Breda O’Brien: Boris Johnson not the only one telling fibs

As the recriminations continue after Brexit, it is clear that many voters did not believe either side in the campaign. They had good reason, because neither side was telling the full truth.

For example, the claim that Britain was paying £350 million a week to the EU was disproven by multiple sources, as it takes into account neither the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, nor the amount Britain receives directly from the EU.

For their part, Remain campaigners suggested EU membership was worth £3,000 a year to every UK household, which was also inaccurate. Leave campaigners said 64 per cent of British laws originate from the EU while Remain campaigners said 13.2 per cent. The latter figure ignored the fact that many EU regulations automatically have legal force without the need for a new national law.

These are only examples. Some elements of both the Remain and the Leave campaigns played fast and loose with facts and emotions.

So people were left doing their own fact-checking and researching, not as easy as it sounds because of a polarised media, or with voting based on muddled motives, such as the woman who said she remembered Britain before EU membership and wanted to get back to that.

Similarly, commentary after the event focused on how young people had been let down. Few highlighted that young people, particularly those in the 18-24 bracket, appeared to find it difficult to bestir themselves to get to a polling station.

Turnout

One estimate by Sky Data sets the turnout of 18-24 year olds as low as 36 per cent, while others set it closer to the 43 per cent of young voters who voted in the general election.

No matter which figures are accurate, the turnout of young people was abysmal. Some even claimed they did not know it was happening, which raises questions about their sources of information.

The obvious and somewhat crude manipulation of facts and emotions by elements of both sides, the alienation from institutions on display and the failure of young people to turn out in high numbers, are symptoms of a serious democratic crisis.

This age is dubbed the Age of Information, but in fact, it is more like the Age of Propaganda. Jacques Ellul described propaganda not as lies told for the purpose of brainwashing, but a way of orchestrating responses so that people believe they are making free choices.

For example, the Guardian reported on June 20th the "UK government has embarked on a series of clandestine propaganda campaigns intended to bring about 'attitudinal and behavioural change' among young British Muslims as part of a counter-radicalisation programme". The UK government's Research, Information and Communications Unit spends millions on these programmes. For example, thousands of students at freshers' week events interacted with a group advertising itself as helping Syrian refugees, without realising they were interacting with a government programme.

Radicalisation

The UK government justifies this because it is trying to prevent radicalisation and suicide bombers. But the reason such programmes would not work if they were seen as emanating from government is because people do not trust the government.

A covert operation, no matter how expensive, does not address the underlying disaffection. When the truth emerges, as it inevitably will, the alienation and disaffection is increased. The ends, yet again, do not justify the means.

People have real concerns about the direction the EU is moving in. Hitting them with propaganda does nothing to address those concerns.

There are huge inequalities across the EU. In April 2016, 4.235 million people under 25 were unemployed in the EU-28, but the rate in Germany was 7 per cent while it was 51.4 per cent in Greece and 45 per cent in Spain. The euro was a terrible idea from the start, and has deepened the divide rather than helping to bridge it.

Likewise, generosity should be shown towards immigrants and shunting the problem off to Turkey was cynical. Failing to address the "push" factors driving immigration is completely irresponsible.

Conversely, ignoring the fact immigration most affects those at the bottom of the pile in the host country means their concerns are yet again seen as irrelevant to the political elites who see free movement of people as essential to the capitalist project.

Since 2005, when the French voted No to the Constitutional Treaty, it has been obvious that unskilled workers and rural dwellers were increasingly feeling alienated from the EU. No one is addressing that.

Assuming that there were no legitimate issues and that everyone who wanted to exit the EU is a xenophobic Little Englander is a marvellous way to ensure that more people voted to leave.

Ultimately, Brexit may not be the disaster that it is predicted to be. It all depends on whether the other members decide to be punitive or realistic.

If it results in greater attention being paid to the legitimate concerns of the most disadvantaged, it could even be positive.