Lewis Goodall, Political Correspondent

"Vote Leave and Take Control" has to vie for the title of most effective campaign slogan in modern British political history.

The fact that I can't remember what Remain's equivalent was goes some way to explaining that side's failure.

The testament to its success is that even after the campaign concluded, ministers, including the Prime Minister and other remainers, started to play the same tune and deploy the mantra.

But they ought to stop. Because what we know about Brexit so far shows that what ministers think "take back control" means and what the public thinks it means are wildly out of sync.


There can be no better example of this than this week's fish furore.

Image: Michael Gove has been giving assurances to Danish fishermen

The Environment Secretary Michael Gove, while speaking to a group of Danish fishermen, apparently gave them assurances that their trawlers would still be able to fish in British waters after Brexit.

He is apparently proposing a fishing regime which is more or less the same as we have now. The European fishing industry is thrilled.

Cue the first cries of betrayal.

Nigel Farage, who has great empathy with fish in that he's known to drink like one, wasted no time in tweeting: "These comments from Gove are appalling. Just two weeks ago he was strong on fish."

But not so fast, said Mr Gove's advisers, you're wrong - the Environment Secretary's position has not changed and has been entirely consistent.

He had always said that the UK simply wanted to take back control of the waters and then would, of course, grant access. As their trump card, one of his advisers sent me this transcript of his boss' appearance on the Andrew Marr Show from early July.

"We will have control," he said.

"We can decide the terms of access.

"And then we will also be able, when we leave the European Union, we'll become an independent coastal state, and that means that we can then extend control of our waters up to 200 miles… and that means that we then decide.

"Now, of course, we can then negotiate with other countries about their access."

Hmmmmm.

What is that old phrase - "Too clever by half"?

This statement may technically be more or less consistent with what Mr Gove has apparently told the Danes but let's be honest, Leave voters and fishermen around the coast of Britain won't care.

To promise to take back control and then not to change anything and then claim they've honoured the spirit of the referendum is dancing on the head of a dangerous semantic pin.

They will have interpreted the statement "extend control of our waters" or "take back control" in one way: that the government would take control and therefore stop or at the very least substantially reduce foreign boats from fishing in our territory.

Because as far as the public was concerned the phrase "take back control" was a code, a clear signal that it meant cutting the numbers of migrants, foreign fishing boats, and for reducing European involvement in British life full stop.

For Mr Gove and fellow Leave campaigners to claim that they meant it in a literal sense alone is pure sophistry.

After all, can they really maintain that voters heard the phrase "we'll take back control" and assumed it meant "take back control and then we'll continue just as we were before"?

If so then voters must surely ask what was the point?

If you take control of the car and then simply drive it in exactly the same way, don't change direction and take it to the same place as the other driver, you might well wonder why you even bothered.

Was it just a power trip? Just to say that you were driving the car?

Wanting to have sovereignty just to say we have it and then continuing in the same fashion should surely be the preserve for the logicians and the philosophers, not one for politicians and practical policymakers.

If you want to prove that, then just consider this:

If we are to take Mr Gove and his advisers at their word and accept the explanation that this was all about the technical matter of Britain enjoying the ability to exercise her sovereignty, even if it meant not actually changing policy, then it must stand to reason that the voters should have assumed that Britain might allow even more foreign fishermen to fish in our waters.

Likewise with immigration: taking back control must have meant that immigration could go up from the rest of the EU and around the world so long as we willed it.

Image: When people voted to take back control, did it mean what everyone thought?

Mr Gove's position is now apparently that he simply wished to take back control in principle and then it was up to a future government to choose the policy and the rest of us were wrong to assume otherwise.

A minority of prominent Leavers may have been sincere in that belief and can say that is all they meant when they said "take back control".

My contention is that the vast majority of the British public who voted Leave did not understand it that way - and any politician who attempts to explain themselves with such a justification is likely to be greeted with opprobrium from the same voters who backed them last June.

I don't say this in any way to decry Vote Leave or the idea of taking back control or wanting the idea of de jure sovereignty. Taking back control is a perfectly acceptable and respectable slogan and point of view.

My point is that slogans aren't just literal.

They carry subtext and are imbued with meaning and that of "Take Back Control" was clear for all to see - whether it be in fishing, immigration or the myriad of subjects to which it was applied.

For ministers and Leavers to claim otherwise and say they didn't mean to imply to millions of voters that migration would go down or foreign fishing would be reduced or removed when they used that phrase is at best naive and, frankly, at worse, mendacious.

To promise to take back control and then not to change anything and then claim they've honoured the spirit of the referendum is dancing on the head of a dangerous semantic pin.

Don't be surprised if you end up getting cut.

Sky Views is a series of comment pieces by Sky News editors and correspondents, published every morning.

Previously on Sky Views: Paul Kelso - Charlie Gard was exploited