European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 14

Facts or Feelings , Facts and Feelings ?
the National Health Service . After the election , Farage admitted that this was a mistake , but his argument was powerful in making voters feel that leaving the Union would result in increased financial resources for British people in need , rather than disappear in the “ EU machine ”. The £ 350 million a week “ mistake ” has thus been presented as a proof that Leave voters disregarded facts in favor of a narrative that made them feel like they would benefit more from being outside the Union than in it . Nevertheless , this is an excessively simplified argument . Mr . Farage was obviously wrong , but the argument as such is factual . He presents a quantitative estimate of savings as a consequence of leaving . To argue that voters were swept away by a convincing narrative is thus only a part of the truth , the other aspect being the framework in which facts and expert advice figure in the political discourse .
Expertise in the Context of the EU
Politics , and especially policy , has a strong commitment to facts and socalled evidence-based decisions ( Dahler- Larsson 2011 ; Lindgren 2006 ). Thus , the consequences of a new era where people support politicians that make them feel good , rather than the ones that present the most accurate facts , would be problematic — if it were true . But can it really be that simple ? The post EUreferendum discourse has scapegoated the Leave voters for not being rational and to trust feelings rather than obey facts — and for putting their trust in the wrong hands . However , trust might work in more complex ways than simply following facts or feelings .
The phenomenon of expertise plays a dubious role in the public discourse ( Beck 1992 ). In today ’ s evidence-based policy movement , the expert is ubiquitous ( Culpitt 1999 ). There is an inherent inequality of power between the one that possesses the role of the expert and the people . The problem with this inequality of power between experts and the people in a democracy is , as Jürgen Habermas among others have argued , that it makes an equal debate impossible . The role of experts puts the state ’ s “ neutrality ” into question as governments depend on , subsidize , and give status to the opinions of experts and the facts they present .
However , facts are not free of ideology . They are produced from a certain viewpoint and often with a certain motive . They are , hopefully , better researched than opinions , and they are usually grounded in experience , theoretical knowledge , and logic , but they are not neutral . This does not mean that people cannot trust facts , but it means that facts should always be understood in the context that produced them ( Boswell 2009 ). Obviously , not all experts are united in their opinion of the benefits of the EU and why the UK should remain in the Union — criticism of the European project has been widespread . This criticism has ranged from that toward the decision group formed by the European Commission , the IMF , and the ECB , commonly called the Troika , to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ( TTIP ), which have mobilized huge protests across Europe against the EU ’ s policymaking . Referring to Michael Gove ’ s statement that people are ‘ fed up with experts ’, perhaps it is not only that
14