Not really, my point (and still valid) was that the Mail went from pro Brexit to Remain in one instant. these were just 3 ad hoc references in the media,you don't even have to read between the lines to realise there was a 180 degree shift in the editorial after Greig took over.
I'd respectfully suggest that it went from pro-No Deal, WTO is absolutely the right sort of Brexit to being more sceptical rather than pro-Remain. This isn't entirely down to Grieg, either, because the Mail's owners wanted a reset as a result of growing concern that Dacre's approach had the potential to be damaging.
I was at a an event at my old college where several media types had been invited. This happened just as the reports of Dacre's departure and Grieg's taking over had started to emerge. At the event, there were mutterings over the wine & cheese from the media types that there was a fear in the Mail's boardroom that if he carried on for a few more years Dacre would be advocating renaming the paper the Völkischer Beobachter. Clearly, that was just a bit hyperbolic, but the point was that there was concern that Dacre was at risk of making the paper a caricature of itself if he'd not done so already.
Although I'm sure that Viro Bono (may his sense of humour be eventually located) and his decision to smite any posts containing links to the Mail wasn't a decisive moment, there were, apparently, worries that people with centre-right opinions who were 'natural' Mail readers were finding much of the content unappealing and downright nasty and voting with their wallets. We're not talking snowflakes here, but people who believed in Brexit, who lamented the rise of political correctness, despised those who believe the St George flag to be racist, etc, etc.
There was, I gathered, concern that the Mail would end up being rejected by the generation which the Mail needed to get on board , because if they didn't, once the older readers died off...
Dacre had, you'll recall, also got the paper into difficulties because of its news gathering approach, which often saw stories taken from other news outlets and rewritten as though they were the result of work by the Mail's journalists. This got them into legal bother in Australia and New Zealand -a freelance journalist discovered swathes of her work reproduced under the names of Daily Mail journalists. While the Mail brazened it out with a 'there's no copyright on ideas' line, this brought with it 'there's no copyright on the idea that the Daily Mail is run by a bunch of ****s' approach from journalists, which meant that the Mail started to be referred to with some disdain by journalists who argued that the Mail was simply a repository for plagiarised articles put together by cut and paste merchants who weren't/aren't real journalists.
By 2017, it seems, the Mail's owners had come to the view that Dacre had sent the Mail much too far to the right and was at risk of damaging it. Grieg was moved across from the Mail on Sunday to bring a more moderate approach - which meant that there was a significant toning down in the articles on Brexit, in keeping with a toning down across the board. It seems to have worked, since the Mail, instead of showing signs of going backwards, overtook the Sun to be the biggest selling newspaper per diem a couple of months ago.