Is the idea of Britain leaving the EU extreme?

[Tribble]

I've been sort of having this conversation on other threads, but I feel the topic is worth having a thread of its own. Here are my questions:

1. Is the idea of Britain leaving the EU in and of itself extreme right wing politics?

Is it:

Far-right politics --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Other people jump on bandwagon for other reasons --> BREXIT!

Or:

Reasonable people don't like EU --> Started Brexit bandwagon --> Hijacked by far-right politics --> BREXIT!

I think its fair to say that whatever the original circumstances Brexit has more or less been taking over by far right politics, but I'd like to know if the idea of a country leaving the EU is an and of itself so far hard to the right and so extreme that it must always be opposed.

2. With regards to immigration specifically, is it extreme hard right politics for people to want their country to have the final say over who enters and leave their country?

As an example, let's say you have two groups of people who voted the leave the EU due to immigration:

One group voted to leave the EU on immigration because they believe that the UK should have the final say on immigration. Whether or not immigration increases or decreases, the UK must be in charge.

The 2nd group voted to leave the EU on immigration because they believe that the UK should have the final say on immigration, and they want the UK to use that power specifically for the purpose of limiting immigration and excluding Poles, Muslims etc.

Would it be fair to say that while the ladder certainly is hard right and xenophobic, the former is not necessarily so? Or are both groups automatically extremists that must be opposed?

3. With regards to immigration specifically, have there been studies done or evidence available which would be able to differentiate between the two groups? Is there any way to determine the number of people who were in each group?

I haven't been able to find specific studies that can determine how many people voted for Brexit specifically because they want the UK to limit immigration and/or exclude groups like Poles, Muslims etc.

This question isn't a critique, but rather a request for more information.

4. Perhaps most importantly, if supporting Brexit is not in and of itself an extreme viewpoint to take, and someone wanted to leave the EU, should that person have voted Remain anyways simply because far-right groups supported it?

It should be noted that a referendum is not an election, in the sense that voters are not literally electing someone into office, but voting on a specific issue.

However, does that distinction matter? Should you have voted to Remain even if you wanted to leave because groups like UKIP wanted to leave as well?

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't agree with any poll choice, but I do think leaving on any realistic basis is an extreme measure at this point. This sort of vote if it was going to happen should have happened back when each and every one of the major sovereignty ceding treaties was signed, but the EU deliberately began to avoid that because it would fail. After this long the entanglement is very deep, and directly rooted in solving some very old historical disputes.

Not voting to leave out of fear of racists is simply weak minded thinking to me though. If your society has that much problem with race then it should not try to blame it on something else, its been long brewing everywhere.

Its clear that EU Europeans as a whole, do not want to be Europeans only. European perhaps, but beside a national identity. Every country still wants to be a country on a dead serious basis, that's why the EU military thing of the past turned and ever has been so asstarded. And that kind of cooperation is way easier then integrating economics and regulations. The EU hasn't and basically can't address this right now, relations between a few core countries dominate and everyone else must assert themselves as a nation or they'd be lost. I would say the best path for democracy would have been a formal two tiered EU, which was pretty heavily imposed on the Eastern European states anyway, but its basically too late for that. The UK government demands amount to demanding it as a single treaty to them, I don't see that happening on practical terms in 2 years. This clause was never supposed to be used, earlier EU stuff had none and it was thrown in during negotiations to budge past that demand for a public original vote.

Also as far as leaving goes, that should have only been by act of parliament in the first place, or that plus the public vote. This amounts to a massive constitutional change, I'm not surprised a British court has ruled the way it has. The UK constitution might not be written but they executed a king to assert this kind of power to parliament.

[Iroscato]

The poll is ridiculously limited in its options. Sort that shit out Tribble.

I think it's a dumb, foolish idea that's going to cause a lot of strife in this country, but I would not say it must be stopped 'at any cost'.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Brexit is a truly horrible idea, and the repercussions will be felt far and wide. But the majority of those who bothered to vote on it voted leave, and ignoring this referendum sets a bad precedent. The UK should go through with Brexit, and then offer a proposition to try and rejoin after the process has been completed and hope that the EU will play nice about it.

Votes have consequences, and it's a lesson that needs to be learned, apparently.

[K. A. Pital]

Second vote for "no, it's not, and Britain should leave the EU".

[Starglider]

The problem with the brexit vote was timing. Right now there is a lull in the pressure on the EU, the illusion of 'everything is ok'. It is too easy for EU leaders to portray the UK as an exceptional case, i.e. never really Europeans in the first place, and to entrench the EU even further, treating the UK as a scapegoat and enemy to blame.

It would have been better to wait until the next major economic downturn when the southern Europe debt situation is exploding again and tensions are at a peak, and then put the boot in with Brexit. That could have been the key push over the tipping point into EU disintigration (or at least, significant reform). Then again that could still happen if the process is blocked for a long time, and then suddenly unblocked when the time is right.

[Tribble]

Point conceded on the poll itself, although I don't know how to edit it.

[Crazedwraith]

The problem with the brexit vote was timing. Right now there is a lull in the pressure on the EU, the illusion of 'everything is ok'. It is too easy for EU leaders to portray the UK as an exceptional case, i.e. never really Europeans in the first place, and to entrench the EU even further, treating the UK as a scapegoat and enemy to blame.

It would have been better to wait until the next major economic downturn when the southern Europe debt situation is exploding again and tensions are at a peak, and then put the boot in with Brexit. That could have been the key push over the tipping point into EU disintigration (or at least, significant reform). Then again that could still happen if the process is blocked for a long time, and then suddenly unblocked when the time is right.

Predicted on the idea that the purpose of Brexit is the destruction of the EU, which seems without basis.

[Tribble]

I don't agree with any poll choice, but I do think leaving on any realistic basis is an extreme measure at this point. This sort of vote if it was going to happen should have happened back when each and every one of the major sovereignty ceding treaties was signed, but the EU deliberately began to avoid that because it would fail. After this long the entanglement is very deep, and directly rooted in solving some very old historical disputes.

That raises another question. Is it acceptable to treat something recent* like the signing of the Lisbon Treaty** as a "Status Quo" of which major changes are considered extreme, when there was no democratic mandate for it in the first place? Particularly in the UK, where all of the parties flat out lied to the public about holding a referendum, then the winning party signed off on the Lisbon Treaty the moment they got into office?

If all the major political parties in Canada campaigned on holding a referendum before joining the USA, then once in office the winning party immediately signed a treaty having Canada join the USA (because it turns out they supported joining the USA and they didn't want a referendum due to fear of it failing), do you believe that after less than 10 years the idea of Canada holding a referendum on independence would be too extreme to hold because Canada had now become far more entangled with the USA?***

*recent, as in less than 10 years ago. This is hardly ancient history.

**Yes, I know that the actual pledge was technically for the European Constitution, however everyone at the time noted that the Lisbon Treaty was practically identical.

*** Leaving aside issues such as the USA wanting Canada to join, and the fact that unlike the EU leaving the USA is unconstitutional.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would say that while not all Brexit voters are necessarily far Right, that the main impetus for it, and the main entities directing the campaign for it, appear to have been far Right xenophobic nationalists.

I would not choose any of the poll options, however, only because of the "at all costs" bit in the first option. If it was phased along the lines of "must be stopped by any legally permissible means.", I would probably agree.

[Tribble]

I would say that while not all Brexit voters are necessarily far Right, that the main impetus for it, and the main entities directing the campaign for it, appear to have been far Right xenophobic nationalists.

I would not choose any of the poll options, however, only because of the "at all costs" bit in the first option. If it was phased along the lines of "must be stopped by any legally permissible means.", I would probably agree.

Which I was indenting on editing, though I don't know how. Poor choice of words on my part. I was also going to add an option for "Brexit is not extreme, but it needs to be opposed for other reasons" or something like that.

[jwl]

I voted option 4 in this poll, but I think this poll should have more options. The referendum is over now, they won, in my opinion the result should be honoured.

However, it is still possible for someone to think that the referendum should be overturned, but not because the cause was overtaken by far-right groups. I mean, most of the prominent (note: not people on the internet) hard remainers like Nick Clegg want to overturn the referendum not because the cause was championed by far right groups, but because they see the leave campaign's win as being based on lies.

Predicted on the idea that the purpose of Brexit is the destruction of the EU, which seems without basis.

Well, that was Farage's purpose, he said it himself several times. I doubt that is the case with Boris Johnson or most of the the rest of the real Leave campaign, though.

[Starglider]

The problem with the brexit vote was timing. It would have been better to wait until the next major economic downturn when the southern Europe debt situation is exploding again and tensions are at a peak, and then put the boot in with Brexit.

Predicted on the idea that the purpose of Brexit is the destruction of the EU, which seems without basis.

Certainly most exit voters were not thinking (much) about the impact on the rest of the EU; they were considering only (what they thought were) positive outcomes for the UK. However, the benefit of timing things better applies even if you are only interested in the direct effect on the UK; striking when the EU is in crisis would undeniably give the EU less license to retaliate.

[mr friendly guy]

I voted not extreme. As far as not being part of the EU goes, I try putting myself into the shoes of a European citizen and a British citizen, and my conclusion would be, it depends on a. What you expect from the EU and b. advantages and disadvantages.

Now the concept of living in a super state in and of itself doesn't bother me, so the identity of being "insert nationality here" vs European doesn't bother me that much. Since I am an ethnic minority in a country with a lot of people of European descent, as long as I am treated well it shouldn't be a problem. The other issue though, is whether the others in this super state share the same values. Sure, Europe has similar values, but I gather that Brexiters have quite different views on trade and protectionism compared to the EU. Also on migration. These issues don't bother me enough to want out if I was in a Brit's shoes, but I am not them.

Now being in the EU does have some advantages, common market, bigger say in world affairs etc, although if these aren't important to you, then it won't be a factor in how you vote.

Whether it ends up being good or bad for the UK, depends on what you consider good really. If controlling the borders is more important than the economic risk, then its worth it. Ultimately its best the will of the people is respected.

*****************************************************************************************************
That being said, the propaganda spewed from both sides does tend to leave a bad taste in one's mouth. It was especially funny when Brexiters who on youtube previously mocked SJWs claim of being persecuted by straight white men, simply substituted that with the European commission and talked up Farage's claim of people actually fighting in the streets.