come on, surely you aren't that naive to think "my side good, other side bad", or that any campaign aims to be based on the honest use of reason to tell the truth?
The Leave campaign wasn't averse to telling a few fibs either.
All campaigns use a mix of reason, emotion, celebrity and other factors. They all look at a big grab bag of stats that have some loose "truthiness" to them and select the ones that tell the best narratives to support their aims. They all give over-optimistic evaluations of what may happen in future.
Most of the public who vote either way are completely incapable of determining which side (if any) is telling the truth, and judge "facts" in line with their subjective experiences.
People don't conduct economic analyses to judge the economy, they mostly just think "do I seem better off than I used to be?"
The GFC and its subsequent period of Austerity, wage stagnation (in part exacerbated by high levels of immigration), etc. matter far more than campaign stats.
"There are lots of immigrants, it's hard to get a house and my wages are low"
"Actually, you stupid racist, you'll find that immigration is good for the economy and benefits us all on average. I love ethnic food too. Business relies on cheap labour for economic growth, and to keep inflation down. The housing shortage is not caused by immigration but..."
"I don't care about on average, how has it benefitted me? Lots of immigrant have council houses, but my son is on a 10 year waiting list. Is that fair?"
"Look fool, the housing crisis can only be solved by long term plan that is best served by being part of the EU and growing our economy so a rising tide lifts all boats."
"That's what you said before and it's worse now than ever..."
People often just see a choice between "change" and "more of the same" and think let's give change a try.
This is compounded when people dismiss their genuine concerns with mockery, condescension, and insults.
The difference is that they didn't use, what I would call, unethical tactics taken straight from psychological warfare playbooks.
...
The campaign of brexit (and trump) preyed on emotion and used psychological profiling with targetted social media processes.
You could say that remainers tried to "convince" people while the brexit campaign was more about "manipulation".
The latter works better in an age where people's eyes are fixated on their smartphone and tablet screens scrolling instagram, facebook, twitter, tiktok,...
Manipulating public opinion has never been easier then today "thanks" to such technology.
Honestly, this is just modern, high stakes Public Relations as practiced by all.
The industry itself is significantly developed out of psychological warfare from the World Wars and beyond.
The idea that "my side" relies on their trusty sword of truth and the "baddies" use modern professional PR techniques is silly.
Online voter targeting was significantly advanced by the Obama Campaign. Media spin and "dark arts" were a hallmark of the Blair government (including by key Remain campaign figure, Peter Mandelson).
The idea that Remain figures drawn from the right, centre and left like Mandelson and David Cameron all met up and said "So, we'll run on truth eh chaps?" is ridiculous.
Also, persuasion v propaganda, convincing v manipulating is not as clear cut a distinction as you seem to think.
If I look through all published stats, none of these are 'fake', but I select only the ones that best support my argument, don't try to select the most accurate, don't try to contextualise them accurately, only weave them into a particular narrative that I have designed to be as influential and emotionally resonant as possible, what is this?
What if I find a stat that I personally think is almost certainly wrong, but is published by a reputable organisation and is great for my argument? Do you expect any major campaign would refuse to use it on ethical grounds?
Some campaigns may indeed use less ethical tactics than others, but they are all manipulating with practices that are very far from an attempt to paint an accurate version of the "truth".
