Those who voted against Brexit are blind to EU's racism
As majority of British people have voted to leave the EU, social media, liberal commentators and international media have gone into meltdown describing this as a dark, sad day when the close-minded bigots won. Many Londoners who fashion themselves as enlightened and open are now spewing bile against swathes of people who voted to leave, describing them as “racist”, “bigoted” and “xenophobic” who are ignorant and anti-immigrants.
The “remainers”, on the other hand, like to think of themselves as pro-Europe, cosmopolitan internationalists who are “outward-looking”. It would appear from the coverage that it is a principled ideological battle between racist anti-immigrants and cosmopolitan internationalists.
But this narrative is simplistic and prejudiced.
For one, there is a conflation of Europe and the EU. The former is a continent many have links to — the Brits travel to European countries, many have made Spain their home, love the cultural influences, and many have European friends and family. The latter is an institution made up of bureaucrats and un-elected commissioners from its 28-member states that many believe are anti-democratic and ill-equipped to represent the concerns of national populations.
It is perfectly possible to be pro-Europe and anti-EU, but the interchangeable use of the terms means that those against the EU are painted as narrow-minded xenophobes.
On the other hand, is the hypocrisy of those spewing bile against an apparently racist population. "As an internationalist, I’m voting to stay in the EU," wrote one Guardian columnist. But this so-called internationalism seems limited to the European nations that have signed up to the EU.
Those who now lament the apparent racism of Britain in fact voted for an institution which routinely discriminates against Indian, Chinese, Asian and African migrant workers in favour of white European workers.
In 2006, Spain made a deal with Senegal funding temporary jobs in exchange of keeping their people firmly in. Similarly, EU aid to African countries is conditioned upon restricting migration of their people to Europe. Many have asked why is it okay for a white Polish worker to access the British market easily but not for skilled Indian labourer?
The EU’s migration policy has been restrictive and fraught with mismanagement. Dubbed as “Fortress Europe” its idea of a united Europe necessarily excludes those outside of it.
Its harsher immigration policies compel poor Africans to make risky journeys in the most dehumanising conditions and to rely on smugglers. The internationalism of these cosmopolitan EU supporters then only extends to the external borders of the 28 select member states. For all its rhetorical commitment to freedom, internationalism and human rights, the EU thinks nothing of making monetary deals with despotic governments and dictators in ‘source countries’.
Last year the EU handed €3 billion to the Erdogan government in Turkey, granting Turks visa-free travel in exchange for returning irregular Syrian migrants to Turkey.
 |
| This so-called internationalism seems limited to the European nations that have signed up to the EU. |
No doubt, the British right-wing leader Nigel Farage and his party UKIP was at the forefront of the leave campaign stoking an anti-immigrant sentiment, but those who appear so outraged by the UKIP’s propaganda do not see their own hypocrisy of lining up with pro-EU establishment.
They are furious at UKIP’s attitude to refugees but do not have much to say about the foreign policies of western governments that have been instrumental in creating a refugee crisis in the first place.
The emotionalism of those who see themselves as better than the bigots means that they will use their support for asylum seekers for virtue-signaling but think nothing of the tougher immigration policies against economic migrants from India and China.
In the elections last year, Labour party leader Ed Miliband called for “stronger controls on people coming here (to Britain)”. David Cameron promised to cut net immigration to “tens of thousands”.
The outrage of the remainers is not principled but laced with prejudice. Their self-righteous criticism is not directed towards the political parties and EU establishment but at ordinary working class people who may have genuine rational concerns about their jobs and future.
With the decision to leave the EU, a genuine debate on the immigration policies of the country can be had, where politicians are directly lobbied or held accountable for their policies.
Many leave campaigners who do not identify with UKIP’s values are already starting to organise petitions, meetings and campaigns to ensure freedom of movement is upheld despite the exit, calling for support from people regardless of how they voted.