The Government yesterday launched a website setting out its case for the UK to remain in the EU. This resource, along with Government literature to be delivered to every household in the country, is a ‘’response to the public desire for facts’’.
The literature contains official Government branding and language. It feels like part-manifesto, part official guidance. It toes the line between fact and opinion. Independent polling reports that 84% of people want more impartial guidance ahead of polling day; is this what people have been waiting for?
The answer is no. The Government’s material includes lots of language from Britain Stronger In Europe, the leading campaign to continue EU membership, who are certainly not impartial. A wholesome family photo and production line of smiling workers accompanies buzzwords like ‘’Security’’, ‘’Jobs’’ and ‘’UK Border’’.
All arguments advanced by the Leave campaign are omitted, except for a small reference when the Government describes the ‘’decade of uncertainty’’ that Britain would face should they vote Leave. Some arguments for Brexit are legitimate even to the most impartial of political animals, for example the inability to control EU migration, though this ‘’guidance’’ does not acknowledge them.
Many people are frustrated that that they can’t access a reasoned debate, which acknowledges the merits of both sides, and forms a balanced conclusion. Instead, campaigners reject each other’s ideas as propaganda and conjecture. These documents are no different. It is not politically impartial guidance, it is the Government’s latest attempt to win over voters.
When it comes to matters of national importance, so called ‘’high politics’’, the problem is that there is no such thing as impartial information. Everything that we read and hear is designed to influence us one way or another. Any group capable of producing truly neutral information probably isn’t worth listening to.
Further, the actual benefits and drawbacks of the EU are themselves very hard to neutrally measure. While we can quantify the amount of CO2 produced or regulations introduced on Brussels’ watch, it’s hard to impartially measure the benefits of international cooperation with EU partners or the strain placed on overrun public services. These arguments necessarily contain political judgements.
We, the voters, will therefore have to accept that all arguments are loaded. We should take in both sides’ points and come to our own conclusions about which are more important. If we are critical, skeptical, honest and open minded, we’ll make the right decision.