“The message we've got to put out is this—we must stand firm and defend our Judeo-Christian culture. We must make it clear that we believe in common law and not Sharia law.”
Does this quote sound familiar? Its sentiments surely do—they are pronounced and dogmatically declared by politicians media personalities and all those insistent upon stirring up fear and intolerance across this nation. The words above represent the staunch nativism, xenophobia and panic that grips a large portion of our country. They could easily have been spouted by anyone, from Donald Trump to Walt Disney’s frozen corpse.
In case the “common law” reference didn’t give it away, the quote, touting “Judeo-Christian values,” is credited to a citizen of the United Kingdom. Notably, the words came straight from the mouth of prominent British leader, Nigel Farage. Farage is the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and was an essential player in rallying support for the Brexit vote. UKIP has been around since 1993, and its primary goal is the fulfillment of a British break from the European Union. Its platform and propaganda are often mired in talk of cultural purity and isolationism, insistent upon an end to the free movement of people allowed for by EU law. Establishment politicians largely ignored the calls of UKIP, writing them off as ultra-nationalistic.
After years of being treated as a joke, Nigel Farage and UKIP won an election they called “Brexit,” a cute name for a resoundingly un-cute conclusion. They instilled enough ridiculous and illogical fear within the population of the UK that on June 23, a majority of its citizens voted to leave the EU.
They voted “leave” without being informed of the facts. They voted “leave” without consideration of the consequences of leaving. They voted “leave” despite the fact that the EU and similar supranational organizations surely represent the future of the entire world, of all of us.
The most immediate consequences have been economic. After a quick burst of capital flight caused by presumed British instability, the pound has already depreciated to its lowest point in 30 years, meaning that future imports will be increasingly expensive for the British. Surely, inflation will follow. To make matters worse, the UK will no longer be privy to the free movement of goods, services and labor that accompany EU membership. Therefore, both the production and importation of goods will become an augmenting burden on British consumers as well as producers.
Perhaps the vote to leave carries a political appeal then? After all, surely it hampers the sovereignty of the UK to stay in such a large union of nations? Free from foreign entanglements, aren’t they bound to be more prosperous? Alas, no. Not only is the exit bad policy in terms of Britain’s international standings, it is a true domestic blunder. London, Northern Ireland and Scotland all voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.
The United Kingdom maintains historically tense relations with its sub-regions, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Both have clamored for independence for years, and their staggering poll results represent a significant breach from the population of England. This is particularly dangerous in Northern Ireland. The decades of terrorism and violence between Protestants and Catholics in the region culminated only in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a treaty contingent upon an open border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland. Of course, this peace agreement came only after the deaths of 3,600 people. EU participation did much to quell the Irish nationalists, who wished for a unified Ireland. However, in leaving the EU, Britain has most certainly stirred a resurgence of Irish nationalism, as those in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish rather than British are forced to undergo border restrictions.
If the vote to leave the European Union was neither politically nor economically beneficial, why did the British pull the trigger? What caused such a large portion of the population to vote leave?
The answer lies in the false pretense of security. Politicians like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage spent the campaign season sensationalizing the threat of radical Islamism and global terrorism to UK citizens. In actuality, there is more risk of death coming from within the UK than from terrorist organizations. In the UK, alcohol takes an average of 24 lives every single day. That’s a total of 8,687 deaths per year caused by alcohol. In 2015, only three Brits died in a terrorist attack on British soil.
Of course, there is no justification for their senseless murders performed by militant monsters. But if Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson were truly concerned about British security, they’d be fighting for safer roads and less substance abuse, not a complete shutout of all immigrants.
Here’s what I saw: a nation fails to see a radically reactionary leader as a threat. This leader taps into a wave of passion within the populus, relying on racially charged rhetoric. Ultimately, this rhetoric wins an election and affects real policy.
We stand at a similar crossroads in the United States. The parallels between the British EU referendum and the upcoming presidential election are clear. If anything, “Brexit” is proof that xenophobia on its own can win an election—because it just did. Those of us who understand the dangers of a policy informed by hate are now tasked with ensuring that the United States does not follow Britain. If we want to remain a global player, if we want to protect our nation’s future, there is no sense in cutting ourselves off. Populism aside, let’s choose wisely.
Leah Abrams is a Trinity freshman.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Leah Abrams is a Trinity senior and the Editor of the editorial section. Her column, "cut the bull," runs on alternate Fridays.