Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Understated_ | Hacker News Reader

I am utterly disgusted and bloody sick of being portrayed as a racist, xenophobic bigot because I wanted to take back democratic control of my country. Race issues had nothing to do with my decision to leave.

How dare you paint me in that light when you know absolutely nothing about me or my motives for wanting to remove my country from the clutches of an undemocratic state. Your narrow-mindedness is part of the reason I want out.

This all reeks of bitterness and toy-throwing by those that voted remain.

It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind.

View on HN

Your parent poster said "that xenophobia/racism is now an "every day" thing."

People with pre-existing xenophobic/racist have found vindication & legitimisation with the referendum result.

Many papers today are carrying stories of attacks along these lines, I'm sure the rest will in the following days also.

"It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind."

The back-pedalling has only just begun. People voted leave for a lot of reasons, and they will have their displeasure at progress heard to differing degrees.

I'd suggest you give it a little while before you take it as read that any side won for the cause they voted for.

The intent of the parent post was clear, it was calling my thinking racist and xenophobic.

At the very least this is unhelpful, and devalues the impact of such words.

The parent post wasn't replying to you - so I'd argue it wasn't calling your thinking anything whatsoever.

While I'd agree such terms are being carelessly banded about, there's no need to go looking for reasons to be offended here.

Follow it back up the chain, paying close attention to which users said what, you'll see the post concerned was a reply to me.

It annoys me as well, and I was in favor of staying in. Its the same when anyone raises an objection to immigration, they are almost immediately silenced by calls of racism or xenophobia. Thats no way to have a proper debate about anything.

"anyone raises an objection to immigration, they are almost immediately silenced by calls of racism or xenophobia"

The probelm is that those who raise objections to immigration never seem to have anything constructive to say after that. So if you're not a racist or xenophbe, how about we have a discussion about allowing freedom of movement but actually SOLVING the problems that have been brought about by it?

The EU are going to demand freedom of movement if we are to stay in the EEA - so what's your answer?

Why does the solution have to involve freedom of movement?

It's not xenophobic to want to curb the net migration number.

It has to because the EU are going to demand it as a condition of entry to the EEA. Not demanding it will invite any-European movements in other EU countries like Italy and even France to demand out. When it comes to Britain's future economy, the EU holds most of cards.

And even if UK doesn't remain in EEA, immigration will be a fact of life. Hell, half of all immigrants in the UK don't even come from the EU!

Immigration will be a fact of life, and long may it continue. Net immigration on the scale we've seen lately OTOH, not so much.

Other countries may well demand a get-out, if they perceive it's to their advantage. And if it is, I'm not sure why the EU should seek to stop them either.

I guess we'll see one way or another.

Accusations of xenophobia are hard to avoid when the anti-immigration debate has been led by the National Front ("Go home pakis"); the BNP (Nazi salutes); Britain First (an incoherent but unequivocally fascist ideology).

We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.

To use UKIPs line, why aren't moderate anti-immigrationists condemning this violence?

"Go home pakis" is a far cry from questioning immigration, or not agreeing with an open door policy.

But you have done exactly that, associated anyone bringing up the subject with a fascist ideology.

Those groups are always going to support immigration controls - what has that got to do with anyone else?

> We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.

Have we?

> Have we?

Yes. We need to National Crime Survey to be certain, but police forces are already reporting an increase in reported incidents, and affected groups are reporting an increase in incidents.

They are, see my other posts in this thread.

Some of them are.

https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/747404962242633728

UKIPer in that thread calls Sima Kotecha a liar, manufacturing fake outrage, when she describes someone calling her a paki.

Until article 50 is invoked we're not out. And until that happens why should I accept it? The EU is no less democratic than the UK itself, and talk of "taking back democratic control of my country" is xenophobic even if you don't intend it to be. the EU is not the "other", they don't impose on us because we are part of it.

The EU has problems with democratic accountability.

That we also have them at the UK level is irrelevant to me, we're not having a referendum on that (yet).

Your definition of xenophobic is so wide that it would cover the very existence of nation states within the EU. I don't think all that many people share it.

> talk of "taking back democratic control of my country" is xenophobic

Then democracy itself is too

> The EU is no less democratic than the UK itself

MPs are elected

> they don't impose on us because we are part of it

Not for much longer.

So.. what were your motives?

Democratic control. That was it. I knew that it would have a negative effect on the economy short term but I wanted the control to be in the hands of the people I elected.

EU still has UK representatives...nominated by the ones you democratically elected.. But I get your point.

Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.

It's the argument that was put at the front of the queue during the build-up to the referendum itself and makes for very polarizing headlines but it played almost no part in my decision.

I wanted sovereignty over everything: Border control is just one part of the whole argument.

> Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.

I don't, however, agree with your stance that having a say who can and cannot come into the country is racism. How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?

You may call it discrimination but that takes many forms, not all of them bad.

Racism it is not.

Edit: spelling, clarification

> It's the argument that was put at the front of the queue during the build-up to the referendum itself and makes for very polarizing headlines

Agreed.

> How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?

Discrimination and racism sound like the same to me. I read people saying they would like to choose based on peoples skills, which is a complete nonsense. Why not let the market decide? People would be able to come in as they like, if they wouldn't get a job nor benefits, I'm sure they would go away. Otherwise, it would mean they have a place in here. Wouldn't that be a wiser decision?

There are points where I almost feel there is a reverse-physiology campaign going on, pushing people towards 'leave' by pissing them off.

> Race issues had nothing to do with my decision to leave.

So it was "just" xenophobia and bigotry. That's all fine then. Carry on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com