Brexit
The EU referendum ended in a victory for
Brexit. I voted Brexit. The vast majority of academics voted Remain. Amongst cleaners, catering
and security staff the picture is quite different.
I voted Brexit as I believe the EU is undemocratic
and a barrier to social and economic progress. It reflects a strong trend away
from a politics contested by the demos towards the technocratic rule of
commissioners. We have, whatever else people may say we have lost, won greater democracy. That is to be celebrated.
The post Brexit debate has strengthened my belief
that this was the right way to vote. Many colleagues who were on the Remain side accept formally that there is a crisis of democracy. The depth of that
crisis has been fully revealed by MPs, academics and campaigners calling for
the vote to be ignored, overturned or looking for legalistic ways to undermine
the decision.
Demosphobia
Others accept the vote, but insult the Brexit voting electorate. I have been shocked at the extent to which Brexit voters
have been portrayed as ignorant / racist
/ unthinking / naïve / not ‘decent people’ etc . The implication of this view
is that we now all have to live with the terrible results of pretty terrible
people.
If you are depressed at the vote, have a listen to
the public debates such as the post Brexit BBC Question Time, or this short film.
You’ll hear thoughtful responses to pressing problems, responses that often put
to shame the rhetoric of campaigners, academics and the entire
political class. Why should this be surprising to some? Because there has been
a strong trend towards objectifying and denigrating the demos, in particular
the Brexit voters.
Purveyors of modern demosphobia stand in a long
tradition of regarding the people as potentially irrational and easily led. Not
dissimilar arguments were levelled against the Chartists and the Suffragettes,
albeit in very different circumstances. Cancelling democratic votes is an
authoritarian measure with grave consequences for democracy. If a society does
not respect a democratic vote, how can it with any moral authority expect
people to pursue their own interests through democratic means?
Of course elections throw up all sorts of messy
issues and can bring to the surface views many find abhorrent: on one side
Project Fear (which I hope will abate soon) and on the other the targeting of
immigrants as to blame for social problems. UKIP’s poster was despicable in the
latter respect. It is also an invitation for anti-racists to argue that blaming
others is not in their interests. Many commentators have preferred caricature,
hyperbole and moral condemnation in place of political argument. The latter is
part of the democratic process – ideas we find despicable we can argue and
campaign against with our fellow citizens.
The EU has never done that. Instead it takes an
issue like immigration outside of the democratic process, and places it in the
hands of a pseudo democracy dominated by technocracy. This is a fundamental problem. The
arguments in favour of the free movement of people have rarely been had or won
with the UK electorate. They will have to be now.
Brexit and racism
Many Remainers emphasise the racism that was
undoubtedly a part of the campaign as the most important issue for them. Some
now talk up the worrying and despicable instances of racism from a minority of
Brexit voters as something akin to the rise of Fascism, or the unleashing of a
vicious xenophobia.
First, racism did not emerge with the referendum
campaign. Overt and violent racism, in the form of racist attacks, has been a
stronger feature of British society in, for example, the 1950s/60s or 1980s.
Much more recently the London mayoral election involved attempts by Zac
Goldsmith and his team to link Sadiq Khan to Islamic terrorism. This really was
gutter politics (supported by key Remainer David Cameron every bit as much as
by Conservative Brexit politicians).
Second, the EU represents nothing whatsoever
positive in relation to racism. Whilst it has promoted the free movement of
labour within the EU for economic reasons, it has enforced a fortress Europe approach to potential
immigrants from outside it. These are mutually reinforcing trends – Europe as a
trade block, open internally for people and trade, is closed externally to
others, and less amenable to their farmers and manufacturers as trading
partners. To say that Brexit voters are responsible for racist incidents that happen
now, as some are arguing, is as logical
as saying racist attacks prior to the referendum campaign were due to voters for pro EU parties.
Neither is true, in the sense that the conditions that promote division are
there irrespective of whether we are in or out of the institution of the EU.
Where individuals express their racist views more
openly in the light of the campaign, it is the duty of internationalists,
anti-racists and tolerant people to oppose them. Where prospective UK governments propose measures
we feel promote racism people should speak out and organise. Again, the EU will
not, and never has, protected people from racist attacks.
If opposition to racism is to be effective, it
should be underpinned by a commitment to democracy. At the moment we have the
grotesque situation where anti-immigration campaigner Nigel Farage can claim
the mantle of democrat. Putting aside his and some voters’ motivations, his
side argued for and won a bit more democratic control for British citizens. How
can people who now seek to undermine the ballot result even start to argue with
people whose votes they want to cancel out? Why would you try if you believe
they are simply irrational and racist?
The blame game
The response from some to the vote is to think
about who is to blame for Brexit. This has the merit of absolving oneself of
being, just possibly, wrong on some things. I have seen a lot of culprits in
the blame game in recent days: people
voted Brexit due to austerity, Thatcherism in the 1980s, the labour left,
Corbyn, the Tories, Rupert Murdoch, the Blairites …. even university vice chancellors
discouraging critical academics has been blamed (which is bizarre given the
overwhelming pro-EU bias in Universities).
There is an implied passivity in this. It often
amounts to arguing that people’s role is now only to ameliorate the bad effects
of this vote. Yet democrats should not see themselves as clearing up the mess
of democracy. Rather we should look ahead and use the democratic rights we have
to argue for our politics – again, something the majority could never rely on
the EU to do for them.
Contrary to the mood of demosphobia, many people
voted, at least in part, out of the wholly positive desire to have a bit more
democratic control over their lives, regardless of Johnson, Cameron, Farage,
Stewart, Hoey, Corbyn or anyone else. There is no one to blame for that, and a
great deal to celebrate. This is a democratic moment, in which political people
have a duty to go and argue their politics. Instead some seem intent on waging
a culture war against the voters, with the decent and reasonable on one side
and the supposedly easily led and irrational on the other.
Looking forward
Democracy should not be just a tradition we invoke
from the past – the noble acts of the Chartists, the Suffragettes, anti-colonial
movements - but something we strive to
live and promote in the present. Democracy has a value beyond the result
itself. To celebrate democracy on instrumental grounds – i.e. when it returns
the result you want – is to reject that value.
Given that there are so many in positions of influence
seeking to undermine the referendum result, and that political leadership (from
anybody on anything) is so weak, it is important for citizens to begin to
suggest how we would like to see things progress. It is heartening that some
commentators are thinking that way.
Democrats should insist the government does three
things: invoke Article 50, as they are mandated to do, straight away;
given the vote was not party political, involve a range of opinion (including
Kate Hoey, Gisela Stewart and principled Remain voting politicians such as
Jeremy Corbyn) in setting clear goals and a timetable to
progress leaving the EU; negotiate the best possible trade relationship with
the EU; guarantee all current EU workers in the UK a minimum right of permanent
leave to remain, to calm fears and undercut those who seek to target EU
migrants.
Given that the question of democracy and control
are posed in the context of this vote, I’d like to suggest a few broad goals
for democrats who want to see the expansion of human freedom through greater
democratic control and prosperity. We can: champion the value of democracy
within, and beyond, the EU; argue for tolerance of political views and promote
political debate rather than fear and caricature; use our democratic rights to
the full to pursue our political views, and; be vigilant in upholding democracy
when it is under threat.
To be pro-Europe, pro-democracy, pro-migration and
anti-EU is entirely consistent, and worth fighting for.
Invoke Article 50!
