Politics, Parents & Perspective: A Brexit Field Guide
“When I am asked why I have left England, I say that I am in Brexile.”
Cliff James, (James, 2019)
The 2016 Brexit referendum drew stark societal divisions across class, income, education, geography, political persuasion, and cultural ideology. It surfaced acute animosity within families along age and gender, where the partisan politics of leavers and remainers still fuels vicious cycles of aversion, bias and decreases in mental well-being on both sides (Crone, 2022a). I will argue that through tactics of overcoming avoidance and a moral reframing of the ethics of autonomy and community, Brits can begin to heal.
Avoidance exacerbates partisan animosity, increases political bias, and can even result in ideological migration (Crone, 2022a). To overcome avoidance, we need to signal to our counterparts that we are motivated to be receptive to their worldview and seek out the mutual agreement between us as leverage for positive conversations. We need to strip away the rhetoric of negation, state less things with definitive certainty, and not seek to justify our own position at the expense of acknowledging what the other person is saying (Crone, 2022b). In the case of Brexit, this starts with mutual acceptance of the outcome of the referendum itself, and constructively working together towards what comes next. To seek epistemic co-operation and draw upon each other’s unique knowledge to solve the problem of how to navigate the real economic, cultural, and emotional departures from the European Union (Crone, 2022b).
To do this we need to be curious and humble enough to accurately understand what our counterpart’s moral values of autonomy and community are and seek to reframe them (Leary, 2018). But we need to do this in ways which remain sensitive to our counterpart’s sense of identity (Crone, 2022c). We need to understand what differentiates us, while avoiding exaggeration or misunderstanding of those very differences. To find and feed where our ethical values align. We need to understand where our ethics of autonomy and community differ, even if we end up at the same avoidant conclusion (Crone, 2022b).
The ethic of autonomy looms large inside of Brexit. Those who voted leave sought to protect the historical sovereign rights of a proud island nation, as well as the ability to pursue their own economic ends free of oversight from those in Brussels whom they did not elect and do not represent them. Those who remained felt that the longer-term autonomy brought by the opportunities and benefits of remaining outweighed such independent impulses.
Similarly, the ethic of community caused leavers to argue that their duties and obligations to other European states was negatively disproportionate to their own needs. That they should not absorb the debts and practices of those with little empathy or understanding of what’s important to those in the United Kingdom. Community is also strong for those choosing to remain, where the entire premise of an economic and cultural union across nations brings its own rewards. The dissonance of autonomy and community between leavers and remainers is contentious even today.
If autonomy and community are important to both leavers and remainers, we can morally reframe both perspectives and facilitate a constructive conversation in three ways. First, we can reframe autonomy through the common ground of mutual economic gain. If remainers seek to do more business domestically, and leavers feel they have less opportunity to do business internationally, they should look for those opportunities to do business with each other. Secondly, no longer being a member of the European Union does not mean they are no longer members of their own communities. They may feel discord based on how they voted, but their communities are still here, and have survived the referendum. It’s true that the British no longer have an obligation to other European states, but that doesn’t mean they no longer have a moral obligation to each other. Lastly, they can morally reframe the conversation by highlighting mutual points of agreement. That they’re no longer leavers or remainers, they’re all British, irrespective of previously entrenched political persuasion.
In conclusion, if we’re motivated to be receptive towards constructive conversations where we negate less, highlight points of agreement, and acknowledge what the other person is saying, we hear each other. In doing so, we find the common ethical ground inside of autonomy and community to morally reframe each other’s perspectives, move past the rhetoric of leave and remain, nourish acknowledgement, and accept what differentiates us free of partisan exaggeration.
Latest Articles
