Rebutting Remain: the 7 biggest attacks on democracy (and why they're wrong)

The political earthquake that was Brexit has since turned into Biblical Apocalypse in the minds of the losers. The same people who backed David Cameron and his warning that the outcome must be respected have had a distinct change of heart since it transpired the bookies, exit polls and general consensus were wrong yet again.

The reasons for the shocking outcome have been scrutinised in several sources, with Peter Hitchens perhaps proving the most insightful. But as Britain tries to move forward and let the outcome sink in, the disgruntled minority have returned to form by spreading several myths, half-truths, emotional blackmail and - in at least some cases - downright lies in a desperate bid to find any excuse any excuse to ignore democracy and get what they want. Let's review the propaganda:

• 1) "Many" , "Some", "Reports suggest" (choose which weasel words you prefer) have admitted they did not know what Brexit was and now regret voting for it. 
  
  
• (Sometimes this nonsense is accompanied by a google analysis showing that searches for "What is the EU?" hit a high after the outcome.)

This is the biased sample fallacy. Seventeen million people voted for Brexit. The media has managed to pull up a single-digit number of confused voters on the Brexit side, without checking the opposition vote.  The sources have used this 1/17,000,000 fraction to represent the entire Brexit vote. These are probably the same sources who would be first to rightly scream "racist" at anyone who suggested one Muslim terrorist represented all Muslims. The google searches show us nothing except that a lot of people - we have no idea of their age, gender, nationality, political preference or favourite underwear colour - searched for information about the EU after the poll.

• 2)  Old people voted for something younger people have to live with ( circumstantial ad hominem )

This is probably the most unintentionally revealing complaint, as it exposes contempt for older voters. The professed shock at the revelation that pensioners and millenials have different views is either phony or born of ignorance. Did anyone expect seventysomethings and twentysomethings to see the world similarly? Did the same outcry occur when the Conservatives - the traditional party of old folk - won the last election, breaking the hearts of the Labour youth?

Yes, younger voters will have to live with the decision because more elders voted Leave than youngsters voted Remain, it's called "Democracy". What's the objection? Are younger voters wiser? More knowledgeable? Do they deserve to have more say in world affairs than people who have experienced real life for longer than they have? When considered carefully, this complaint is nothing but an ad-hominem attack against a demographic of society. Again the same sources would be screaming from the rooftops if the same type of argument focused on a religious or non-white ethnic group.

• 3) We should have a second referendum because the result was so close (special pleading)

And if Remain won the second referendum, would there be a third?
The online petition reached three million signatures, which is less than a quarter of the Leave vote, and was also found to have at least 17,000 fake signatures which renders it highly dubious.

And by the way, the vote wasn't close, there was a majority of one million.

• 4) This is a victory for racism , Fascism, hate, isolation (choose any other slur that fits) (ad-hominem)

Sometimes accompanied by a set of apocryphal reports on Twitter of someone saying "I heard someone says Romanians go home" etc. ( guilt by association )

The reason the viral reports of people saying unpleasant, discriminatory things is so popular is because it makes the losers feel vindicated - they are the superior intellect and better human being. What's interesting from these rumours is that none of them I've seen has anyone actually confirmed a police report has been made, and making racially-hostile comments is a criminal offence in the UK. Of course, making a false police report is a criminal offence in itself. Have a few people made nasty comments? Probably. In any large city in the world you're likely to find at least a tiny number of xenophobic people. When Leave campaigner Boris Johnson arrived at his office after the result was announced, he was booed, abused and a tiny number of people threw things at him. Pretty sure that we could compile a Twitter wall of these things, too.

• 5) "What about the foreign people working here or Brits living abroad"

Leave said before, during and after the poll that any changes in laws would not be retroactive. End of.

• 6) "Vote Leave lied/spread fear" (ad hominem again )

The 5 million slogan was a little risqué, it didn't account for the rebate. It's true.
Meanwhile, Remain discussed World War 3, economic Armageddon, used the American President to deliver a possibly scripted threat, shamelessly and deliberately exploited the brutal murder of a good person and a colleague, exploited celebrities, sent out based leaflets, and allowed stereotypes of Brexiters as skinhead thugs.

• 7) This has caused the economic crash (appeal to belief )

The economic crash that wasn't and was never reported as such by any media source that had any knowledge of economics. It was rightly reported as a very sharp drop. The kind of sharp drop that occurs in any nation when there's a serious, unexpected event. Speculators cash in, they always have done and always will, it's the founding principle of stock markets.

The richest few were the biggest losers, the pound was not. The FTSE is recovering. Will there be some blips? Probably.

Then again, perhaps our market will drop and never pick up. Perhaps we'll suddenly become a nation of Fascists, pick up guns and attack every nation in Europe, while signing songs about Hitler and expressing hatred of all the foreigners that we see. On the other hand, perhaps things will carry on very much as normal, with the only difference being that we have a stronger level of soveignty, a court that has legal supremacy, greater freedom to spend our own income, more leverage with FTAs and the chance to employ skilled and qualified workers from across the commonwealth and knowledge that we know who are leaders are and, if necessary, how to get rid of them.

If you're so sure it's the former, go to the bookies and place your bets. Maybe they'll call it right this time.

Jo Cox aftermath: How about 'honest' instead of 'kinder' politics?

 

One thing all Thailand guidebooks draw attention to is the idea of the “little good lie”, the simple idea that sometimes feelings will be spared by an untruth. I have received many 'good lies' in my time overseas, but the only one that sticks in mind is early in my career when I covered a very popular senior teacher in a grade five math class. After two weeks, my boss came to me and told me he was so grateful for my help that they would "reward me" by freeing up some time on my schedule and removing me from my cover classes. It transpired that some parents had requested the previous teacher return to class.

In the west however, where lies and especially lying politicians are treated with contempt, the old adage  “The bigger the lie, the more it's believed” rings true. Political lies tend to fit one of three types: either they are rushed through in the hope that nobody bothers or knows how to verify them (think: numerous claims made in the Brexit debate), they are promised to be proven or justified by some future report or other event that is continuously and deliberately postponed (Iraq War report, for example) or they bypass logic and verification altogether via emotional blackmail and appeal to our populist, more defensive instincts. The tragic death of MP Jo Cox and the despicable pile of lies and emotional blackmail heaped on it by some of her so-called friends and allies is an example of that latter type and represents possibly the lowest our own politicians have sunk in quite some time.

Jo Cox, rest in peace

Fact: Jo Cox was killed by a violent man who believed himself mentally ill and linked to a US-based Nazi group. It's a hard truth that extreme people like this have always existed in society. History books have rare but endless tales of senior figures assaulted by violent citizens. However the likelihood of it happening to any one of us is rare, which is why we quite rightly feel such a sense of shock, revulsion and sympathy when we see someone fall victim to such a senseless act. Such sentiments were probably exasperated in Jo's case as – despite being a politician – she lacked the aura of aloofness and occasional arrogance displayed by many of her colleagues. She was a likable, regular person.

All of which makes what happened next all the more despicable. Before Cox's body was even cold, some of the media and her political allies moved to fashion a huge lie from the public grief. Apparently sidestepping the natural stage of grief felt by rational people, the Daily Star was first to hit the press with the headline “Jo Cox killed by Brexit Gunman”. The single claim for the headline was based around a rumour the Cox's killer had yelled “Britain First” after shooting. The headline was wrong for two reasons. Firstly, “Britain First” is not a Brexit group but a fringe political, right-wing group. To suggest that supporting them makes someone a Brexit supporter is akin to saying being a KKK member makes someone a Republican. The second problem is that it never, ever happened. A witness to the event confirmed he never heard the gunman shout “Britain First” or anything remotely similar.

But by the truth had its boots on, the lie was halfway around the world.  Sure enough, Guardian writer Polly Toynbee - formerly a BBC employee – produced an article on Cox's death warning of a sentiment  of“hate and isolation" built up from Brexit support. Still less than 48 hours after the death and with the Labour MP's family no doubt still in shock, Toynbee reveled in her moral pedantry. I personally found it difficult to decipher the psyche behind her column: was she really so confused as to believe her drivel? Was she simply so arrogant and callous that she didn't care? Or did she believe the end game was so important that all lies and exploitation were justified?

From then on the myth snowballed. Remain leaflets warned “Jo Cox's murder may be the start” , with similar hyperbole spreading uncontrollably from some sections of the Remain camp. Others didn't even pretend: Remain campaign director Will Straw was exposed in a phone conversation and email ordering his team to exploit the death. Meanwhile, in a serious of mostly heartfelt and sincere tributes to Jo by politicians of all sides, Labour's Neil Kinnock couldn't resist linking the death to UKIP and Nigel Farage in a two-sentence "tribute" tweet.

Even apparently justified and reasonable acts became loaded. The recalling of parliament to allow tributes to Cox was probably a kind thing to do. The question, however is: would the same course have been followed if, say, Douglas Carswell had been murdered? Would David Cameron have been so keen to display grief and tributes if the undertone of anti-Brexit sentiment hadn't been established? If not, why not? The whole purpose of parliament is to display, encourage and follow the process of democracy. Democracy means accepting different views. If you bend or twist procedure according to the views of the person at the end, you're being the exact apposite of “kind” or democratic.


A charity was set up in the wake of Jo's passing. Three charities were named as beneficiaries. Two of them I know little of, but their cause sounds courageous and noble. The third, however, is “Hope Not Hate” , a group set-up with – despite any claims to the contrary– a single goal to stifle, disrupt and intimidate any groups that express enough disagreement with socialist politics. HNH have repeatedly disrupted various events such as UKIP meetings and Brexit events. Their modus operandi is not to engage, discuss, debate or engage in “kind” politics but to simply shut down the opposition.

But in this mountain of lies, “kind” may be the most abused word. “Kind” is being presented as the idea that we shouldn't disagree, that we shouldn't find fault or acknowledge that people, culture and societies can, do and always will differ in some way.

“Kindness” can have many meanings and examples but surely in the murky world of politics we can narrow the field to two useful examples: the first being tolerance if not approval or assistance to those with very different views. We don't need to be told that killing isn't the answer, no sane person believes otherwise. The second is that even in a field where deceit and dishonesty is the norm, we should still draw the line somewhere. When the still-warm body of a good person, a mother and a friend is being exploited and lied about without the slightest element of shame, I'd say that “kindness” isn't the only quality lacking, we could all benefit from a big dose of the human qualities of honesty and common respect for those in grief, too.