The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.
A crucial concern is that the terms of whatever agreement is reached will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.
This concern isn’t unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58% spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41% increase, compared with the same time the previous year.
The subtext is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a decision of such momentous consequences. It also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.
This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. This is not a democratic process at all.
There does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, and attempting to rush it all through by royal prerogative was seriously worrying. There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.
Attempting to use Royal prerogative was a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters. especially during the future Brexit negotiations.
Jon Davis
Credits - New Statesman, The Economist, The National Police Chief’s Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment