The EU referendum result was deeper than how the UK perceives the EU

During the EU referendum campaign, and in the aftermath of the result, it’s clear that the referendum was deeper than just views on our relationship with the EU. It was about the attitudes of the UK electorate and just how divided we are as a country. The leave vote wasn’t driven by a well articulated campaign that promoted awareness of the EU as a supranational body and how it might not benefit us. Nor was it driven by a plan for how life outside of the EU would look, particularly when juxtaposed with the status quo. Instead, it was driven by ignorance, insularity, xenophobia and undertones of prejudice. That is the crux of how we ended with the electorate voting to leave the EU.

The EU isn’t a perfect institution and it’s a fairly convoluted and bureaucratic one at that. Moreover, many people can’t claim to fully understand it and I would include myself in that statement. Though headline arguments in favour of EU membership such as economic benefits, cultural and historic ties to Europe (the EU was formed in an effort to foster stronger ties post world war 2 in a bid to prevent Europe going to war again), freedom of movement, free movement of labour and EU laws that protect human rights, employment rights and quality of life (which I would struggle to trust a Tory government to preserve) were solid arguments in favour of remaining in the EU. In opposition, the leave campaign’s objective arguments to refute the above were predicated on.... well, nothing. Casual racism doesn’t count.

What exactly did you win? A gloomy economic outlook for the UK and the promotion of xenophobia? Huzzah!

It is important to remember that not everyone who voted to leave is racist. But anyone who’s racist certainly voted to leave. Furthermore, many people who voted leave had reasons that despite not shared by me, had rationale that was void of any prejudice and what they felt, rightly or wrongly, was best for the country. Nevertheless, such views were in a minority, even within the leave campaign and the utterances of politicians who supported a Brexit.

I'm not holding a grudge against anyone who voted differently from me and decided to vote to leave the EU because they felt it was genuinely the best option for the country and based on a well reasoned argument. I am, however, holding a grudge against anyone who voted leave based on xenophobia, selfishness and any opinion they based on something they read in The Sun.

Immigration has been a major driver toward Euroscepticism as an enlarged EU inevitably means further non-British EU citizens in the UK. The UK has traditionally been seen as an attractive location to live and work and many EU citizens come here to do just that. In doing so, they contribute to the economy and work in sectors where there’s a clear demand. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a job for them. They assimilate British culture and contribute economically, culturally and socially to the UK.

Conversely, while we can’t pretend that there aren’t some EU citizens who are attracted to the UK due to it having a more generous and accessible welfare system than their own, they are not in the majority. Yet the right wing media and politicians have fed us with this via racist and politically motivated drivel that many people lap up as the manna for their prejudice. These are British people. Though prior to the referendum, and in contemporary history, they had not made their sentiments so clear and on such a prominent platform that would show how divided the UK is.

Oh wait, is Boris Johnson not part of the establishment you wanted to give a kicking?

Many voting leave saw the EU referendum as a vote on immigration. Think immigrants (regardless of if they’re from within the EU) are taking our jobs, welfare and social housing whilst showing our country no respect? Then vote leave! This is what many perceived the referendum to be asking them and what the leave campaign peddled. In an age of the internet, where one can research essentially anything, I doubt many people sought to find out what the pros and cons of EU membership actually were. Rather they relied on propaganda that even a day after the result has been shown to be a lie. Furthermore, they wanted to give the establishment a kicking (forgetting that Boris Johnson et al are part of the establishment), say no to immigrants and ‘regain control of our country’. All utterly stupid and unfounded reasons, particularly when made with such consequences.

On the issue of immigration, it will remain a contentious subject whether in or out of the EU. Nonetheless, the fact is economic migrants make a huge and necessary contribution to our economy and workforce. Nor will our borders now close as the UK gradually becomes a homogenous white nation again. That’s something ethnic minorities campaigning to leave the EU like Tory MP Preeti Patel (whose parents are Gujarati Ugandans) were blind to as the desire of many leave voters. When they say they want immigrants out Preeti, even though we were born here they mean you and I too.

"What have I done?..."

Politicians have failed to generate a sensible and pragmatic debate on immigration, preferring to use it as a political hot potato. No wonder a section of the electorate felt this was their way to add their voice and frustrations to a dialogue that hasn’t really started. The problem is, they chose to do it at the least practical time. Immigration was the leave campaign’s trump card and they knew it. Dress it with some propaganda and spurious arguments, while targeting ignorant and largely uneducated people, and they probably won’t even question why they should do anything but vote leave. And 51.9% of them didn’t. Not to mention, not once did the leave campaign include a plan before or after the referendum to set out life after a potential Brexit. Indeed, Boris Johnson’s rhetoric encouraging an unhurried exit, and his demeanor during the post result press conference, was that of a man not only without a plan but also with the realisation of ‘what the ---- have I done?’ As Del Boy would say, what a plonker.

"What a plonker!"

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed to be British; a significant statement as a British born, second generation West Indian, who nonetheless encapsulates Britishness as part of my identity. I am ashamed to share an identity with cretins who hold the views that prompted them to vote leave. Idiots who see right wing tabloids like The Sun and the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who have all resorted to undertones of racism throughout this campaign, as credible sources of information upon which to base their decisions. I’m ashamed to live in and be born in a country where such feelings exist to such an extent.

Like many non-Americans around the world, I’ve long perceived America as a nation comprising some superb ignorance and insularity. Their abysmal and disheartening lack of gun control against a backdrop of a countless horrific gun related tragedies and Donald Trump becoming a presidential candidate supports that view of American society and the American people. Britain hasn’t quite experienced such levels of poor judgement (although we have allowed Boris Johnson to position himself as the potential next Prime Minister so perhaps we have after all) but with the referendum vote to leave the EU, we now have our own watershed moment in contemporary British history that illustrates the obtuseness and stupidity in our society. Indeed, Britain isn’t far behind in sharing some of the attitudes that the rest of world mocks America for. As an American friend rightly commented, this is truly a case of ‘like father like son’.

The divisions that long existed in the UK are now more conspicuous than they have been in recent time. Those who voted to leave voted on the sentiments that UKIP, a racist party, have campaigned on since their creation. Let it sink in that half the electorate share UKIP’s views. Just as progressive Americans and progressive states such as New York and New Jersey, live alongside those who get their information from Fox News, we have become a nation so polarised that we are a country of two narratives.

I am angry, sickened and disillusioned with the result and those who voted to leave with little regard for the consequence but more so what their decision represented. In a hilarious but on point video (NSFW) that captures the sentiments of most people who voted to remain in the EU, Rants N Bants articulates what most of us are thinking; we don’t want to be associated with a nation that possesses such attitudes. Albeit in some jest, many are even calling for London to breakaway from the rest of the UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland (who both largely voted to remain), have also already highlighted the tensions the referendum result has raised for their respective inclusion in the UK. The leave vote was also heavily supported by older electors with little regard for subsequent generations’ futures. Selfishness and insularity has played a big part in this referendum.

"I went one referendum too far..."

For now, we are still in the EU. No amount of celebrations from Nigel Farage can change that. It’s also not likely to be a hurried exit for the UK as there isn’t a plan and the government will need and want to stall as long as possible. David Cameron announcing his decision to step down in the wake of the referendum result adds a leadership battle in the Conservative party that will further divert attention from a hasty Brexit. Good, bad or indifferent, no one knows what happens next. What we do know is sterling has taken a kicking after the result, Moody’s has cut the UK’s credit outlook to negative and the EU is not looking for an amicable separation. The leave campaign wanted isolation and to move away from the status quo and now it seems like they’ve got it.

However, while somewhat fanciful, I’m not entirely convinced that an exit from the EU will happen, at least not with the separation envisaged by the leave campaign.

Firstly, the referendum result is not legally binding. It’s essentially a gauge of public support for an issue. And despite the support being in favour of leaving the EU, it was with 51.9% of the vote. Support, yes, overwhelming, no. Secondly, to put the wheels of a Brexit in motion, article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will need to be invoked which Cameron intends to leave for his successor. Some would argue that setting that in motion would also warrant agreement from the UK Parliament rather than merely going on the referendum result for such a significant issue. Yet most MPs support remaining in the EU. Therefore particularly given the narrow margin for the vote to leave, they may decide to go against the referendum result in any vote in Parliament and not vote in favour of doing so.

For the UK Parliament to go against the referendum result, it’d set a huge and dangerous precedent and undermine the referendum as a democratic process. Although amidst the referendum result having an immediate and adverse impact on the British economy, and a tangible sense of regret amongst many leave voters who either voted to leave as a protest or were taken in by propaganda that’s since been found to be a lie, it would give MPs voting against leaving some credence as being in the public interest.

A petition calling for a further referendum already has in excess of 2 million signatures at the time of writing and David Lammy MP has called for Parliament to ignore the referendum. People are rightly not ready or willing to accept the result and Parliament may not either given how quickly it’s become apparent what a bad decision it actually is. That could result in legal action via judicial review from the leave campaign and it would all get quite messy which is one thing that seems fairly likely regardless of what happens.

The referendum result has exposed how divided the UK is and how much ignorance, xenophobia and selfishness there is within the country alongside the inclusivity that it must be stressed does exist throughout the UK. With my London-centric perspective, perhaps it’s just less than I previously gave the country credit for. Attitudes that have perhaps been suppressed since the first wave of post war immigration apparently never really disappeared and generations later, it has to be questioned if these attitudes are simply inherent to some sections of British society.

Whether or not we proceed with a Brexit, our relationship with the EU is altered forever. We have rejected strong relations with the EU, and all that it brought us, as the UK has cut off its nose to spite its face. Posturing via the ballot box might have seemed a good idea for the leave voters at the time. But they’ve created a mess that no matter to what extent it can be resolved, has damaged our relationship with the EU and each other and created a perception of the UK as a country that comprises many of the attitudes we’ve long criticised other nations for holding.

Muhammad Ali wasn't just the greatest boxer, he was one of the greatest period

There’s been an outpouring of tributes following Muhammad Ali’s passing. As a sporting icon and a figure from popular culture, this isn’t uncommon. Yet Ali was a boxer, an athlete from a sport that has been equally celebrated and lambasted for its gladiatorial nature. A sport that is unashamedly the hurt business and ignorantly deemed an arena where the fighters are too stupid to realise that they endure pain for our enjoyment. A sport that has seen its biggest stars elevated to the dizzy heights of success only to unceremoniously be brought crashing down when they’re superfluous to requirements and no longer a cash cow for the money men of the sport (who’ve never laced up a pair of gloves let alone thrown a punch themselves). Yes, he was a boxer, but the above didn’t apply to him; he was special. He transcended boxing, sport and even popular culture. He was the greatest but without the hyperbole that such labels often attract. Therefore it’s little wonder his death has been met with a response that is befitting of a legend.

As a boxing fan there’s a lot that could be said of Ali’s ability in the ring but little that hasn’t already been said by others. Indeed, when encouraged by fellow fight fan and Muhammad Ali admirer @davidcdennis to pen this post, this was my concern. Ali’s footwork, hand speed, movement and athleticism remain second to none. His heart, mettle and conditioning in soaking up punches from an incredibly ferocious puncher in George Foreman (who most modern fighters would have ducked in fear of his punching power for the duration of their careers) to claim the W against all odds, spoke volumes of his character in the ring. Moreover, it served as a reflection of his tenacity as a man outside of it. Despite me regularly and repeatedly revisiting Ali’s fights online or reading fight reports as if he fought at the previous weekend rather than decades ago, his boxing prowess isn’t what he stands out for either. Instead, it’s what he represented which is what his legacy is undoubtedly driven by. It’s also why he’s honoured by so many who may never have even seen any of his fights.

Ali represented the struggle of the black diaspora but also Muslims at a time when both minority groups struggled to achieve respect and acceptance in America (arguably they still do). Although this wasn’t from a position of pity for Ali didn’t need anyone’s sympathy. Even as Parkinson's amplified the juxtaposition between Ali in his later years with the demeanour we once saw of a young, outspoken, athletic man, he always rejected any pathos others may have tried to inject into his story.

Ali was the architect of swagger, slick oration, charisma and sublime intelligence that wasn’t seen in a black boxer let alone a sportsman period. And certainly not on the platform that he occupied. No interviewer could bamboozle him if they tried and he could articulate his argument with a flair and authority that would leave his audience in awe even if not in agreement. In an era where the boxing writing and broadcasting community was dominated by white, middle class men, many of whom would have looked down on a black, southern fighter, Ali turned the equilibrium of their interaction on its head. He was the smartest and most eloquent in any room and during interviews not only did he know it but he exuded it. Though there was something that tempered his confidence in not crossing the fine line into the realm of unpleasant arrogance.

As an instant black icon, Ali gave the diaspora pride and credibility. He was one of the prominent voices of black, Muslim and social consciousness in an era where it meant so much and was so needed. He knew he was a handsome black man and made sure to share it. In doing so, he unashamedly celebrated the black image. This was at a time when subconscious self-loathing was widespread amongst black people as a result of enduring racism and the shadow of slavery and latterly segregation. Ali ignored the memo of the day that being black was to be dirty and inferior and replaced it with his own narrative that black was beautiful; a narrative that has been central to the ongoing healing of the black diaspora. Ali undoubtedly inspired a generation of youth and countered the racism that was rife during his peak via his very being.

The integrity of Ali was unparalleled. He refused to evade conscription during the Vietnam war but even more vociferously refused to go to war. As a Muslim, he cited he was a conscientious objector which was rejected. Nonetheless, he represented a reminder of Islam as a compassionate religion and he continued to do so throughout his life. Again, Ali’s identity was in contention with his time but he was unapologetic for it. Similarly, against a backdrop of inequality and prejudice in America, Ali’s logic in support of his opposition was “I ain’t got no quarrel with those Vietcong.” And he was right as they didn't have a quarrel with a black, Muslim man either; he could find that without leaving America. While some saw it as unpatriotic at the time, history has judged his opposition more favourably. His actions, which cost him three years of his career with inactivity when his boxing licence was revoked, showed the principled stance that was lost on so many Americans at the time. As a social commentator, Ali was also equally earnest and forthright which compounded his influence in his generation and beyond.

Subsequent to his boxing career, Ali’s humanitarian work and compassion came to the fore. Despite being a quality that might appear to create a dichotomy with boxing, the latter was even apparent during his career and Ali rarely had real venom for his opponents. But more fool those those who thought that would detract from his performance in a fight. There was a contrast between the persona of the brash boxer and the compassionate humanitarian, qualities that weren't mutually exclusive for Ali.

Muhammad Ali might be remembered as the greatest ever boxer. But his true legacy is of being one of the greatest period.

Alicia Keys’ and the no makeup movement

Alicia Keys’ recent essay on Lenny provides a narrative that is surely familiar to most women. It articulates the struggle and pressures of being a woman in feeling the need to meet accepted and expected images of beauty that conform to traditional notions of being a woman. In a brave move that should be praised, Keys’ decision to shun this in rejecting the need to constantly wear makeup equally opposes and challenges the social anxieties it presents for many women. Indeed, her attempt to spread a #NoMakeup movement is arguably inspiring many women but it’s the tip of the iceberg when considering the notions of beauty and femininity that women have long been subject to.

As a man, much of the the experience outlined by Alicia Keys, and shared with many women, is admittedly alien to me. Although as an aside, men are increasingly subject to further social pressures in body image and perceptions of masculinity. This is prompting many men to take dangerous steps to meet these perceptions which are rapidly damaging men’s mental and physical health at perilous levels. Sadly, as a relatively new phenomenon, these aren’t widely recognised. Nevertheless, for women this is something that has existed as far back as patriarchal stereotypes can be traced throughout history.

Personally, I like to look good as much as the next person does. But the driver for that stems from my personal contentment and less so from the perception of others. During the winter months, I often grow my hair into a sometimes untamed but periodically shaped afro and shave less frequently than usual. There are occasions that I probably look at least a tad unkempt but on the whole, I don’t care and broadly speaking I’m not judged for it. It’s something I embrace with a nonchalance that is born out of incremental improvements to my own self-esteem and mental health whereby I feel more comfortable with myself, my actions and my appearance than I might once have been. Though for women, this represents a challenge that involves undoing centuries of expected conformity in one's appearance and indeed traditional notions of femininity which are increasingly foisted in the face of women.

Social media has provided a further and damaging projection of what many women feel they need to meet with Instagram posts displaying what is brushed off as casual and effortless perfection of women. Subjects such as the Kardashians are photographed leaving the gym, looking as if they’re yet to break a sweat with not a hair out of place. Because that’s exactly how we all look after a workout, right? Then there are the voyeuristic photos (often posted under the guise of something that seems more principled than the superficial notion of merely getting your attention) that get posted to an audience of young women who naively seek to attain an image that’s manufactured by those who devote their lives to maintaining a plastic, paparazzi-ready facade.

Makeup, hair, clothes, shoes and conforming to expectations of ideal body image present a rigmarole that women have to contend with on a daily basis. And rarely does society suggest it’s acceptable to dispense with any of the aforementioned. For younger women and girls especially, the message is damaging - if you don’t look like this, you’re slacking as a woman. It comes from the media but also wider society and even some men who fail to accept women with a natural demeanour that ignores the above. Similarly and lamentably, and in a further example of gender roles being dangerously reinforced, some women will admit to feeling naked or exposed without wearing makeup as it provides a shield that they literally feel unable to leave home without.

In a brilliantly honest but hilarious social critique of the expectations of beauty placed upon women, one of YouTuber Jenna Marbles’ early videos highlights the extent to which women go in their daily routines. It’s frighteningly accurate for many women and her satirical commentary provides the subconscious narrative for what many women feel compelled to do on a daily basis. Nonetheless, there isn’t anything wrong with wearing makeup. But there is a troubling issue with the extent to which it becomes a decision based on social conditioning and pressures and less about a personal choice, not to mention the effect it has on female mental health.

I’m in no way criticising women who wear makeup or makeup per se. It can enhance, accentuate or refine features and conceal what might personally be deemed a minor imperfection. And most importantly, it can provide a source of confidence that should never be rejected. No different to how I might get a haircut or have a shave when attending an event, makeup can be part of the effort women make to feel good about themselves. After all, we should all do what makes us comfortable and supports our self-esteem and no one should feel the need to apologise for doing so. However, that shouldn't be confused with attempting to meet a gauge of beauty that isn’t our own.

As a celebrity, Alicia Keys is able to use her status as a vehicle for the #NoMakeup movement but her essay also shows the emotional growth she’s undergone to arrive at a point where she is able to embrace her new stance. Furthermore, let’s not pretend that even without makeup, Alicia Keys hardly falls short of the accepted notion of beauty. It’s just a more natural, and some might say less refined, version of what we’re accustomed to seeing. It’s also worth noting that Alicia Keys is an artist who has a huge talent that doesn’t require compensation based on her looks and therefore has further attributes upon which to pin her own self-confidence. Although this shouldn’t detract from the stance that she and many other women have taken in rejecting these social pressures.

It’s questionable if women have been so long subject to these expectations that the status quo can never be overturned. A natural look can be met with raised (and sometimes unnaturally shaped) eyebrows as if to suggest “didn’t you get the memo? We don’t do that as women” which is a sad reality. Many women even experience discomfort in showing themselves without makeup to their partner, family or friends let alone to strangers.

I’m sure #NoMakeup will get some welcome traction on social media. It’ll also likely result in many #NoMakeup selfies celebrating the rejection of having to constantly wear makeup out of obligation rather than choice which is the crux of the argument. More significantly, hopefully it can provide the seed for the wider debate on the social conditioning woman are subject to and the damaging impact it has on successive generations of females.