Janine Jackson interviewed Joe Macaré about the Brexit vote for the July 1, 2016, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Joe Macare: “The mainstream parties have been very willing to use xenophobic, anti-immigrant rhetoric…as a way of redirecting resentment.”
[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin Joe Macare Interview @https://eadn-wc04-3257648.nxedge.io/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin160701macare.mp3″]
Janine Jackson: The story of masses of Britons googling “What’s the EU?” seems to be apocryphal, unsurprisingly. But it is fair to say many people were shocked by referendum results calling for Britain to leave the European Union.
In the wake of the vote, some say many proponents of a so-called Brexit didn’t really expect it to happen. So how did it? And what is there to be learned from the echoes between the racism and nativism demonstrated and exploited by some Leave campaigners, and certain stokers of those same sentiments closer to home?
Joe Macaré is publisher at the nonprofit news organization Truthout. He co-edited the anthology Who Do You Serve, Who Do You Protect: Police Violence and Resistance in the United States. He joins us now by phone from Chicago. Welcome to CounterSpin, Joe Macaré.
Joe Macaré: Thanks. Glad to be here.
JJ: In making sense of the results, many are starting with groups like UKIP and Britain First, the outwardly nativist and racist people represented, perhaps, by the person who killed Jo Cox. In your essay for Truthout, you don’t discount that influence at all, but it’s not where you start. What are some of the things you think we should think about as helping create the conditions, if you will, for the vote to leave?
JM: One place to start is that for at least 20 years, both of the dominant two parties in the UK, the Conservative Party and Labour—particularly in the New Labour iteration of that party, which came into being under Tony Blair and took power in 1997—those parties have been willing to make various degree of dog whistles or, increasingly over time, outright scaremongering rhetoric about immigration in an attempt to win votes. And according to those parties, it’s been to ensure that far-right parties — for a long time, that was the British National Party, now it’s more Britain First and UKIP; UKIP are a sort of respectable version, in some ways, of those far-right parties.
The mainstream parties have been very willing to use xenophobic, anti-immigrant rhetoric, to one degree or another, to ensure that they win votes, and also as a way of redirecting resentment, as their economic policies have caused poverty and have created a huge amount of resentment amongst working people in the UK. They need to redirect that resentment to someone, and, as always, an obvious target is people who are new to the country.
And it’s a combination of the kind of Islamophobia we see in the US as well, but also often specifically xenophobia against economic immigrants from elsewhere in Europe. What’s happening is basically a kind of narrowing of the definition of whiteness again, to mean that, like, Polish people living in the UK are suddenly considered “other” and unacceptable. So I think that you have to look at how those mainstream parties and the media have really done a huge amount of work in making the kind of racism demonstrated by those far-right parties acceptable.
JJ: Media play a big role in directing that gaze, don’t they? I mean, we certainly see that here. They, in some cases, straight up say, here’s who you should blame for the problems in your life.
JM: Right. I mean, a great example of this is the BBC, between a certain period, had Nigel Farage, who is the leader of the UKIP party, on as a guest of their flagship political discussion show, Question Time. They had him on more than any other figure, more than any other politician, I believe possibly more than any other guest. There’s obvious parallels to someone like Donald Trump, in the sense that the media play a huge role in legitimizing and giving a platform to and creating the fame of someone, and then retroactively claim, well, we have to cover this person, we have to give him a platform, because he’s popular.
JJ: Right.
JM: And, also, a lot of this media purports to be in some way left-leaning or liberal, and will then very regretfully say, well, this is terrible, but has in fact legitimized this. And you see it in the kind of op-eds that nominally left papers like the Guardian or nominally liberal papers like the Independent have been willing to publish, op-eds by people basically saying, well, you know, we need to have a conversation about Muslims living in the UK, or we need to have a conversation about the number of economic migrants. And what they’re basically doing is making forms of racism and xenophobia into a sort of legitimate voice in a debate.
JJ: Yes, there is definitely a special role for the contrarian putative leftist who says, you know, I know that we hate to say this, we liberals, but we really need to. I think of Bill Maher saying, you know, let’s just acknowledge that really Muslims are the problem. So it’s across spectrum in media, is what we’re saying.
And then we come to the EU itself, which has shown up in media stories. I’m seeing people say, well, we talk about sovereignty when we’re saying, we don’t want companies to use trade pacts to override our laws, you know? We do care about sovereignty. And maybe what the Brexit folks were talking about was just the EU as an undemocratic force. What do you make of that? There is something to be said about the role that the European Union has played and is playing.
JM: Right, absolutely. In my article, and I think in any analysis, you have to say that the EU bears a lot of responsibility, in that many of the things which could be said about it by people campaigning to leave were true, and many of the things that were said by some of those campaigning to remain were not true. The EU is not a kind of shining beacon of democracy and plurality. The problem is that’s not what the Leave campaigners were arguing for, and you see this really clearly in the aftermath of the vote, and it’s not what we’re going to see in terms of the economic consequences.
So it’s tempting to see Brexit as striking a blow against a European neo-liberal elite, and there’s a degree of truth in that. But, unfortunately, it’s a victory for the British right, and not just in cultural terms, but also in terms of economic policy. What they’re already saying is that this will have to result in more cuts, more tax raises on ordinary people. It’s not that the economic results in the UK are going to be anything other than austerity and neoliberalism.
JJ: Media are going to stay on this story. They can do it well or poorly. What would you like to see US media doing more of, less of, questions they might ask, folks they might talk to? What are some thoughts you have for media?
JM: Paying attention to what’s actually going on on the ground in the UK is a huge one. There’s been some people on the left who have wanted to see this as a sort of victory against neoliberal forces, against the global 0.01 Percent. I think to have that rosy view of it means completely ignoring people on the ground in the UK, who are saying this is terrible specifically because of the way in which it has emboldened racism within the UK, which was already there and was already on the rise. But it seems extremely likely, judging from the media reports from the UK, the social media discussions, that it has produced a certain increase in that already-rising level of racism.
Those voices, people within the UK, specifically people within the UK who themselves have experienced this emboldened racism and xenophobia, are some of the most important voices to listen to. And everyone else in the UK who’s directly affected by the economic and other policies of the government there, because those are the people who can tell you how the economic policies that get put in place now, are they in any way preferable to being part of the EU, the labor policies that have been put in place, in any way preferable? So I think those are the voices that US media need to keep paying attention to. And really now, because of things like social media, there’s no excuse not to be paying attention to those people.
JJ: Joe Macaré, thank you so much. Joe Macaré is publisher of Truthout, online at truth-out.org. That’s where you’ll find his piece, “Who Should We Blame for Brexit and Where Do We Go From Here?” Thank you for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
JM: Thanks for having me.
He gets asked about trade and then makes an oblique reference to the .01% but then plunges into racism. A moment later he questions whether any economic policy can be better than the EU’s. When we shut up about the racism, what is left is an opportunity to make things that are currently only available from the neoliberal marketplace. Seen this way, Brexit is a giant possibility!!
Racism is a red herring [something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.] Racism has nothing to do with the Brexit.
Hi Janine,
I’m very saddened that you have, not only repeated this narrow and simplistic view of the UK referendum result and its meaning, but now actually added an outrageous racist slur against the whole British people as a tabloid headline.
I had been recommending FAIR as an excellent source of reliable news. Now I’m not sure I can believe a word of it.
Here is my original observation, which, clearly, wasn’t as interesting to you as a tabloid headline opportunity:
I have to say I usually come to FAIR expecting to hear an alternative and more realistic view of World events, but listening to your Joe Macare interview I find it hard to believe he has ever been to this country or read anything about its demography and the radical changes that have been imposed on it by successive governments: not obsessed with xenophobia, but obsessed with construction development as a substitute for improving its economy by improving the living standards of a naturally stable population.
At around the turn of the century UK population growth was coming to a standstill and migration was roughly balanced. We were coming to the point when there was no longer any need for continuous construction, or ‘job creation’ for large numbers of people. Accordingly, there was soon a market crash, and banks who had gambled on continuous building collapsed.
Instead of making the necessary changes to a sustainable steady state population and economy, our governments have continued to pull out all the stops, and changed the fundamental purpose of all policy and town planning, to remove all remaining impediments to construction development, and removed all means that existed for the general public to rein in and stop development they didn’t want, or that was environmentally damaging. (This is going to get worse without EU environmental regs to hold them back from the worst crimes against Nature.)
As this madness was going on in the UK, the EU was being enlarged to admit countries in which there were lower levels of economic activity than the construction crazy UK. Obviously this was going to create a large attractive force for the young and mobile toward the UK from all over the continent and from outside the EU.
The movements of population were unprecedented and have continued growing for over a decade. We have gone from a near stable population to one that is growing at about half a million per year, 3/5 of which is from excess migration, and the rest from births minus deaths, and about half the births are, in themselves, due to the recent migration.
Half a million population is roughly equivalent to needing to accommodate a major new city the size of Bristol *every year*. It can’t be done, but there is no sign that any political party is ever going to call a halt to the demand for growth for growth’s sake, end the attractive force, and give our people a chance to enjoy what little space and environmental assets we still possess.
This is the context in which you have to see the public vote to get out of the EU (Incidentally the EU Parliament just put out a newsletter with a poll showing much higher concern about migration than was shown in the UK referendum poll–and several of their countries have *declining* populations!). The public–at least those who don’t look at real statistics and know nothing about the EU that didn’t come out of a Tory newspaper–thought that this referendum was the only chance they had to slow down the really huge influx of migrants that –through inertia– is way beyond what even the rampaging construction industry can keep up with. Had they looked more carefully, they would have seen that the influx cannot just be stopped, and will not be able to stop, while both sides of the in/out debate are still determined to outdo the other on ‘economic growth’.
The imbalance of migration is so absurd, that Eurostat statistics predict that over this century EU population will decline by about 3million, while UK population will increase by over 30million! Think about that against a background of climate change, soil loss, vanishing fish stocks, and massive sub-Saharan population growth, and ask yourself: “Who can guarantee the UK will be able to feed itself in 50y time?”.
What the UK is doing, essentially, is to set fire to its own house, and invite people to come and warm themselves by it, and help us throw on more and more resources as fuel.
Many people, from all walks of life, are desperate for this to stop, while we still have a recognisable country left. That is why, last year, there was a massive popular vote for a change to a real Labour party, and massive vote of disapproval to the right wing Parliamentary parties that are building this huge bonfire of our natural assets whilst imposing ‘austerity’ on ordinary people at the same time.
Yes, there are xenophobes and racists here, but they have always been a small if vociferous minority, they don’t realise what is drawing migrants here, and they certainly did not make up the bulk of the people who voted for ‘leave’. The English people, primarily, voted for change: any change. If there was the slightest chance of slowing things down: it was worth the gamble. Now they are furious they were lied to: but they will try to make the best of a bad job.
Hopefully, if the propaganda war against Corbyn can be thrown off, we may get a positive change yet. But, even then, we still have to get his party away from the inferno of ‘growth’ that drives this whole nightmare, and is completely unnecessary.
it is not racist to want what is best for your country – Watch the documentary on youtube called brexit. Smart decision for the British. Power corrupts and the EU is obviously corrupt. Now Go Trump 2016. We need to take our country back from the global elites that are using slavery to get rich.
The harm being done to all nations begins with the US MIC, gun-running, Wars and displaced citizens.
Resulting “terrorism” — real and fake — and our filthy Drug War which is used to intimidate and infiltrate and co-opt other nation’s sovereignty.
It continues on with trade agreements which are about the Elite desire/greed to harvest slave labor all over the world — i.e., Globalization.
It will continue on, as well, with unaccountable elected officials moving all of our nations further into debt so that ultimately we are each enslaved and facing “austerity” programs imposed by international financial institutions.
Efforts to reduce populations to save the planet — and birth control which permits self-determination for females — also plays a role in this. Corporations who no longer have increasing and excess populations/labor to exploit want new immigration and new labor which they can exploit and profit from.
It is people who create economies, but it is banks and financial institutions — and international financial institutions — which manipulate those economies for the benefit of the few.
And, btw, I believe that our US TPP Trade Agreement which has the potential to destroy US sovereignty is dependent upon agreements with the EU.
This looks to me like an anti-Globalization vote — and we should all be doing the same.
All of these trade agreements should be knocked over —
Global Warming is at near crisis levels for all of us — especially considering that there was a 50 year delay in our actually feeling the effects of the damage done to Nature and this planet.
In other words — we are only now feeling the effects of harm done up to about 1966– !!
And just imagine all the harm done after that date.
I trust that Obama will be the last president who gains the White House by lying to the public and turning into a monster Corporatist immediately after the election. The corporatist agenda is designed to further enrich the already wealthy — sadly through new build up of the MIC, seeking new “mini-nuclear weapons” which can be more readily used — destroying public education to keep the next generation confused — and a lack of health care to prevent anyone from being really well. The destruction of anything that’s left of socially responsible programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
We are being offered two criminals to vote for — and understand that today Trump may be offering to drop out after three weeks of our press kicking him to the curb (deservedly!) — but it would be based on “for the right price.” Bernie Sanders has rejoined the Democratic Party which he so ably criticized over the last months — and will support HillBill, despite the fact that he knows they are liars and crooks — !!
Capitalism is suicidal —
It’s dying and yet our elected officials continue to sell themselves to corporations/Elites.
Well said Barbara. Blaming populations for reacting democratically on the rare occasions they get the chance, highlights the problem of being governed by self-satisfied and ignorant elites, who have no idea why the public ‘doesn’t understand’ them.
Get them out. But the lying media elite must go too, or the public will know no better than to be fooled into bringing them back.
If you really cared about “Fairness and Accuracy” you would interview someone who had a clue about the EU rather than someone willing to repeat the baseless lies about it being “undemocratic” and “neo-liberal” etc..
This orgaization is an utter joke -. worse in fact that most of the mainstream media you critcize.