skip to main content

Why you can’t trust either campaign on the EU Referendum debate

Written on 28 April 2016

The idea that the people get to choose whether the UK remains in the EU, or not, is a noble one.

What better way to demonstrate a democratic system than giving the people the chance to make the decision?

However, how can you make a decision when so much of what is at stake is unknown.

If you consider the “remain” campaign. This is essentially the status quo and therefore the evidence of the past can be used to some extent to predict the future.

How fantastic – except that nobody was able to predict the economic crash of 2007. Neither are we able to predict how MEPs will vote on new rules, membership applications or any future economic uncertainty.

Then, if you consider the “leave” campaign. Its leaders have campaigned against the EU for years (except Boris Johnson who was previously pro-EU). But that doesn’t necessarily make their claims correct.

The fact that none of the remain campaign are in positions of power means that they are completely unable to state any plans for what would happen if the UK were to leave.

Therefore, the entire “debate” is based on claims and counter claims, with each claim being based on statistics which are being interpreted, misrepresented and ultimately discredited by the opposition.

One of the biggest statements from so many “undecided” people (if you’re undecided, you are naturally a “status quo”) is that they are “not being told the truth”. When in politics have you ever been told what is the truth? Do you trust politicians?

You can listen to the experts (most of whom side with remain) but even then they have vested interests.

The fact this is a campaign at all is a laughable state of affairs.

What should have happened is for the Government to remain neutral and present the facts, plans and strategies which enable people to make an informed choice.

But that hasn’t happened.

There are never any certainties, but if you want to know the truth, you should be doing your own research using factual based sites, and then fact check your newly formed opinion.

Remember that “newspapers” no longer represent the impartial facts. The Express is owned by major UKIP donor, while the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Times are an anti-EU. Similarly, the Guardian is pro-remain – all of whom require your clicks to fund themselves. Which means they will *always* publish biased outrage and shock over fact.

Ultimately, this is not the X-Factor. Every one of the campaigners has a vested interest. If you hear an MEP talk about being a “turkey voting for Christmas” you can surmise that there is an ulterior motive sitting behind their decision. Similarly, consider that Mr Cameron has already declared he will not be standing for re-election in 2020 which means he is unlikely to be Prime Minister for a significant period after the referendum.

If you listen to either the remain or leave camp, you will forever be stuck in middle ground – and as June 23rd gets closer, you are likely to end up more and more confused.

And that is a dangerous place to be on a vote which is so important for now and the generations to come.

We believe that if you believe you have enough facts to consider a leave vote, then that’s a good decision. But if you are unsure, our belief is that the safest and default option is to vote remain. There will be another EU referendum in the future, and you will be able to investigate the facts further as a result – without the time pressure.