MPs from both sides of the aisle give a standing ovation and congratulate each other for the bipartisan law they have just passed, a law that would send millions into poverty, destroy businesses and people’s lifetime savings. This image is not part of an eerie fantasy, it actually happened in Argentina in December 2001, when politicians inflicted the country one of its worst economic crises. And it is about to happen in the UK should Brexit were followed through.

​

The story behind Argentina’s image was a series of negligent acts spanning several years. Nevertheless, the vote to default the National Debt, both foreign and domestic, will remain a moment for disgrace in Argentina’s history. One of the main pretexts used for getting public’s support was that such a law would help the country regain independence from the rest of the world.  A shallow argument, widely used to move hordes of inattentive people towards the demagogues’ flock. It is terribly sad it can get a hold on the British public.

​

Confusion vs. Democracy

Confusion is a tool used by demagogues to succeed. In order to induce somebody to accept an illogical argument, the meaning of words should be twisted: unlock the link between a word and the concept it initially aimed to represent and then make a new link with a new concept. So, even if people continue to sustain and embrace a word, such as ‘democracy’ for example, they are now inadvertently supporting a different concept. They may massively demonstrate in the streets without having a clue on what they are actually supporting.

​

One morning thousands of graffities appeared throughout the city of Buenos Aires saying that free speech and freedom of the press was against democracy. Of course, it was phrased differently, stimulating confusion. So, despite being an illogical argument, it was easily embraced by the blind followers of the leader back then, Cristina Kirchner. Of course, it proved useful for silencing criticism.

​

To foster confusion is the main objective of propaganda. Europeans should be particularly aware of propaganda due to the history of having suffered fascism during the last century.

Neo-Fascism could be seen as a later stage of a demagogy, when a democracy is transitioning towards an authoritarian regime. It relies heavily on propaganda and the stimulation of animal spirits.

​

The existence of propaganda doesn’t happen exclusively in Latin America, it also happens in the Anglo-Saxon world, such as Trump’s America. Could it also be happening in the UK lead by Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage? Theresa May has repeated once and again that it would be undemocratic should they not follow through with Brexit. Nevertheless, the opposite would be true. Democracy is not about pointing towards black boxes whose true content remains hidden and unknown to citizens. The political theorist Robert A. Dahl has argued there should be an enlightened understanding, that is, an informed electorate, which would then vote. In order to achieve it people need to understand what the options are and what consequences they entail. Could we sustain people were fully aware of Brexit’s consequences when they voted? Brexiteers’ promises are now being shown to be false.

​

Checks and Balances

When people refer to “Democracy” they actually refer to a specific type, sometimes called Modern Democracy or a Polyarchy. It originated in the works of Montesquieu, Locke and Madison, amongst others. The fundamental concept here is “checks and balances”, which aims to restrain political entities from taking arbitrary or unsound decisions, through the work of a net of independent institutions. Checks and balances aim to prevent a tyranny, whether from a single person or a majority. Yes, there are limits to the vote of a majority even in democracies.

​

A referendum is one instrument, amongst many, that can be used in a modern democracy. There are binding and non-binding referendums. The ‘Brexit’ referendum was non-binding, which means it was not a decision by itself, but only a query. As with any other tentative policy in a modern democracy, it can be contested, particularly if it poses a great peril to the Nation.

​

An issue of National Security

Even though it hasn’t been properly reported, the perils of Brexit go far beyond the economic stance. It is an issue of National Security.

​

Brexit is rising tensions in Northern Ireland, but it is also providing a final argument for Scotland to secede. It could foster the breakup of the UK.

​

The British should find a way to build a common ground, to build a better future together. After all, that is what democracy is about.

​

Even if you can easily accept the breakup of the UK, have you ever wondered its implications over UK’s Army and its secret services? Which of the new countries would keep what part? Once they are split apart, each of their budgets will be drastically reduced compared to the total and none of them will have a critical amount of money or assets to develop strategic projects. UK’s Army and its secret services will be completely crippled.

​

It is also important to notice that, should the UK leave the European Union, the exchange of information with European intelligence agencies will be hindered. The UK will be exposed to a higher peril of terrorist attacks.

​

Do you still think the UK will actually be stronger and more independent this way?

 

European Union: united or broken up

Consider the peril of a conflict within Europe. It is not improbable from a historical perspective. Actually, Europe has been crippled for centuries by brutal wars, famines and destruction. Only in the last century, around 100 million people (including military and civilians) died in two brutal wars. From 1815 to 1930 around sixty million Europeans, almost the whole population of the entire UK, ran away from the misery of Europe. My grandparents were among them.

​

The European Union was born as a peacekeeping mechanism and it has managed to transform Europe from a devastated land into one of the most peaceful regions of the world. It has been so successful that people have actually forgotten there was an issue to solve. Have you thought what could happen if the whole European Union were broken apart? Because do bear in mind Brexit will not go unnoticed by the mushrooming demagogic governments throughout Europe. There is a rising nationalism that may resemble 1930’s European atmosphere. And we all know how that story ended-up. When the peacekeeping mechanism called the European Union is finally destroyed, Brexit and the UK will be to blame as its final trigger.

​

There were hundreds of thousands of Britons who gave their lives in European wars hoping that by their actions they would bring a stable peace for the continent and for their families back home. What would their opinions be regarding a decision that could, sometime in the future, bring the prospect of a European war aback into a possibility? Even if they can’t vote any longer, their dying wishes should count somehow.

​

Foreign threats: Russia

And even if that were not enough, consider other foreign threats, such as Russia. Russia has only assassinated -or attempted to murder- an undisclosed quantity of individuals in UK soil using banned chemical and radioactive weapons -such as Litvinenko, who was killed with Polonium 210, or the assassination attempt of Sergei Skripal with the banned Novichok nerve agent-. Russia has also stormed warplanes into UK skies, as well as all throughout Europe. Russia has even gone further, as it recently seized European territories, such as Crimea and may be close to grab the eastern region of Ukraine. It escapes any reasonable explanation why Europe did not react to Russian soldiers who resigned to their Army for the occasion and teamed up with local rebels, trained them and provided them with Russian weapons. Maybe Europe feels to be powerless?? When the UK leaves the Union it will be weaker to confront foreign perils. What other organization could help for the defense of Europe? A collapsing NATO? An inward-looking America?

​

Of course, it is not in the best interests of Russia to move towards a full-blown war against the EU. But we tend to wrongly assign an underlying logic and intelligence flowing beneath all elements we see. And they may not. There are mistakes and miscalculated risks. When an illegitimate de-facto government in Argentina, led by a drunkard who aimed to retain power by any means, led the Army to seize the Falkland/Malvinas islands, it was thought the UK would not retaliate. Of course, it was absurd. But miscalculations do happen, even in more professional armies. Vladimir Putin has had a popularity boost each time he occupied a new territory -it also happened with South Ossetia and Abkhazia-, so he will keep doing it, stretching the limits each time.

​

A democratic solution: call Brexit off

So, is Theresa May right when she says it would it be undemocratic to stop Brexit? It was an unbinding referendum and it was put forward without thoroughly revealing critical information on National Security risks. Theresa May is wrong. Because, contrary to her sayings, it would be undemocratic to follow through with Brexit, not only because its process has been faulty from a democratic perspective, but also because it will imperil the future of the UK by making an arbitrary decision, based on false arguments.

​

What is democracy without intellectual humility to search for Truth? What is democracy without the courage to undo our mistakes and strive to build a better future together? Theresa May prefers to burn the UK down to ashes rather than cede her power. That doesn’t seem democratic either.