LSE Blog: How foreigners became the convenient scapegoat of the referendum campaign

The campaigning use of immigration was to identify an enemy, exaggerated and partly imagined as enemies always are in this familiar political tactic, who could be blamed for longer waiting lists in the NHS, overcrowded class rooms in schools, reduction in public services. The government could never say these worsening of the conditions of the people were not because of immigration but because of its own old-fashioned economic liberal policy of austerity.

So two completely different debates were being carried on, a fairly abstract debate about the economic benefits of the EU by the Remain campaign, and a scapegoating campaign against immigrants and the European Union.

read the article 

The Nation: Disgust With Elites and Fear of Others Drove the Brexit Vote

There are people who will tell you the reasons for that rejection are complex; two weeks ago, I would have been one of them. For decades, the press here have used Brussels as shorthand for an overweening undemocratic bureaucracy. And there has always been plenty of truth in that depiction, from fruit-and-veg stands penalized for selling their wares in pounds and ounces to a recent European court decision barring Scotland from imposing a minimum price on alcohol as a way of deterring binge drinking. Nor did German Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, the European Central Bank, or the European Commission cover themselves in glory during the financial crisis. It was also horribly clear that whatever lessons might have been learned watching the burning of Sarajevo and the slaughter in Srebrenica were long forgotten by the time Syria’s refugees came knocking at the gates.

But this wasn’t about the economy, stupid. Chancellor George Osborne’s own version of austerity managed to choke off Labour’s moderate recovery—but by now Britain’s economy was indeed growing. Until this morning. And though the Leave campaign’s brilliant slogan “Take Back Control” was designed to suggest otherwise, it wasn’t about sovereignty or democracy, either. If it had been, the Leave-ers would have followed Tony Benn and the old Euroskeptic left in calling for Britain to leave NATO—an entangling alliance that actually requires the country to go to war if any of its members are attacked.

No, this vote was about two things: a chance to register distrust and disgust with the political elites, in both parties, who have been warning against the dangers of Brexit. And a fear and hostility toward “others” and outsiders rooted in racism and xenophobia. A friend from Sheffield wrote that it was “as if 40 years later, a whole swath of the population has discovered the spirit of Punk. ‘When there’s no future, how can there be sin?’ Like Punk’s flirtation with Nazi insignia it attracts not only active racists but those who are willing to tolerate [racism] for the sake of nihilism.”

read the article 

Salon: Europe’s far-right parties declare victory after Brexit, call for more referendums

Immediately after the vote, nationalist, racist, anti-immigrant leaders in France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and more called for exit referendums in their own countries.

Far-right parties are claiming victory, and are using Britain’s example to recruit. These reactionary nationalist movements, which have been gaining strength in recent years, argue that the unexpected widespread support for leaving shows how the dominant center-right and center-left parties in Europe, which called on their members to vote for staying in the E.U., are out of touch with the people.

Instead of blaming the neoliberal economic policies and harsh austerity measures that have made the lives of working people throughout the continent worse, however, these right-wing nationalist parties scapegoat immigration and E.U. regulations as the supposed source of citizens’ increasing hardship.

read the article 

Business Insider: This is not the beginning of the end of the EU

Juncker: The European Union has decades of experience in overcoming crises and has always emerged stronger after. I am, however, deeply saddened by this vote by the British electorate. But I respect their decision. What is crucial now is that we focus very precisely on what Europe can do for people: stimulate investment, create jobs and together ensure the safety and security of our citizens. [...]

Juncker: Out means out. The EU Treaties are clear on this matter. Article 50 governs the exit from the European Union and here there can also be no renegotiation. Now it is firstly a matter of a clean divorce, because citizens and companies need legal certainty. Can there be a new partnership with the United Kingdom one day? All 27 Member States would have to agree to that. And the United Kingdom would first have to reflect on what it wants itself. There will certainly be no cherry-picking. [...]

Juncker: It is not more Europe or less Europe that we need. We need a better Europe. Since it took up office, the Commission which I lead has pursued a clear policy: we need less interference from Brussels when it comes to the things that Member States can deal with better on their own. That is why we no longer regulate oil cans or showerheads, but concentrate instead on what we can do better together rather than alone - such as tackling the refugee crisis or securing our external borders. Only in that way can we make people feel that Europe makes a tangible difference.

read the article 

The Atlantic: Brexit: A Tale of ‘Ancient Ethnic Hatreds’

What if columnists wrote about the U.K. the way they do about the Middle East? [...]

In fact, trying to understand attitudes to the EU referendum through the prism of class is misleading. As most commentators would tell you, class has nothing to do with it and, in fact, class has never played an important role in British politics or society historically. Most people don’t even know which class they’re in and many can be members of the higher and lower classes simultaneously, such as Lord Alan Sugar, the world-famous working class millionaire.

This fluidity in class identity, however, contrasts sharply with the fierce ethnic rivalry within this ancient kingdom. The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century left deep scars and created divisions between the Norman invaders and the local Anglo-Saxon population that continue to this day. [...]

Unsurprisingly, Wenger is a vocal supporter of the Remain campaign and Britain’s continuing membership of the EU. In fact, many of the leaders of the Remain camp are of Norman origin, while most of the leaders of the Leave campaign are Anglo-Saxon. The notable exception is Nigel Farage, a politician of Norman extraction who argues that Normans and Anglo-Saxons should put their differences aside and focus on antagonizing foreigners instead.

read the article 

The Guardian: The downfall of David Cameron: a European tragedy

And there seemed scant consolation in his laconic summary of what he would rather be remembered for. “I believe we’ve made great steps, with more people in work than ever before in our history, with reforms to welfare and education, increasing people’s life chances, building a bigger and stronger society, keeping our promises to the poorest people in the world and enabling those who love each other to get married whatever their sexuality, but above all restoring Britain’s economic strength.”

All of that is likely to be forgotten in the European tumult. The warnings from history could not have been clearer. Party divisions over Europe had been the undoing of both Cameron’s predecessors as Conservative prime minister. Margaret Thatcher’s fall in 1990 was triggered by her increasingly anti-European rhetoric and stance. John Major’s long slide to defeat in 1997 was powered by his inability to prevent poisonous divisions over the Maastricht treaty on European integration. Right from the start of his own rise to the top, Cameron knew the dangers. [...]

Two months later, Cameron tried to assuage his rebels by vetoing a eurozone rescue plan at an EU summit in Brussels. The clashes left Cameron isolated on both fronts. The Tory rebels, in Lord Finkelstein’s words, never took yes for an answer. Meanwhile Merkel and many of the other heads of government were outraged at Cameron’s defiance. [...]

In the end, Cameron has been faced with forces and dynamics in British life that he has proved powerless to control. Indignation about immigration, disrespect for politicians, a reluctance to be frightened by warnings, press distortions and Labour’s weakness in delivering its vote all did their bit to fuel a general mood of popular payback against the political and economic establishment, as well as the EU. The remain campaign threw everything but the kitchen sink at their leave opponents, but the assaults only seemed to strengthen the mood of defiance. Even the killing of Jo Cox did nothing more than cause a temporary lull in the leave mood.

read the article