The opposite proving the case

Douglas Carswell MP has offered up a vignette of thought that has been given coverage by a national newspaper.  Of course, it was anti-EU stock-in-trade number.  Along with staying out Syria, Carswell has always struck me as a 1920s Isolationist (staying out of Syria, now, alas, seems eminently sensible with the evisceration of the moderate opposition but it wasn't always that clear-cut).  His contention is "Contrary to media myth [blah blah, says he, using the media], those demanding the Prime Minister take a tough line on Europe are not backwoods men from 'safe seats'. They are disproportionately those MPs from the marginals.  It is a statement of fact, not opinion. The size of the average Conservative MP's majority is, according to my calculation, 9,471. Yet the average majority to those 81 Tory MPs who voted for an In/Out referendum (before it became party policy) is a mere 8,276."
I love the dodgy methodology here but more so that he claims it is fact.  He denies it is an opinion before in the next sentence saying 'according to my calculation' (interestingly, no notes as to how it is worked out - just because a way can be seen, doesn't mean that is the method he used).  Leaving aside the blarney that a majority of more than 8,000 makes you marginal, the huge variation in pluralities (there are very few outright majorities) makes its a largely meaningless figure as it brackets someone with, say, a 2,000 majority with someone who has a 14,000 majority.  His talking of facts brings to mind Disraeli's line about 'lies, damned lie and statistics' - with the last one being the most deceptive.
Following Carswell's thread though is amusing though as he states "Perhaps [what happened to facts and not opinions?] those MPs in more marginal seats tend to be younger, and more likely to reflect the mood of Euroscepticism of the younger generation [who has measured that the younger are more Eurosceptic?]?  More likely, I suspect [another opinion?  Egads!] is that MPs in more marginal seats are more receptive to the views of the public. And the public is increasingly Eurosceptic [according to whom?]. Which is how democracy is suppose to work, if you think about it."
So, Carswell concludes with an appeal to logic after offering a barrage of surmising.  To quote the vulgar phrase, "If my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle."  But to give his kernel the time of day, he claims MPs in marginal seats are more receptive to the views of the public.  Again, leaving aside that marginals in the British sense are a product of a skewed electoral system and are marginal for historical reasons, if an MP was elected but found themselves with not enough votes as to make the constituency marginal, they obviously haven't been receptive enough to the views of the public, hence they should tone down their 'Euroscepticism'! Leaving the EU has regularly been shown across countless opinion polls of being the preoccupation of 2-3% of the public.  Trying to slyly counterpose 'democracy' with the unspoken EU, Carswell's argument actually implies that he and his cohorts are the ones ignoring democracy for their own pet peeve.  If they stopped banging on about Europe and focused on what people really wanted, they would make themselves more electable.  That isn't a 'fact' (and facts are only micro-theories) but it is logic.  If Carswell can be so, so wrong-headed here, anything he says about the EU has to be viewed with scepticism.  It really is a puff piece with which no-one should concern themselves.  The reason I do is that though it leaves satire dead and is too funny for words, it adds to the drumbeat over leaving the EU, which though not catastrophic would be a historical blunder.  Anything that protests that and the 'Upper Class Twits of the Year', however little read, is necessary.