Facts or Feelings , Facts and Feelings ?
one or the other . Leave voters have been portrayed as voting with their feelings , disregarding facts , while the Remain side voters have been portrayed as making an informed , fact-based vote . In tandem , Remain campaign politicians have based many of their arguments on expert advice from economists and academics , but have emphasized the feeling of unity within the Union much less . Instead , their arguments were mainly focused on the economic incentives for remaining in the Union . The Leave campaign focused more on feelings of independence , nationalism , and pride in the British way of life , in contrast to more liberal European values . Reflecting on the dichotomy facts and feelings , we put forward some hypotheses that might be fruitful for future research on the Referendum :
• Neither of the two opposing sides in the Referendum articulated a narrative that integrated fact-based and feelings-based arguments convincingly , and the Remain side , in particular , failed to connect to other arguments than those of economic benefits .
• Even before the Referendum results were known , while the debates were ongoing , the dichotomy of facts and feelings played a part in the unfolding narrative , and as the dichotomy is false — but powerful — it contributed to a simplistic understanding of the choices to be made and their consequences . behind expert advice .
• Seeing the EU Referendum as a question of facts versus feelings is simplistic , as does claiming that the outcome puts us in a post-factual democracy . It would be a more fruitful analysis to see the two as competing narratives — and analyze how facts and feelings are interwoven in the political deliberation . The role of media , and its ability to handle both , as well as expert ’ s arguments to reflect them fully are dimensions that need to be considered and call for further research for exploration .
Our analysis of the EU Referendum presents a reflection on parts of the debate and analysis . Our aim was to address what we perceived as a simplified discussion of the election outcome , to outline the elements of a critical discourse , and to generate some hypotheses for future research . With this framework , the debate following the EU Referendum could focus on how well both sides presented facts , how well grounded they were , and how well both sides addressed the feelings that move voters to a certain political decision ; that is , how facts and feelings are integrated and complementary .
• The debate has put blame on the experts , rather than on the particular context in which experts advice were given and formed within . The knowledge and experience experts have is certainly vital for the forthcoming debates on the EU Referendum , but it must be presented in a context facilitating for people to understand , trust , and assess the ideological reasoning
16