The illogicality of rational thought

As any fule no, on the vexed issue of Brexit the UK newspaper The Independent is a Remainer.

For the last six months or so it has also been running a campaign for a second Referendum entitled “#Final Say” which it publicises every day, not only by calling for a petition to be signed calling for one but also featuring stories on celebrities, think-tanks, academics or expert organisations that support the idea.

Here is a contribution to their Letters page that appears today upon their website today:

A SECOND REFERENDUM IS THE ONLY OPTION

We surely now accept that however people voted in the referendum, it was in ignorance on all sides as to the potential consequences of the vote. Even reasonably sophisticated political commentators offered a wide variety of predictions as to what the outcome might be, whatever the result. We now have a much clearer view of the complexities facing negotiators and of possible outcomes and the risks for this country if mistakes are made. We can lose the U from UK and the B from GB. We must be given a chance to vote again.

B Perrett​
Address supplied.

Although I have no doubt that that the author is a sincere gentleman or lady and reached his/her viewpoint after a great deal of research, consideration and thought, it seems to me that within it are the seeds of just the sort of arrogance, conceit, ‘holier (more intelligent) than thou’ condescending attitude in others that probably caused 35-40% of those who were ‘wavering’ at the polling station over whether to vote Leave in the 2016 EU Referendum to shrug their shoulders, say to themselves “Oh, what the hell …?” and move their pencil towards the ‘Leave’ box.

I know it did in my case.

(Even though I was always going to vote Leave anyway in the hope/expectation the UK leaving the EU would then prompt Scotland heed the SNP call to vote for independence in its own “Should we leave the UK?” Referendum).

How so?

Well, let me put it this way. Look at the first sentence of the letter again:

“We surely now accept that however people voted in the referendum, it was in ignorance on all sides as to the potential consequences of the vote.”

Dear Sir or Madam – please take time to stop and think about what you are writing before you send it to an organ of the media, let alone your maiden aunt in Cobham.

If you can name me a single general election or referendum in history in any Western Democracy, let alone the UK, in which the overwhelming bulk of voters were not ignorant of the consequences of what they were voting for then I will immediately gift you my entire shareholdings in John Lewis, Patisserie Valerie, Bitcoin and Aston Martin.

The inescapable extensions of that sentence’s logic is irredeemably anti-democratic. To put no finer point upon it, there are two key ones, i.e. that:

EITHER as a matter of principle nobody who is ignorant should be allowed to vote in elections or referenda;

OR (alternatively) every time the tide of human events turns out to prove different in end result from that which was generally anticipated at the time of the most recent election or referendum – then said election/referendum ought to be automatically re-run again because (plainly) – at the time of the original vote – the electorate who had bothered to turn out were not in full possession of the facts as they would then later occur.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the author of this letter’s whacko logic, you understand.

I’ve long held to the view that the world’s problems are far too great and various – and indeed the policies and decisions most likely to resolve them so draconian and far-reaching – that anybody with two brain cells could see that leaving them to be decided by a ‘Will of the People’ vote is patently stupid.

Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, any more than human beings will save themselves from becoming fat, diabetic, alcoholic, addicted (and/or everything else that will render them unhealthy in mind or body) simply by being advised, or ordered, to desist.

In similar fashion, the notion that yer average member of the voting public would vote for the ‘right’ thing even if it was going to cause them hardship or inconvenience  – i.e. rather than what suited them personally, or what in their ignorance they had been persuaded to believe by some snake-oil-salesman-like politician who simply wanted their vote at election time – is patently absurd.

So – Mr or Ms Perrett might indignantly ask me – what is my solution then, if I’m so goddamned smart?

Well, a benign world dictatorship with yours truly at the helm would be a start …