The Political Philosophy of Brexit

[wheelie_bin]

Brexit has launched millions of discussions about reasons behind individual and collective decisions to remain or leave the EU. A number of people may have voted on issues of the moment, but polls and discussions show a large proportion had always known how they intended to vote, i.e. their political philosophy just aligned with or didn't align with the EU.

It's fairly clear that the reasoning used by people doesn't fit the traditional left / right political axis; far right and far left more clearly preferred Leave, but a number of centrists also preferred Leave. Preferences on the other political compass axis of authoritarian / libertarian don't seem to fit either; for all the talk about bureaucracy and UK sovereignty it can't be clearly linked to either position but rather to a "who decides" position.

So, trying to avoid specifics but rather looking at political philosophies of that core who "always knew" how they would vote, what do you think is the clearest way to describe the underlying difference between why a person is more likely to be pro EU or anti EU as a general principle?

 

[Sirena]

I think London-bubble people didn't consider the old-fashioned, largely council estate working class in small towns over the country.

There are many people not comfortable with the technology-driven pace of change.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think London-bubble people didn't consider the old-fashioned, largely council estate working class in small towns over the country.

There are many people not comfortable with the technology-driven pace of change.

And there are many people left out of any growth in the economy

 

[wheelie_bin]

I've been thinking of it in similar terms to both of you but as a philosophy then do we link it to the difference between a globalised view and a localised view? In global terms, the needs of big business and total GDP matter. In local terms, the variation in wealth and opportunity within the society matter far more. Something like that.

 

[Pickman's model]

I've been thinking of it in similar terms to both of you but as a philosophy then do we link it to the difference between a globalised view and a localised view? In global terms, the needs of big business and total GDP matter. In local terms, the variation in wealth and opportunity within the society matter far more. Something like that.

Tbh in Britain you have one vast city and a number of reasonably sized ones. Abroad (apart from Ireland) most countries don't have a disproportionately large city which is much larger than the next few. So London sees things differently than say Newcastle or Leeds. You are either London/se or provincial. This is unhealthy as it identifies govt opinion large with se opinion while denigrating opinion from the regions.

And that's before you get onto class etc

 

[wheelie_bin]

It's also interesting to note that in general, the greater proportion of a country is coastal, the less they like the EU and prefer some isolation. I don't mean that simplistically for fishing quotas, that matters informationally rather than philosophically. If we look more generally then EU opinions are more sharply anti in the countries with large coastlines, both EEA (Norway, Iceland, Greenland, now UK) plus coastal Portugal, France, Italy and Greece. As opposed to much better polling for Germany, Poland, Austria etc. Switzerland and Spain don't fit the "it's the sea" model though.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's also interesting to note that in general, the greater proportion of a country is coastal, the less they like the EU and prefer some isolation. I don't mean that simplistically for fishing quotas, that matters informationally rather than philosophically. If we look more generally then EU opinions are more sharply anti in the countries with large coastlines, both EEA (Norway, Iceland, Greenland, now UK) plus coastal Portugal, France, Italy and Greece. As opposed to much better polling for Germany, Poland, Austria etc. Switzerland and Spain don't fit the "it's the sea" model though.

Nor does ireland

 

[wheelie_bin]

Yes, true, Ireland are arguably amongst the happiest to be in the EU.

I have an issue with my own global / local argument also that Britain is traditionally highly globalist, we've been everywhere. I struggle to square that with the EU alignment / non-alignment.

 

[wheelie_bin]

Another theory I have to put alongside this is about the desirability of personal independence; whether actual, possible or perceived. It helps in understanding why areas that are net recipients of EU money wouldn't feel grateful but still aggrieved that the area is not sufficiently healthy to look after itself.

 

[brogdale]

Brexit has launched millions of discussions about reasons behind individual and collective decisions to remain or leave the EU. A number of people may have voted on issues of the moment, but polls and discussions show a large proportion had always known how they intended to vote, i.e. their political philosophy just aligned with or didn't align with the EU.

It's fairly clear that the reasoning used by people doesn't fit the traditional left / right political axis; far right and far left more clearly preferred Leave, but a number of centrists also preferred Leave. Preferences on the other political compass axis of authoritarian / libertarian don't seem to fit either; for all the talk about bureaucracy and UK sovereignty it can't be clearly linked to either position but rather to a "who decides" position.

So, trying to avoid specifics but rather looking at political philosophies of that core who "always knew" how they would vote, what do you think is the clearest way to describe the underlying difference between why a person is more likely to be pro EU or anti EU as a general principle?

In terms of ideology, the referendum obviously arose from the factional rift within the right party of capital. The free market, Atlanticists exploiting crude Nationalism to free neolib capital from the legacy, market interference of the supra-national Union dating from the era of system competition.

 

[brogdale]

Polling suggests that Leave voters, particularly those who had long held that position, were influenced primarily by what might be described as issues usually associated with Nationalist sentiments; a belief in the supremacy of the nation state as the natural political unit, border controls and the threat of the federal super-state. Obviously many of those taking a 'Lexit' position did from generally anti-neoliberal stance, but I'd argue that for the left the Leave option was more tactical than ideological.

 

[DotCommunist]

yep. one set of cunts, who we've had on the back foot before vs two. The overarching one being essentially unpunchable

 

[phildwyer]

Age.

 

[camouflage]

Yes, true, Ireland are arguably amongst the happiest to be in the EU.

I have an issue with my own global / local argument also that Britain is traditionally highly globalist, we've been everywhere. I struggle to square that with the EU alignment / non-alignment.

I think that shows the false dichotomy where Leavers are closed, backward and racist while Remainers are open progressive and globalist. Obviously some of both are either, but I think the sovereignty issue is different from all that. Britain has been global and progressive in its outlook for a long time... London vs Brussels as the seat of power isn't really about whether people can handle the pace of technological development either.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Obviously many of those taking a 'Lexit' position did from generally anti-neoliberal stance, but I'd argue that for the left the Leave option was more tactical than ideological.

Yep I agree. And at some point we'll be able to judge that tactic's wisdom. I don't see much to commend it so far, what with forces within Labour and the Tories attempting to turn them both further to the right, but it's still early days.

Worst-case scenario over the next few months sees Labour turning back towards the neoliberalism of Blair, the Tories turning atlanticist under Gove or similar, UKIP consolidating as the third party in England/Wales, and the disruption of brexit being used to justify further austerity.

Best-case scenario would be something like Corbyn standing for reelection as leader and winning, demands for an early general election becoming such that there is one, and Corbyn's Labour winning that election.

The worst-case scenario would make a tactical left leave vote look rather foolish. It's more or less everything I feared would happen. I sincerely hope I am the one proved wrong.

 

[brogdale]

Age.

54.
You?

 

[teuchter]

Leavers are generally emotionally and ideologically driven. Remainers are more pragmatic, and conscious of the importance of detail and isolating fact from myth. That's about the extent of any common "philosophy" on either side. I trust this settles the question and the thread can now be closed.

 

[Dr. Furface]

There is no Brexit philosophy, there's just prejudice, fear and loathing.

 

[brogdale]

There is no Brexit philosophy, there's just prejudice, fear and loathing.

Holding anti-supranational superstate sentiment seems perfectly valid to me.

 

[phildwyer]

54.
You?

12.

 

[brogdale]

From Rafael Behr's Guardian piece "How remain failed.." (already posted here):-

This quote, from the LD's 2015 election campaign director Ryan Coetzee, gives the perspective of the vanquished...

“When a lot of people in a society feel that life has passed them by, they don’t much like their present and they don’t see a path to the future, offering them an enemy is not clever. It is easy. Nationalism triumphed over liberalism, populism triumphed over evidence and expertise; paranoia triumphed over trust.”

 

[butchersapron]

Trust us. Go on you fuckers. Trust us.

 

[brogdale]

Trust us. Go on you fuckers. Trust us.

Not sure I've ever laughed out loud so much when reading a Guardian 'Long Read'.

 

[nuffsaid]

So we had the vote - and only now do we have the debate.

 

[butchersapron]

So we had the vote - and only now do we have the debate.

Aside from all that debate prior to the vote. I reckon that didn't satisfy my levels though. Who is having this post vote debate that wasn't before? It's leaving thIs to and actually demanding that it be a politicians debate fought ought in the media to say this.

 

[nuffsaid]

Aside from all that debate prior to the vote. I reckon that didn't satisfy my levels though. Who is having this post vote debate that wasn't before? It's leaving thIs to and actually demanding that it be a politicians debate fought ought in the media to say this.

Don't get me wrong I've enjoyed reading all sorts of ideas on why this side won or that side lost and what it all means. It's all over the Guardian, BBC, blogs linked to from various links on this board in numerous threads. In fact there's nothing I like more than the very long view on how societies evolve and things change. But I never heard a lot of that insightful commentary being covered in the regular media during the campaigns - all they did was peddle fear.

So my comment was merely a rhetorical one whilst looking down at the ground.

 

[teuchter]

My feeling is that coverage discussing the realities of the consequences and options available in the event of a "leave" vote has definitely been more widespread, and more detailed, following the referendum compared to prior to it. I can't prove that and don't know how I would, though.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

My feeling is that coverage discussing the realities of the consequences and options available in the event of a "leave" vote has definitely been more widespread, and more detailed, following the referendum compared to prior to it. I can't prove that and don't know how I would, though.

Well to the extent that the debate has continued post-referendum, you would hope that the arguments advanced on both sides have become more detailed. Otherwise people would just be arguing the same point over and over again.

 

[wheelie_bin]

Otherwise people would just be arguing the same point over and over again.

Hmmmm. Er, isn't that what we're all doing anyway?

 

[two sheds]

Don't know enough about the philosophy to judge but I enjoyed this:

Racist? No, I’m a Brexistentialist

Shortly after the referendum result, I received a message from a young Danish friend: “So you don’t like us any more,” she said. I replied: “We’re not prejudiced. We don’t like anyone.”

Racist? No, I’m a Brexistentialist