Brexit, aka, the UK Shoots Itself


Yep, I pretty much all of those above are certainly right given the specific specific platforms you can support. AFAIK there’s no mainstream Palestinian faction that is not anti-Israeli or no mainstream Unionist party that is not reactionary, so directly supporting those does make you complicit, yes. There are mainstream pro Spanish territorial integrity parties that have not used police violence (although I myself am more of a federalist, but in that case you have options). But if you vote for a government that uses police violence, then yes, it means you endorse it. It’s pretty obvious.


Bullshit. As has already been pointed out, when you vote in a referendum, you’re not voting for a leader. You’re not voting for a person or a platform or a government. You’re answering a simple question, and your answer is your own.

This is just another tired version of the laziest strategy in political rhetoric. Find an excuse to project evil motivations onto everyone who disagrees with me, and I can enjoy the glow of self-righteousness and the reassurance that their arguments don’t matter. They’re evil anyway.

Pick any political position that you hold. I bet I can find some complete asshole or idiot (or both) that agrees with you. By your logic you’d then be forced to change your opinion.


Sorry, but you are grossly oversimplifying. The Brexit refenrendum ran on ideology. It was not a simple yes/no question… It was loaded and it’s disingenuous to say otherwise.

It was the main, most visible leaders of that campaign the ones espousing xenophobia, not a random second or third class politician.


This doesn’t even make sense.

And this is objectively false. I mean, I was there and I read the ballot.


You can keep arguing against the obvious, but it won’t make it true.


Oy yes, right, Social Psychology has enough trouble doing genuine science on non-political issues. The only reason to treat something like that as trustworthy and authoritative is that it’s telling you what you want to hear.

Except, actually it isn’t. It argues, if you take it at face-value, that racism, narcissism and authoritarianism have a statistical effect on hostility to immigration. Duh. It’s just another way of saying that some racists voted to Leave, which I don’t think anyone here disputes. What you’re arguing is that everyone who voted Leave is a racist. Which is just as dishonest as it was before you read that paper.


I’ve actually personally experienced a rise in racist comments and attitude since the EURef. This is in real life, not online, where its of a magnitude worse.

Anyone claiming this is not about fears about race, culture and immigration is lying. The UK has changed dramatically over the last few years and Brexiters are solely to blame.

Everything about Brexit revolves around immigration. Everything. Brexiters are literally willing to cripple the UK for generations to keep us darkies out.

The entire EU knows that where we have now reached derives from her putting the ending of free movement of people well above all other objectives


No, it says that a significant number of people (30-50%) that voted leave seem to have done because of racism, and almost none did so due to national identity.

I think it’s you who just read the overall conclusions and not each study independently.

Let’s leave it as most people who voted leave supported the racist overtones of the campaign.

Right, I’ll take your word as trustworthy and authoritative then /s

If you want, find a Social Psychology paper that supports your views. If it’s so untrustworthy a field, there should one at least one out there. Then let’s compare methodology between studies. I’m certainly open to be proven wrong by a good argument supported by good data.

But otherwise your argument boils down to ignoring data you are uncomfortable with.


OK, but if your purpose was to offer up examples of valid (which is to say, non-racist) reasons to vote for Brexit, you didn’t actually do that, because none of those were reasons that make the speaker’s motivation clear.

Of course it does. But there are words we use to mean very strongly held views about group identity: Words like racism, culturalism xenophobia.

There is very little shared sense of identity between a native New Yorker and a native Alabaman. Of course it’s true that you could argue that democracy isn’t functioning that well in the US, and I’d be forced to agree, but it is stumbling along.

In any event, what sort of politician knows that a shared sense of identity is necessary for a democracy to function, and yet still frames an important referendum in terms that is certain to provoke strong anti-identity reactions from a segment of the populace, and then actively campaigns in such a way as to aggravate those strong reactions, even while knowing that, whether the referendum passes or fails, there will still be large numbers of people of the ‘wrong’ identity living in the country, even citizens of the country, and those people will suffer the abuse of the very voters the politician has encouraged to hate them? That’s not good, right?


This piece is old, but the writer Paul Kingsnorth makes a case for leave (largely from an eco-left point of view. Although I’m a fan of his writing I disagree with him here.)


Thanks for linking. It’s strangely idealistic but good hearted. Reject a supranational organization that is doing a lot (although certainly not enough) to protect the environment in hopes that a hypothetical future government not tied by that organization can do more.

It’s like he’s not seeing one of the goals of Brexit was to do away with EU regulations, many of those regarding the environment.


Yes, it’s a bit hard to understand how one could view Brexit as an opportunity to improve environmental protections.


Oh jeez, we’re going down this rabbit hole are we?

Psychology is a soft science. It’s absurd that you seek to paint 17.5 million people who hold a differing political viewpoint to yourself as racist. I expect that you also believe Ted Talks are a bastion of truth.


The great irony being that darkies don;t come from Europe, and darkie immigration quotas are being stepped up to shore up the shortfall.



30 to 50%, not all 17m, but a significant number of them.

Which is pretty similar to the number @playingwithknives poll showed:

So there’s some replication there. Different methologies adscribing a similar percentage of racism to the Brexit vote.


It is pretty easy. If you voted for Brexit, you are either racist or ignorant or a combination of both.


I believe it is possible to be xenophobic without being racist though it’s neither all that common nor really something worthy of much greater respect.

I’ve heard one good reason for voting Leave: altruism towards Europe. British politics mean Britain is an anchor holding back European integration. It may not be good for Britain itself to leave but it could well be a net positive for Europe in the long run to be rid of us.


On one side maybe. On the other side no. As Russian influence continues to flourish in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, if Britain got a decent deal on exit, it becomes that much easier for the Poland’s, Czech’s, and Hungary’s to leave and join a new Russia dominated block. Russia would gladly hurt its own people to throw money at those countries to bring them back into the fold. This is what concerns me, is a new Cold War 2.0 where Russia has learned from its past mistakes.


I’d argue that both come from the same root. Populism is just giving easy answers to complicated questions fed to people that are scared and fearful. I’m damn sure that many of the people that voted for Trump were more interested in the coal mine being reopened or their job coming from China.

That’s been an awful side effect of the referendum and I’m sorry you’ve had that experience.

I don’ t know if this is just my age showing and if that word has been reclaimed but that is the favourite epithet of the casually racist 70’s and puts in the same class the N word. Deeply, deeply offensive.

I think that you will find that a lot of the racists you’re talking about are stupid and didn’t understand either what the EU is or what would happen. They have another thing coming when we do a trade deal with India which is contingent on higher levels of visas being available.

But again not all.

There are people including some I have discussed Brexit with who would be happy to crash out with no deal as they’re keen to ‘get rid of government interference’ and see the EU as a socialist construct. They’d perfectly happy to see the welfare state, consumer protection and workers rights disappear as well and be a Singapore-a-like. I think this is at the heart of the Tory Brexiteers. They don’t care about the colour of your skin they just care whether they screw over the working class and if they have to go along with the frightful oik Farage to get it they don’t care. Totally morally bankrupt but not necessarily racist.

On the other extreme, I’ve also had the EU described to me as ‘Facist construct’ and stopping Magic Grandpa from turning us into a marvellous Socialist Utopia.


Oh, that’s exactly why I use it. It’s a word from my childhood, the type of thing I would be called in the 70s, not the Americanised slurs of today, the N word and Muslim-based slurs, but the British slurs rooted in Empire, darkies, spearchukkers, jungle bunnies, piccaninnies and what have you. It’s not just to represent a racist attitude, but the colonialist/imperialist throwback racist who dominate the Brexiters. Jingoistic, overly nationalist, constant references to the war, to Empire. Modern day Colonel Blimps. Incidentally Colonel Blimp, the red faced angry, xenophobic jingoistic Imperial colonel is the perfect example of how their archetype have never left us, as it invokes the current nickname for Brexiters of “gammons”. Brexit is also about loss of empire, and the heartbreak the ruling whites have over the lack of any dominance over “their lessers”. All of this has swum up from the depths of the Britsh psyche to dominate society once again.

That’s been an awful side effect of the referendum and I’m sorry you’ve had that experience.

The referendum was Boris promising to protect Brits from Turks (and a quick google of his granny will show this is someone without ethics or morals) or Farage standing in front of pictures of refugees promising he would stop the Muslim Invasion so I’d replace “side effect” with “the goal of Leave”.

On the other extreme, I’ve also had the EU described to me as ‘Facist construct’ and stopping Magic Grandpa from turning us into a marvellous Socialist Utopia.

Lexiters will never put the racist Brexit genie back in the lamp. No matter how hard they try. Especially if they try and insert some dogwhistle references to immigration and “traditional working class*” jobs in their speeches.

A unbelieveablely small percentage voted for Lexit, with the only campaigning for it done by the Communist Party of Britain, the Communist Party of Great Britain-Marxist Leninist, Socialist Worker Party and the some less known weirdos and cranks in Left Unity. Those trying to attach this irrelevant hard left fringe to the actual reasons behind the referendum vote are away with the fairies. Of course, you know who the only mainstream politicians to be Lexiters (and since the 80s) are, so no wonder the cult are now trying to make this reality.

*hint: “traditional”, as in “traditional marriage” and “traditional gender roles” when used with references to class is only meant to represent one thing.