Xenophobia. Racism. Stereotypes. Prejudice. Bigotry. These are the words that come to my mind when I think about Brexit; these are the terms that resonate when one has a nightmare about the people who ferociously campaigned for Brexit.
This is not some sort of liberal, baseless, elitist, snow-flake generated rhetoric. Rather, the racism, the outdated and ill-views of Brexiters and of the wider Brexit campaign are very well documented, verified and proven based on research and expert opinion – but hey, who believes in expertise anymore? Experts, claim Brexiters, are a bunch of cosmopolitan elitists who encompass ulterior motives.
However, people who still care about this country, namely, Remainers, still listen to experts and their objectively and impartially formulated reports and carefully crafted predictions. One only has to compare and contrast the Twitter profiles of Remainers and Brexiters. Remainers, for example, tend to share and retweet official documents, content published by quality newspapers, reputable think tanks and internal government reviews; while Brexiters, in contrast, retweet, rephrase and regurgitate the lies of racists, repellents and revolting politicians.
It is this type of expertise and objective evidence – which is believed by people who still care about the future of this country – that unequivocally asserts that Brexit is the manifestation of racism.
Researchers at the University of Kent and at the University Nottingham, Mattew Goodwin and Caitlin Milazzo, for instance, researched and concluded that Brexit happened because of concerns over immigration. In fact, they asserted that ‘strong public concerns over immigration, and its perceived effects on the country and on communities, were central to explaining the 2016 vote for Brexit’ (Goodwin & Milazzo, 2017: 462). They additionally added that ‘the decision taken by the Leave campaigns to focus heavily on the immigration issue…helped to drive public support for leaving the EU’ (Goodwin & Milazzon, 2017: 462).
Research conducted by the aforementioned experts in not a one-off. Instead, the above is simply one microcosm of multiple investigations in this area. This is highlighted by the fact that the Leave camp ‘drew on and fed into existing forms of racism…whilst underpinning forms of racism of its own’, noted Jon Burnett (2016: 88) in the Race & Class Journal. Even Conservative politician and former Prime Ministers, like John Major, rightly accused Conservative Leave campaigners of “morphing into UKIP” in response to Boris Johnson’s and Michael Gove’s obsession to amplify the bogus negatives of immigration (Wright, 2016).
Certain news publications were amplifying fictitious, anti-immigrant rhetoric as much as Conservative and UKIP politicians. According to extensive examination of national newspapers, ’99 front-page leads were on the subject of immigration during the campaign’, in fact, ‘it was the most prominent referendum issue’ – this coverage of immigration in the run up to the Brexit referendum has been characterised as ‘acrimonious and divisive’ by high-level experts (Moore & Ramsay, 2017: 8– 164).
These researchers and politicians have verified that concerns over immigration led to Leave’s victory in the Brexit referendum. Of course, one may argue that discussing the impact or the level of immigration is not racist or xenophobic – and that’s a very valid point. It’s not inherently and intrinsically racist. However, discussions on television programmes, headlines in newspapers and speeches by politicians about immigration are simply a gateway to articulate these xenophobic views – it’s like a microphone on a stage which people use to say anything and everything without facing the consequences because they hide behind the curtain once the show is over to deflect criticism.
In other words, whether Remainers and Leavers like it or not, the Brexit and immigration debates are synonymous – they are one and the same discourse underpinned by racists shouting racist views in racist newspapers. We, the Remainers, must therefore win one argument to win the other.
The fact that Brexit means racism entails a number of additional implications. Remainers, who are campaigning for a second referendum or for a referendum on the terms of the deal need to shift the focus of their campaign. Europhiles must shift the pro-EU argument away from economic forecasts, statistics and graphs, and instead focus on social issues like immigration, which invoke people’s emotions, a sense of belonging and identity.
As Benedict Anderson once wrote in his book Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, ‘in themselves, market-zones, natural-geographic or politico-administrative, do not create attachments. Who will willingly die for…the EEC?’ (2016: 53). I, in fact, wouldn’t willingly die for the Single Market or the Customs Union. Values, identities and a sense of profound belonging are the feelings that motivate people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good like a community, a group of people or a nation.
Hence, we can only win the Brexit debate if we show the positives of immigration and thereby argue a strong defence of the EU’s Freedom of Movement principle (easier said than done, I know). It is the issue of immigration that makes people’s blood boil, it is discussions about integration and assimilation that evoke strong and unpleasant emotions. Headlines about migrants is what makes people livid, radio discussions about foreigners instigates angry Twitter battles, campaigns by politicians increase hate crime targeting immigrants.
The gloomy prospects of the United Kingdom economy due to the impact of Brexit doesn’t evoke these kind of feelings. Most Brexit-supporting voters, for instance, are willing to see substantial damage to the economy for the sake of leaving the European Union.
Albeit the adverse forecasts of how the economy is expected to perform, the aim is to convince Leavers that Brexit is a really atrocious idea – and this can be done by focusing on the issue of immigration.
Shifting the debate to the issue of immigration can be implemented in the following ways:
- Illustrate the positives of immigration in people’s daily lives.
- Emphasise the contribution immigrants make to British norms and values (as opposed to just the economy)
- Use stories from ordinary people as opposed to statistics generated by experts.
If we are serious about stopping Brexit then we will need to have an overhaul of our strategy: use words, not numbers; invoke emotions, not rational; and, focus on what matters to Leavers, not Remainers.
References
Anderson, B. (2016) Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (2nd Ed.). London: Verso.
Burnett, J. (2017) Racial violence and the Brexit state. Race & Class. 58(4) pp85-97. DOI: 10.1177/0306396816686283.
Goodwin, M. & Milazzo, C. (2017) Taking back control? Investigating the role of immigration in the 2016 vote for Brexit. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 19(3) pp. 450-464. DOI: 10.1177/1369148117710799
Moore, M. & Ramsay, G. (2017) UK media coverage of the 2016 EU Referendum campaign. London: King’s College London. Available from: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/CMCP/UK-media-coverage-of-the-2016-EU-Referendum-campaign.pdf (Accessed: 25/02/18).
Wright, O. (13th May, 2017) John Major warns Tories leading Vote Leave campaign risk ‘morphing into Ukip’. Independent. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-john-major-boris-johnson-michael-gove-tories-vote-leave-ukip-a7027186.html (Accessed: 15/05/16).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Muhammed Raza Hussain is an award-winning writer: the Extra-Mile winner of the News Quest Young Reporter Scheme 2014 and received a ‘Talent for Writing’ certificate by Young Writers. Twitter @MuhammedRaza786 | Instagram: @M.Raza.H_
