After the Brexit vote, will dignity prevail?

Neither side of the Brexit divide emerged with much credit – rarely in political history can there have been a debate of such low quality

A vote leave supporter rummages in her bag in London on the morning Britain voted to leave the EU. Toby Melville / Reuters

The British people have spoken and those who willed the country to remain part of the European Union must respect the decision to leave.

That such a high proportion of the electorate, 72 per cent, took part in Thursday’s referendum is worthy of respect. But the same cannot be said of the campaign itself.

Rarely in political history can there have been a debate of such wretchedly low quality, with insults, scaremongering and hyperbole taking the place of rational discussion.

Neither side emerged with much credit.

Prophecies of doom streamed from both camps, leaving voters with an unenviable task of distinguishing trustworthy or at least plausible projections from unsubstantiated polemic.

In the unedifying war of words that characterised the exchanges, rival politicians and pundits traded claim and counterclaim, each purporting to have the definitive answer to making Britain more prosperous and better able to safeguard its borders.

The Remain campaign urged people to vote to stay “to protect jobs, lower prices, workers’ rights and a stronger, safer and better off Britain”. For advocates of withdrawal, a vote to leave ensured a better, friendlier relationship with the EU, “much safer than giving Brussels more power and money every year”.

In the closing stages of the campaign, two senior pro-Brexit politicians, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both invoked the spectre of Adolf Hitler in their public pronouncements. Mr Johnson said the EU had the same goal as the Nazi leader in trying to create a political superstate, while Gove compared warnings of grave economic consequences of withdrawal with Nazi denunciation of the physicist Albert Einstein in the 1930s. Mr Gove at least had the grace to apologise later for his “clumsy and inappropriate” language. Mr Johnson did not retract a word.

Perhaps even more disturbing was the capital some in the Remain argument sought to make of the vile murder of the pro-Remain MP Jo Cox. One newspaper headline, albeit in the downmarket Daily Star, read: “Labour MP dead after attack by Brexit nut.”

Also questionable was the pro-Brexit Daily Mail’s insistence on emphasising the mental health problems of the suspected killer, understandably seen by many observers as a direct attempt to distance the crime from any connection with arguments for Leave.

It may be nothing the Remain camp could have said or done would have been sufficient to overcome the deep hostility felt by many Britons towards so many aspects of Europe, and especially with regard to the loss of sovereignty and perceived ineptitude in tackling the immigration crisis.

It it certainly true that attempts to portray catastrophic consequences for employment and the economy generally were widely disbelieved or felt to be wildly exaggerated. Time will tell whether the people’s verdict makes life in Britain freer, more successful and safer or imposes new responsibilities and challenges the country will struggle to overcome.

Further sharp differences of opinion are inevitable as Britain works out how to manage withdrawal from the EU.

After arguably failing the country at a time when there was need for cool, respectful discussion, backed by non-sensationalist factual evidence, the political establishment owes it to the public to show a good deal more dignity in the coming months.

Colin Randall is a former executive editor of The National