JULY 15  — It’s the perfect time to be a law student in the United Kingdom (UK), especially when listening to the discussions regarding the Brexit referendum.

It was fascinating to hear the arguments put forth by the Leave and Remain campaigns and to make use of knowledge obtained from EU law classes. Who knew it would come in handy so soon?

When comparing democracies, most would hold the UK in high regard as political discussions are usually heavy in substance. Despite the recent wave of Eurosceptic sentiments across major economies within the EU, it is hard to imagine the UK actually leaving it, especially with many leading economists pointing out that leaving the economic bloc would have negative repercussions.

Brexit: Love the way you lie?

Yet the Leave campaign led by former London mayor Boris Johnson and Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove peddled a narrative that was populist and nationalistic (perhaps some would argue, borderline fascist) but ultimately false and wrong.

One of the Leave campaign’s main arguments is that the UK sends £350 million (RM1.8 billion) a week to the EU. But it was so blatantly untruthful that the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage — who led the calls for Brexit in the first place — disowned it the morning after the referendum.

However, this referendum was not just an economic question, it also involved political and social issues. If you followed the debates, you would have heard a number of people saying that they want to take back their sovereignty from the EU and re-establish control over their borders to reduce the number of immigrants coming into the UK.

These people think that the EU are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats working for their own self-interests and it is better for the UK to create its own laws.

This is where EU law knowledge comes in handy. The EU has its flaws and appears undemocratic while usurping national sovereignties, but do not forget that countries apply to join the EU and once in it, agree with a majority or by consensus to legislate.

The four main EU institutions that people commonly discuss are the European Parliament, the European Council, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Commission. Many of the so-called Brexiters often complain about how undemocratic the EU is but is it really?

The European parliamentary elections are held every five years to elect Members of the European Parliament. The European Council consists of heads of states or governments of each Member State while the EU Council of Ministers comprises national ministers from each Member State and all of them are elected at the national level, especially in the case of the UK.

The European Commission is the executive branch of the EU, headed by the President of the Commission and assisted by commissioners appointed by the governments of each Member State. As for the President of the Commission, its appointment is governed by Article 17(7) of the Lisbon Treaty, where the European Parliament would elect a candidate proposed by the European Council.

What about those immigrants? The Leave campaign promised to wrestle control of the borders back from the EU but now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, they will have to negotiate a new free trade deal with the bloc. If the UK follows in the footsteps of Norway (as what Leave campaigners proposed as the Nordic model), it would still have to join the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) and most likely the European Economic Area (EEA), which entails all the freedoms of the EU’s internal market, including the free movement of persons.

Essentially, the UK left the EU thinking it could have its cake and eat it too but according to Professor Adam Lazowski, "it is an illusion to think that by leaving the EU and swapping for the EEA-EFTA the United Kingdom would gain sovereignty. Instead, it would go from being a law-maker to a law-taker.”

Enough of experts and facts

The people "have had enough of experts,” said Mr Gove. All of these facts on the issues surrounding the referendum were out there in the open for all to read. Yet, Mr Gove’s response effortlessly sums up the ignorance of cold, hard facts.

Whatever there is to be said about Brexit has already been said and now the will of the majority has to be respected. However, the discourse that has taken place has set a dangerous precedent where facts and experts do not matter – peddle a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

This is taking the world by storm and this will feel familiar to you if you have been following the presidential elections in the United States.

Look across the Atlantic Ocean and you will find a major presidential candidate building his campaign and in fact, winning votes on the basis of lies, insults and distortions. Take this for example. Donald Trump proposed that a wall be built between the US and Mexico for a cost of £4 billion at the start of his campaign, but that estimate has since grown to "£10 billion, maybe 12, depending.”

Not that the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has nothing to hide — the keyword is emails — but Trump is in a league of his own, where only two per cent of his statements have been ruled to be true while a whopping 6 per cent of them were false. Oh, and 20 per cent of his statements were considered "pants on fire.”

All of these suddenly strikes a chord, especially when you tie them back to Malaysian politics, where lies become truths and facts are ignored or forgotten. Politics and governance ought to be platforms where elected officials and politicians can have differences in perspectives but at least hold facts in high regard for the sake of the people and the country that they are responsible for.

When we lose that basic need for facts, then we lose our legitimacy to do anything that we so desire, even for good intentions.

* This article was written by the editor-in-chief of CEKU, the editorial arm of the United Kingdom and Eire Council of Malaysian Students (UKEC).

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.