Brexit: The Uncivil War
‘The Brexit campaigns of 2016 – Both Leave and Remain – were fought largely through the medium of simplicities, delusions and lies (Morgan, 2018, p.37).
Source:Dreamstime.com
The lies and duplicities that the leave campaign were built upon, targeted the fears of those who felt left behind, assisted by the right wing, pro-brexit British press and a lacklustre campaign by labour who failed to fully focus and commit to supporting the Remain campaign. Polling data found that ‘one in two labour voters were unaware that labour were advocating a Remain position’.
Earlier this week (Monday 7th of January, 2019), channel 4 screened ‘Brexit: an uncivil War’
Response to the drama has been mixed, with the Guardian stating that it was
‘superficial, irresponsible TV', ‘Brexit without the boring bits is a blast’ states the Times, and the Radio Times offering that ‘it was decisive’. The programme highlighted the deep divisions that exist in Britain today at a time of tension, uncertainty and heightened emotions. Neither side are said to have generated ‘deep political thinking’ but were based around lies and deception. Leave focused on the issue of the NHS and Turkey joining the EU. Whilst Remain promoted ‘project fear’ as it became known, the ruinous economic impact of Brexit.
Post analysis of the referendum led to the Vote Leave Campaign being found guilty of breaking the law, by the Electoral Commission and being fined £61,000. Journalists such as Carole Cadwaller gathered evidence against the two main ‘Pro – Brexit campaigns’. Yet continuously we are told that the ‘people have spoken’ and that a second referendum or ‘peoples vote’ would ‘disrespect’ the people who voted in the Referendum in June, 2016. 17.4 million people voted to Leave, but 16.1 million voted to remain.
Source:https://bitly.com/#
A democracy is only as strong as the elections that set its course. If they can be bought or subverted, then confidence in democracy and the legitimacy of the governments it installs, seeps away. But astonishingly, the details that have been gradually revealed, of illegal activity by both the official Vote Leave and the unofficial Leave.EU campaigns in the run-up to the Brexit vote, appear to have no immediate consequences.
‘Most British elections are guaranteed by law. If evidence of serious cheating is uncovered, they can be scrutinised and overturned in an “election court”, overseen by high court judges. However, because the Brexit referendum was only an advisory vote there are no legal channels to challenge the result. Only parliament can investigate the result, declare it void or demand a re-run.
Along with the breaking of electoral campaign law there is also the questions of the ethics and morals of the actions of the ‘Leave Campaign’. There is an overlap between ethics and the Law, the Law can seen to define the ‘minimum acceptable standard of behaviour’ (Crane and Matten, 2016, p.5). The lies and duplicities that the leave campaign were built upon, targeted the fears of those who felt left behind, assisted by the right wing, pro-brexit British press and a lacklustre campaign by labour who failed to fully focus and commit to supporting the Remain campaign.
As we move ever closer to the 29th of March deadline, MPs are attempting to stop Theresa May “running down the clock”by forcing the prime minister to return to the House of Commons just three days after her Brexit deal is defeated to present an alternative plan. As events unfold before us at an unprecedented speed, it is difficult to comprehend how this ever came to be, but even more alarming is how democracy will survive post Brexit?