It might surprise you to hear that actually I agree that the brexit decision was finely balanced.
Jacky Smith

Calling out something somebody has written as ‘simplistic’ or ‘patronising in the extreme' is not name calling or an ad hominem* attack as you wish to portray it as in your ‘stood by comment’, but merely fair comment. Calling it ‘blather' is something else entirely, of course ;-)

Like the article, again you’re falling into the trap of believing your own conceit that somehow you possessed the will, insight and intelligence to resist the decades of right wing lies and had the nous to vote the way you did, and thus by implication those that were brainwashed or dumb enough to chose to vote otherwise didn’t.

Endlessly seeking to distill and blame the outcome of any democratic vote, but particularly one as complex and finely balanced as this, on other people’s ignorance, gullibility, prejudices or even God forbid their perceived self-interest does your, the author’s arguments, or the ongoing (agreed sometimes excruciating, but vital)democratic process itself, no favours.

The last decade or so has seen a rise in right wing populism across Europe in general, not in spite of the EU, but largely because of it. Amongst many other issues the insidious effects of the EU’s democratic deficit have contributed to this and have long been known about. Mason correctly saw fit to flag up in the QT link.

In spite of the fact that fewer and fewer people read the largely Right wing establishment press and post referendum the UK’s very own ‘fascist' populist party got annihilated at the last General Election, the left-lurching Labour Party far exceeded expectations and the Tories got a well deserved kicking, we still have to endure the author’s and others' crude, borderline hysterical attempts to draw parallels between the Brexit vote, the gullibility of the masses and their supposed inextricable link with the inexorable creeping rise of totalitarianism in this country.

It is for these reasons that I chose to point out the flawed analysis and inherent inconsistencies in the article, and used Paul Mason’s very own equivocation to illustrate my point (you’ll also notice he applauded the article).

*Something the author failed to resist herself incidentally at the end of the piece when referring in less than flattering personal terms to Mrs May.

Like what you read? Give gerard harris a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.