The 'liberal' arm of the Western media alongside its illegitimate half-brother, the establishment intelligentsia - aka 'the elite' - really has its knickers in a knot this time, and understandably so. Having formed an unholy huddle, they are literally beside themselves, in an ungodly haste, as they rather desperately seek to reconcile themselves to, let alone accept, a very inconvenient truth: a few days ago they lost the Brexit vote - and not just by the skin of their teeth. So we now have the spectacle of some of their number - a limited group, admittedly, and even fewer leading figures amongst them - hastily engaging in the extremely unseemly, unedifying spectacle of publicly raising hell and high water over a result they can barely stomach. This while conflating each and every possible short- and long-term ramification and permutation of especially their doomsday economic repercussions issuing from the United Kingdom's still astonishing 'take the world (and punters) by storm' decision to exit the European Union late last week.
In this highly undignified process - spurred on to new depths by self-appointed media, including some of NZ's own correspondents in the UK - we see folk unprepared to leave any stone, rock or pebble even unturned in their quest to magnify each and every apparent instance of 'democracy gone wrong', whether later regrets and misgivings by less committed exit voters, alleged broken or lying-through-one's-teeth promises by Brexit campaigners themselves, and supposedly too narrow a vote margin to warrant a proper 'mandate' in such a constitutionally all-important issue, to name the main ones. Conceding that the last of these doubtless would have more than a semblance of merit were those the long-time, well-established pre-conditions of referenda in the UK per se - for example, one British Bremainer's claim that all such decisions be approved by at least 60% of voters provided a 75% turnout was obtained - any half-awake onlooker however cannot but 'retort' that everyone knew the score before the vote took place to begin with, and so it's a teeny-weeny bit late to cry spilt milk at this stage of proceedings.
Moreover, as New Zealand's inimitable television personality and political commentator Paddy Gower, on TV3's The Nation this morning, in answer to someone posing the hypothetical question, '[But] is it[i.e. the referendum result] a[n] [actual] mandate?' replied: "Yes, it's a mandate...In a democracy you only need 50.1%, and they[i.e. the Brexiters] got it...so, yes, they [do] have a mandate." And a much more comfortable margin - and hence mandate - than 50.1%, it must surely be conceded. But in the frantic attempt to somehow or other invalidate what has taken place, we are seeing far more desperate manoeuvres still, and far less plausible ones.
Some such as TV3's well-known reporter and presently UK correspondent 'on the [referendum] ground', Tova O'Brien, are visibly extremely upset, even livid with how things have gone. Thus - among various remarks about the feeling supposedly now pertaining on the streets of the UK, or at least the strongly pro-Bremain city of London where O"Brien was stationed - we had her echoing the claim that many UK referendum voters simply didn't know what they were doing, citing especially heavy traffic upon an internet site in the immediate aftermath of the vote. Thus the allegation that such 'traffic' was especially noticeable - apparently scoring most hits over recent days - around the questions 'What is the EU?'; '*and 'Who's [actually] in the EU?' somehow could be taken for a given that Brexit voters didn't really know what they were doing full stop.
What utter piffle, and exceedingly unscientific to boot. As if correlation ipso pronto can be taken as proof of causation! Not to mention the possibility of deliberate spiking by Bremainers to give this very impression in the aftermath of the vote, and thus seek to readily and speedily discredit and thus invalidate it. Indeed, it's in what this late rearguard action by the Bremainers signifies and reveals that's the real problem.
Such journos seem wholly unable to straddle that old standby of the trade, a thing called objectivity and balance. A rather obvious thing I know, and usually simply automatically assumed of any and every journalist. But increasingly less evident on all manner of media fronts, completely irrespective of ideological or politically partisan standpoint. Personally, while reporting for and eventually editing my high school's student paper for four years that was considered rather basic: a must, an essential, an absolute requirement if you will. But perhaps journalism no longer demands that? It would appear not.
But in a far more general sense we've been presented with the scene of individual media supposedly bowling up and randomly stopping ye average citizenry in the streets. Folk who, it now all too conveniently appears, were extremely unwitting voters for exiting Europe. However now 'all is forgiven', they see the extreme error of their recalcitrant ways. And all this is gleefully dragged up by such journos as if to somehow prove the entire vote process, and thus outcome, a complete fraud. That people didn't really know what they were doing, and so, ipso facto, the referendum result doesn't count; that it's in effect invalid.
The implication thus clearly being that many Brexiters on the day - or at the very least sufficient to have effectively swayed the result the other way - were somehow fooled, hoodwinked, almost coerced against their will and better judgment, into voting in a way that they suddenly, 'miraculously', the morning after, now see to have been a delusion, a great, almost unforgivable mistake and error of judgment.Or so the narrative seems to run.Yes, the entire nation's been sold a fraudulent bill of goods, and it stinks to high heaven, and we're simply not going to put up with it.
As if the prospect of plenty of voters post-election (or referendum) - whether sooner or later - with 'buyer's remorse' is somehow a new or unusual phenomenon, or even for that matter would necessarily be confined to Brexit supporters. As if a similar number of 'Bremainers' couldn't have been dragged out of the proverbial woodwork regretting they weren't on the winning side, regretting that they too hadn't supported the historic move to leave the European Union.
And now, for the very latest, we have the unbelievable prospect of people flailing about to somehow get a new poll, or at least an on-line petition presumably demanding such, to reverse a referendum result they simply find unpalatable. It would seem pretty well every man, woman, canine and moggy available is hastily being requisitioned to call for, nay, to verily demand a re-vote. Or so some mischief-making media and vocal Bremainers would have us all believe.
Isn't 'democracy' such a pain in the neck, as well as in the proverbial?!?! That is, when(ever) it doesn't go quite the way one wants, when one doesn't get the result one was hoping for, and more often than not actually voted for? But of course! The point is, haven't we all been there at some time or other? And we know we need to bite our well-bloodied and bruised lip and 'simply suck it up', as some put it these days. Or as British export/ex-pat and former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Michael Cullen once memorably put it: "We won, you lost, (now) eat that!" (Or words to that effect.)
How about this for the much larger Brexit vote than expected?: doubtless it's far from a novel idea, but didn't something quite similar happen in the last British election, which was supposed to be much closer than it in fact was? And didn't pollsters, pundits and the like come to the conclusion that voters in pre-polling were simply embarrassed or ashamed - for whatever reason, presumably not wanting to seem prejudiced or overly conservative when responding to opinion pollsters - for voting the way they did? And so this newly-prevalent belief that the referendum really ought to have gone the other way is not just simply mistaken, if anything the margin would've been far larger - for leaving - were it not, as I maintain elsewhere, and doubtless numerous others do as well - for that awful, ghastly assassination of Labour M.P. Jo Cox. Yes, she really was - in every way, apparently - a model of political integrity and then some; a veritable shining light of a politician, despite her misguided - but thoroughly genuine, well-argued and admirably passionate - perspective on the Brexit referendum.
Excuse me if I'm somehow misinformed, but I've ever and always been under the impression that 'democracy' didn't always deliver the outcome one wanted, so one simply had to 'grin and bear it' as it were. And preferably with good grace, including and especially in conceding defeat. To his immeasurable credit British Prime Minister David Cameron, ever the statesman whatever one might think of his politics, readily did just that by quickly falling upon his sword. Likewise freshly-challenged Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in a similar spirit, in response to those on his (Bremain) side of the debate, claiming the 'result was too close to constitute a proper mandate', simply responded: "The people have spoken." And even German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been remarkably subdued if visibly almost biting her lip and keeping her own - vocal - oar out of the debate both pre- and post-referendum.
And whatever her views on the referendum one cannot but admire the ever eloquent, gutsy, stroppy and charismatic Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and her sheer nerve and verve in the aftermath of the two recent impacting referenda she's been involved in. Such altogether genuine staunchness, tenacity, and passionate conviction are oh so rare to see in any politician these days, yet Cameron himself rose to similar heights, at times, during the recent referendum. Which reminds me of another long-deceased politician or two with similar qualities, both British as it turns out.
Having been toppled upon this very issue, what would Margaret Thatcher have not given to have seen Friday's result? But someone she was often compared to, though most regard him as a monolith in stature above and beyond almost any other 20th Century politician, or rather statesman, and thus essentially and altogether in a league of his own - was of course Winston Churchill.
Churchill was known for many things, not least his inspirational rallying words to a war-weary Britain in World War 11. He was also often noted as the author of a famous remark or three upon democracy. In one of these he characterized it as essentially a pretty cruddy system, with very little to show for its great claims. That was, until one stopped for a second and reflected upon all the others. And so one can only hope that, whatever bad feelings and disappointments some Britons and ex-pats feel over the Brexit vote, they take a leaf out of Winston's book, and accept that however flawed and problematic, democracy Westminster- and Western-style is still and ever remains the best of an admittedly bad bunch.
Yes, we all can and do feel genuine grief when life doesn't go all our own way, and naturally especially when we suffer great loss. In our confusion and tears we tend to lose our way at times. But perspective, they tell us, is everything. And so, lamenting Bremainers, I suggest you do what the Python crew once counselled: 'Al-ways lo-ok on the bri-ght si-de of life, (ditto, ditto)'. It sure makes life a whole lot easier in the long run. And as for the referendum just past, hey, you'll get over it as well...one day soon.
*Though I (originally) heard the second question as 'What does it mean to leave the European Union?'
Regardless, all such enquiries evidently signalling the supposed brain-deadness of Brexit voters, and thus, in one very fell and much-maligning swoop, automatically discrediting and invalidating their votes, suggesting they weren't even fit to cast one in the very first instance!
No comments:
Post a Comment