I guess you do not care whether the UK will be (or maybe is) way worse off economically and that xenophobia/racism is now an "every day" thing. Fine, vote "leave", probably suits better that mentality.
For example, many powerful free-trade Libertarian think-tanks backed Brexit: the Hoover Institution [0], the Cato Institute [1], the Adam Smith Institute [2], etc.
These certainly aren't racist dumb-dumbs or protectionist "little Englanders", and their opinions are well worth a read. While bigots exist and certainly voted 'Leave' that does not mean that there are not good, open, free-market reasons to leave the EU.
[0] http://www.hoover.org/research/cautious-yes-brexit
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bullet...
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/files/2016/06/brexit-education-re...
You are right that there are lots of people without University educations which backed Brexit. Rather than hating them perhaps you could try to understand their struggles and feelings on how they have been betrayed by the establishment [0]?
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/meet-10-brit...
But they clearly believed so strongly, that they didn't think it was wrong to stoke immigration fears to win, and then turn round and explain that actually, free market economics suggests that low wage immigration is actually a good thing. This is playing with fire, and may end tragically.
Cornwall mostly voted Leave (higher the UK average) but have since asked for the EU funding for Cornwall to be protected.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwa...
How dare you paint me in that light when you know absolutely nothing about me or my motives for wanting to remove my country from the clutches of an undemocratic state. Your narrow-mindedness is part of the reason I want out.
This all reeks of bitterness and toy-throwing by those that voted remain.
It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind.
That we also have them at the UK level is irrelevant to me, we're not having a referendum on that (yet).
Your definition of xenophobic is so wide that it would cover the very existence of nation states within the EU. I don't think all that many people share it.
Then democracy itself is too
> The EU is no less democratic than the UK itself
MPs are elected
> they don't impose on us because we are part of it
Not for much longer.
We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
To use UKIPs line, why aren't moderate anti-immigrationists condemning this violence?
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/747404962242633728
UKIPer in that thread calls Sima Kotecha a liar, manufacturing fake outrage, when she describes someone calling her a paki.
> We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
Have we?
Yes. We need to National Crime Survey to be certain, but police forces are already reporting an increase in reported incidents, and affected groups are reporting an increase in incidents.
But you have done exactly that, associated anyone bringing up the subject with a fascist ideology.
The probelm is that those who raise objections to immigration never seem to have anything constructive to say after that. So if you're not a racist or xenophbe, how about we have a discussion about allowing freedom of movement but actually SOLVING the problems that have been brought about by it?
The EU are going to demand freedom of movement if we are to stay in the EEA - so what's your answer?
It's not xenophobic to want to curb the net migration number.
And even if UK doesn't remain in EEA, immigration will be a fact of life. Hell, half of all immigrants in the UK don't even come from the EU!
Other countries may well demand a get-out, if they perceive it's to their advantage. And if it is, I'm not sure why the EU should seek to stop them either.
I guess we'll see one way or another.
Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I wanted sovereignty over everything: Border control is just one part of the whole argument.
> Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I don't, however, agree with your stance that having a say who can and cannot come into the country is racism. How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
You may call it discrimination but that takes many forms, not all of them bad.
Racism it is not.
Edit: spelling, clarification
Agreed.
> How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
Discrimination and racism sound like the same to me. I read people saying they would like to choose based on peoples skills, which is a complete nonsense. Why not let the market decide? People would be able to come in as they like, if they wouldn't get a job nor benefits, I'm sure they would go away. Otherwise, it would mean they have a place in here. Wouldn't that be a wiser decision?
People with pre-existing xenophobic/racist have found vindication & legitimisation with the referendum result.
Many papers today are carrying stories of attacks along these lines, I'm sure the rest will in the following days also.
"It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind."
The back-pedalling has only just begun. People voted leave for a lot of reasons, and they will have their displeasure at progress heard to differing degrees.
I'd suggest you give it a little while before you take it as read that any side won for the cause they voted for.
At the very least this is unhelpful, and devalues the impact of such words.
While I'd agree such terms are being carelessly banded about, there's no need to go looking for reasons to be offended here.
So it was "just" xenophobia and bigotry. That's all fine then. Carry on.
You've got effectively called me a racist there. You realise this is precisely the sort of rhetoric that's lead us here?
The attack on the Polish cultural centre is "rhetoric"? The murder of Jo Cox is rhetoric?
Feel offended, but at least don't try to paint yourself as subject of hate.
But you know full well that the rhetoric I'm talking about, as exemplified by that post, is the attempt to paint everyone with any 'leave' symapthies as a racist.
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/747080385683660801
I didn't vote leave, for a start.
The shouting down of dissenting opinions by either directly or indirectly labelling them as racist, rather than taking them seriously or even trying to understand them, is one of the factors that has lead to widespread disillusionment with both Westminster and the EU.
That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that this is all voters general opinion, but it sure looks like the majority's. I don't hear anyone coming up with plausible arguments and I really wanted to hear them.
There are many good arguments and many bad ones that don't involve hatred of foreigners. "Take our country back" would, to me, meaning regaining full legislative control. Yes, this includes immigration, and yes I would limit that based on skills and an annual quota.
I don't believe for a second this is racist.
And I'm actually curious about what would those skills be as I don't believe that's a reasonable approach..
I feel no need whatsoever to defend myself from accusations of racism based on support of the idea of quota and skill-based immigration.
Anyway, it was your vote, I don't really care.
My idea of racism, it sure is wide.
Who is John to limit people from going wherever they want, while trying to make a living? Does the place where John was born makes him different or special somehow? I consider this racism. Isn't John going to end up making bricks same way as the migrant?
It just sounds way more rational to let the market decide. If immigrants can't find a job in here I'm sure they will leave and move some place else. If they happen to find a job and contribute to our society, then this should mean they have their place here. They should be able to stay and live.
And I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs, without the need for a specific skill set, that they will be willing to do. Jobs that many people in this country refuses to accept, because 'it's just £7 an hour' or because 'I didn't study for this' or whatever.
The main reason given by Leave voters was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK"
Decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland
Or even dissolving England.
Decisions about London should be taken in London.
In fact, the argument you just quoted is basically "representative democracy is bad".
Edit: if you downvote, please leave a comment arguing why.
Overall it's not particularly diverse. One of the larger towns (Cheltenham, pop about 110,000) is 96% White British in last census. Nearby Gloucester is much more diverse - one street has over 70 different languages spoken as a first language, and the school in the UK (but outside London) with most different languages spoken as a first language is in Gloucester.
So, while I believe the UK is diverse it's a bit more complicated than that.
But that makes your point stronger, no? That even in this small (by population, not geographical) rural county there's still a mix of not much diversity and lots of diversity.
I'm reminded of the proposal of "managed decline" for Liverpool in the 80s. Give up rather than fixing the problems. Ironically Liverpool has since prospered enough to vote Remain, although that vote may also be due to the longstanding boycott of the Sun newspaper there.
At least 100 countries are more diverse, ethnically, linguistically, racially, you name it. Germany is among them, so is the US. France is about the same level of diversity. A majority of EU countries are more of a melting pot than the UK, in fact.
The UK is 87% white, 95% English speaking, 92% Christian/atheist/agnostic. It doesn't get much less diverse than that.
And of course the places that aren't homogenous (inner London for instance), all voted "remain" by a huge margin.
Some sharia "courts" operate in the UK, as do Beth Din and Ecclesiastical Courts.
They're mostly for mediation and actual courts feel free to ignore them.
They've all been involved in pretty severe human rights abuses. Christian courts moved abusing priests around the country rather than reporting them to the police; Christian courts did little to prevent the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children by nuns. Beth Din are currently involved in not giving Jewish women "Gets" - a religious divorce that can only be provided by the husband. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-wo...
Sharia Zones, as talked about by US media, don't exist.