Updated date:

Brexit: Was It an Anti-Establishment Vote? - Comparisons With the U.S. Election

Alun is a freethinking moderate on political and philosophical issues of general interest; some of his views can be found in his articles.


N.B: Please note, all my articles are best read on desktops and laptops

This article reviews the decision by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the European union - a decision which was taken by referendum on the 23rd June 2016. Specifically the article will consider whether this decision was an 'anti-establishment' protest. We also look at this in the light of the U.S presidential election in November 2016, and the successful campaign of Donald Trump - a result which has been widely compared to Brexit by politicians, and across the media. But are they really comparable in the most important respects? That is an important question because if the answer is 'yes', then that has potentially serious implications for the future of our western democracies.

This Article

This article is a return to a subject I first covered In the immediate aftermath of Brexit. In June 2016 I wrote about the reasons for the referendum, and my own feelings about it. These can be found in the article 'Brexit - The Exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union'.

A Brief Background to the Referendum

Ever since the European Economic Community or EEC was first founded back in 1957, it has gradually moved towards the greater integration of its member nations. In 1957, there were just six founder members, and as the name suggests, the primary objective of the Community was economic cooperation. It was still that way in January 1972 when the United Kingdom first joined the Community, and in 1975 when the decision was reaffirmed in a referendum.

But the years since then have seen changes, almost all of which have enhanced the power and influence of the Community in areas of security, justice, environmental management and many others, far beyond basic trading agreements. A lot of people in Britain supported this ever closer integration of policies across Europe, but very many others did not, and since the 1990s, the new powers assumed by the community (now pointedly renamed as the European Union or EU) have only led to an upswelling of disenchantment with the whole institution. A new party called the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), was formed specifically to campaign for British Exit ('Brexit') from the EU. UKIP grew rapidly in support, and although this had not led to a significant presence in Parliament, the British Government eventually felt they had to instigate another referendum in 2016 to let the people decide the issue a second time. The choice to remain in the EU or to leave the EU was not divided along strict party lines, though the majority of senior politicians in all major political parties apart from UKIP were in favour of 'Remain'. And the great majority of senior government figures including Prime Minister David Cameron, campaigned to remain in the EU.

The result came as a shock to many - disenchantment was greater than had ever been imagined. 52% of the voting public supported the 'Leave' campaign message. 'Remain' had lost. 'Leave' (Brexit) had won.

The Ballot Paper for the United Kingdom Brexit Referendum

The Reasons For The Decision to Leave

Why did people vote to leave? In any referendum covering a wide ranging array of issues, an equally wide ranging array of reasons inevitably exists as to why people voted one way or the other. I cannot go into all of those reasons here, but I will outline a few of the most important.

Most people who voted Remain probably did so because they believed in the stability of a united Europe where businessmen could trade, and where the United Kingdom would be a voice in a major cooperative world trading block. They feared all the upheavals in trade and financial markets and the isolationism which may result from Brexit.

Some people voted Leave because they saw in the increasing power of the EU, a general erosion of British sovereignty and a specific loss of control on issues such as immigration. A loss of control which would only accelerate in the coming years.

But apart from sovereignty and specific policy issues such as immigration, did fear and loathing of the establishment play a part in this? That question is the main motivation for this article, and will be considered shortly. But first, we must look at another issue - the way in which the Brexit vote has been linked to another major event of 2016, the US presidential election of Donald Trump.

Brexit and the American Election

What exactly are the reasons why Brexit and the election of Donald Trump have been lumped together? Because they undoubtedly are. Brexit and the US election are almost routinely packaged together today as if the public in both countries shared similar values and wanted similar end results.

1) Both campaigns were relatively simplistic, and not as economy-driven, as are most campaigns. Both hinged more on emotional issues such as cherished freedoms, trust in politicians and nationalism. Racism, xenophobia and some elements of globalisation, all raised ugly sentiments due in part to immigration issues which both countries face.

2) The emotional nature of these issues, together with the great importance of the Brexit vote and the extreme polarisation of public opinion in America, led to increased levels of anger and resentment, during the campaigns and after the results.

4) Both results involved a vote which went against the wishes of most influential figures in the corridors of power. This is where the anti-establishment issue comes in, and the establishment view in the Brexit campaign will be a subject which is covered shortly.

5) Both results defied the predictions of experts and opinion polls.The EU referendum polls consistently showed a narrow lead for 'Remain', and most thought that when it came to the crunch, the public would shy away from such a radical option as Brexit. In America, the polls consistently favoured Hillary Clinton. Most thought that when it came to the crunch, the public would shy away from such a radical option as Donald Trump.

5) Both results have administered a major shock to the status quo. Brexit will force a seismic restructuring of Britain's relationships with Europe and the world. And Donald Trump is a president-elect like no other in American history.

6) Some individuals such as Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP during the Brexit campaign, have actively tried to foster the impression that the two votes were connected. Donald Trump himself referred to his triumph as being 'the American Brexit.'

Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP and a committed Eurosceptic, was admired by some supporters of Brexit for his steadfastness in opposing the EU. But many others dislike this controversial politician. His words are not unduly reactionary, and not racist - but it is the sentiment which may lie behind the acceptable words which worries many. In Britain, politicians like Nigel Farage have to be restrained in what they say, because the type of language used by Donald Trump during his election rallies would be unacceptable to the majority here. But the fact is that Mr Farage supported Donald Trump, and that support for the new president-elect is not shared by very many in Britain.

Brexit - The Establishment was Against it

Undeniably in the UK the 'establishment' supported 'Remain'. The leaders of all major parties - Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Nationalist parties of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, all argued for Remain. Most other prominent politicians also supported 'Remain'. Only one significant party leader, Nigel Farage, advocated Brexit. In addition, the majority of influential world leaders, and the majority of CEOs of large businesses and major financial institutions, all advocated that we should remain in the EU.

Leaders of the Leave campaign included several mainly minor Government politicians, and a few charismatic Conservatives who were not part of the Government, as well as members of UKIP (represented by just a single MP in Parliament), a handful of Labour politicians, a few prominent businessmen, and some others - nobody of real authority, and very much a minority of those with influence.

So it seems from a superficial reading of this, that there was an anti-establishment protest in the decision to leave. But was that really the case?

I would argue it was not, at least with respect to the National Government, and that that is a significant difference between the UK and the USA.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Mrs Clinton was seen as the most 'establishment' of all possible candidates. Mr Trump is seen as being not a part of the establishment

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Mrs Clinton was seen as the most 'establishment' of all possible candidates. Mr Trump is seen as being not a part of the establishment

The Establishment - A Difference Between America and the UK


Looking on from the outside it does seem that anti-establishment mistrust played a major role in the American presidential election. There was a candidate in that election who had no political experience, and limited knowledge of world affairs. A candidate who repeatedly and blatantly lied in his presentation of facts, and exhibited gross immorality in many of his words. A candidate who seemingly openly encouraged prejudice and division within society, between cultures and races. A candidate who alienated allies in the western democracies and the NATO alliance and even within his own party, whilst seemingly courting favour with Russia. A candidate who ignores scientific wisdom on issues of grave importance, and who even implied he might not accept the democratic result if he lost. And yet he won. The reason can only be the intense hatred and mistrust of his rival, Hillary Clinton - the archetypal establishment candidate. There can be few prospective presidents in history who have had more experience of the workings of government and America's role in the world than her. These should have been great strengths, and yet it seems not. All allegations laid against her were believed, even in the absence of proof, and her establishment status must have contributed hugely to this great mistrust of her and all of her associates. It is difficult to draw any other conclusion.

The UK

But what of Brexit? The establishment wanted 'Remain', and the public voted to leave. That there was a difference of opinion between the two is beyond doubt. But we must be clear that a difference of opinion on an issue is NOT the same thing as mistrust, fear or loathing - a decision to deliberately vote AGAINST the establishment. If that had been the case the implication would be that the public looked at what the movers and shakers were saying and came to the conclusion:

'Whatever the establishment wants, we will do the opposite.'

But I do not think that was the case at all. Indeed, I am quite sure that the establishment had a small but favourable influence on the electorate. They did not unwittingly cause a victory for Brexit by opposing it - rather, they reduced the scale of the victory for Brexit to only 4% by opposing it. Why do I believe this?

1) The party most associated with 'the establishment' in Britain is the Conservative Party. And yet the Conservatives increased their majority in the last general election of 2015 and at the present time with the main opposition Labour Party in disarray, many would regard them as the only credible party of government. It's widely believed that if there was a General Election tomorrow, the Conservatives - the 'establishment party', led by Theresa May who voted 'Remain' - would win a landslide.

2) The UK's equivalent of Washington, is Westminster - the seat of Government and bureaucracy in London. The vote for Brexit will undoubtedly take power away from the establishment in Brussels (capital of the EU), but it is calculated to GIVE much more power back to Westminster. Would anybody argue that Americans wanted to give more power to Washington? The Brexit vote if anything was for a transfer of establishment power. It was not an attack on the basic concept of that power.

In the light of this, it seems the British public - perhaps unlike America - do not have strong anti-establishment sentiments. But if that is so, then why did the overwhelming voice of the establishment singularly fail to convince people to vote 'Remain'? The answer as I see it is included in the next section.

David Cameron and Theresa May. Mr Cameron was undoubtedly an 'establishment' figure. But so is his replacement Mrs May, Home Secretary of long standing

David Cameron and Theresa May. Mr Cameron was undoubtedly an 'establishment' figure. But so is his replacement Mrs May, Home Secretary of long standing

My Thoughts on the Vote

The Brexit referendum was not at all like a typical General Election. There were two fundamental differences which I believe are relevant to this discourse in that they explain why Britain voted to leave the EU, despite the advice of the establishment:

1) People in the UK have a healthy cynicism about politicians and experts, but they are willing to listen to them and respect what they say if it makes sense. However in this referendum it became difficult to separate fact from fiction. Both sides exaggerated and sensationalised even if without so many of the blatant lies which blighted the American election. And given that this referendum was based on forecasts of the consequences of Brexit, rather than on clear policy, there was little said which could be proved, and little for which any future government could be held accountable (The 'Leave' campaign was just a movement, NOT a political party with a manifesto). As far as big business CEOs are concerned, it was clear they might have vested interests with established trading links throughout Europe. Financial institutions hate change and instability, so again, their natural inclination might be to stick with the status quo. So I think on this occasion there was a degree of scepticism about the advice which was being received. And at the end of the day life after Brexit was an unprecedented scenario, so all the experience in the world of 'normal' political issues counted for little when it came to predictions about the future. Without despising the establishment, British voters felt there were reasons to not believe their advice on this occasion.

2) But this was not just about disbelieving the advice of experts. It also seems likely that the advice being given was not even relevant to the main concerns of the voters. The peculiar nature of this referendum meant that the values which were most important to many of the public, were not the same as the values which the establishment felt should be the most important. Ordinarily the public and establishment are in agreement - the economy, inflation, unemployment, health and education - these are the issues on which elections are fought, the issues which usually matter. But in this referendum, none of these were so important to the majority of the electorate who voted for Brexit. Sovereignty, the effects of immigration, the psychology of societal change - these all mattered more, and no one in the establishment is an expert on these issues. Neither is anybody else. They are nothing to do with knowledge - they are matters of the heart and the soul.

For these reasons, without despising the power of the establishment, the public felt inclined to disregard what they said.

The State of the World - A Brief Interlude

We live in frightening times. In America inadequacies in Donald Trump's personality, character and policies have been made clear. There is real fear in the world about his presidency over the next four years. In Russia we have a resurgent regime which seems to have been emboldened in recent years, asserting its muscle in ways which are proving disastrous for many in Syria, and which may lead to a more interventionist approach in former satellite nations in Eastern Europe. Coupled with that, there is the rising of China to superpower status, a status unfortunately being achieved before that country becomes fully democratic, And of course the continuing problem of extreme fundamentalist Islam hardly needs further emphasis. In the UK we have probably the most left wing leader of the opposition Labour Party that we have ever had, elected as a result of an election campaign which was legitimate, but very flawed in its thinking. Meanwhile Nigel Farage has been feted in America as though he is representative of the majority view here, and not just on Brexit. In Europe, there is increasing disenchantment with the direction in which the EU is moving, and there is a distinct possibility that far right parties may in the next few years gain control in more than one country. There is a toxic mix of extreme, intolerant and reactionary viewpoints in the world at the moment.

Why is Understanding the Nature of the Brexit Vote Important?

The last section began with the suggestion that 'we live in frightening times'. It ended with the statement that there is 'a toxic mix of extreme, intolerant and reactionary viewpoints in the world'. It is important that this toxic mix is not made even more potent through misinterpretation of Brexit. That really is the point of this essay.

Too many people have linked Brexit with the American presidential election. They see both as part of a destabilising trend, and they look for similar seismic political upheavals in other countries that they can also link to this trend. But the association can only be taken so far. It is incumbent on responsible politicians therefore to look at this from a more rational perspective.

The election of Donald Trump was hopefully an aberration. It seems unquestionable that Washington's relationship with the populace was seriously disfunctional. Too many felt they could not believe the words of people in authority, the words of the people who disseminate the news, or even those administering the election. Many ceased to care what anyone said; they just made up their own minds and decided the primary villain of the peace was the establishment. Hopefully the next four years will see a healthy dose of reality infiltrate Washington, and both the Republicans and the Democrats, and also the media, will see the need to root out corruption and deceit, and attend to the real concerns of ordinary people. Then perhaps America can return once more to normal politics. If that does not happen, then the future is worrying for America.

Is the future of Britain also worrying, as a result of Brexit? There are some legitimate concerns. The majority in Scotland supported the 'Remain' campaign, and the Scottish Nationalists see the 'Leave' result as an opportunity to try once again for independence from the UK. So Brexit could indirectly lead to the break up of the UK (indirectly because that would not be the responsibility of Brexit - it would be the responsibility of the Scotish electorate). Brexit has also led to some increase in overt racism and bigotry. Again, that is not the responsibility of the great majority of Brexit voters - just the small minority who use it to further their own vile agenda, inferring a vote to possibly control immigation equates to a vote to discriminate against people who already live here.

Of interest to me is a third, wider concern not just for Britain but for the whole of Europe. If we misunderstand the reasons behind Brexit, and if we see only the most negative of connotations, then that will give a green light to those who actually want to promulgate those negative attitudes in their own nations. That gives succour to extremists and racists. And if the anti-establishment viewpoint holds sway, then that strikes at the very heart of our democracy. If people lose even a basic trust in the workings of government and the respectability of elected politicians, then the foundations of the free societies we have in Western Europe and the USA will be shaken to the core. The next section gives my view on how we should really see Brexit, and the lessons we should learn from it.

The Lessons of Brexit For the World

The lessons of Brexit which I would like to promote are two-fold:

1) Sovereignty is being eroded by the EU and most people do not like that - they want the right to determine our own futures. The United Kingdom is an independent nation. People wish to have our own accountable government conducting our affairs.

2) Change is just too rapid these days. In the UK our society has changed so much since the last world war, and the pace of change has seemed to be increasing, and to have been encouraged by the EU. This applies across the board in social attitudes and culture, administration, international relations - everything. People see their societies which have developed over many decades or centuries as being under threat, and many feel disconcerted by such rapid change. It makes them feel alienated from the society in which they live. And again, if such changes are going to occur, then at least they want to see that our own government is answerable for this.

Neither of these desires are extremist or bigoted. They are natural human desires.

Moderate and liberal minded parties should take heed. It has been suggested that far right movements in Europe have been emboldened by the success of Brexit. That shouldn't be allowed to happen. Of the people who voted Brexit, most did NOT vote with any desire to be associated with racism, xenophobia or bigotry, nor any desire to see Russia in the ascendency, nor any desire to see fascist parties on the move in Europe or in the UK. It did not reflect a loss of trust in Westminster, in the way that many in America seem to have lost their trust in Washington.


This article has been a plea to recognise the differences, as well as the similarities, between Brexit and the US election, and to suggest that Nigel Farage and Donald Trump are wrong in the most important of respects - that this is some kind of a shared anti-establishment sentiment. The last thing we need in this increasingly unpredictable world is to exaggerate the dangers. Senses of proportion have to be maintained. Brexit, followed by the election of Donald Trump, is not a sign that the West is collapsing. But if we believe that it is, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

People need to recognise the election of Mr Trump for what it is. I don't like it, but I hope he will be more pragmatic as President than he was as candidate. If not, then hopefully wiser cousels in Congress will keep him in check. Perhaps the one good that will come out of the election is that Washington will wake up to the disenchantment of the people.

As for Brexit, I hope I have made clear that leaving the EU is certainly not a reason for dismay. It may lead to an economic downturn, but as the world's fifth largest economy with close links across the globe to English speaking nations, Commonwealth nations, many other nations and - yes - Europe too, it really is the ultimate in pessimism to prophesise doom. More importantly Brexit does not mean that Britain is insular, racist and backward looking. It just means the United Kingdom, as one of the most stable countries on Earth, wants to manage its own affairs under the guidence of the British Government and Parliament. That's not being anti-establishment - it is almost the opposite of that. Hopefully the EU will heed the lessons, and rein back on its plans for greater integration. If it does not, then others may choose to follow the British example and leave, and then the European Union's demise may well be on the horizon.

The important point is that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Neither the US election nor Brexit should be allowed to damage or destroy the great democratic principles which ought to bind together all countries which value basic freedoms and human rights. We may not share common viewpoints on all issues and we may want to determine our own affairs - that is why I supported Brexit - but we should never lose sight of the key principles which still unite us.

This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.

© 2016 Greensleeves Hubs

I'd Love to Hear Your Comments. Thanks, Alun

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on January 17, 2019:

Zia Uddin; Describing the Brexit referendum result as a racist vote is - if I may say so - ridiculous and offensive. You have chosen to take one unpleasant minority attitude by some voters and you have turned it into the key issue, and in so doing you have shown precisely the kind of antagonistic attitude towards others who think differently to you, that has plagued the debate surrounding this, both before and ever since the referendum.

Yes of course there are racists and yes of course the majority of those would have voted 'Leave' but they are a small minority and yet your comment seems to slur all Brexit supporters with the same unpleasant attitude towards different races. The vote I think was more about sovereignty and retaining control over our own affairs and the pace of change in our society.

To take your points one by one:

1) It wasn't a rift between Mr Farage and Mr Cameron. That seems to suggest they'd been best buddies in the past. The rapid rise of UKIP simply demonstrated a rise in support for leaving the EU. It may be that by calling a referendum, Mr Cameron hoped to deflate support for UKIP by settling the issue once and for all, but given the country was clearly divided on a major constitutional issue, it was the right thing to do.

2) The immigrants most affected by the vote are not of a different race - they are from Eastern Europe. In fact if immigration from that part of the world is curtailed as a result of Brexit, then there may actually be more opportunity for people from other parts of the world to come to the UK because they would be 'competing' on equal terms - black, white whatever - it makes no difference. The grievance people had was with EU immigration over which we have no control.

3) You really think that giving one anecdote about one passenger in your cab who had a go at you somehow proves that Brexit was a racist vote?

4) As for moaning, it seems to have been everyone but Brexiteers who have been moaning since the referendum - understandably perhaps because the Remain side lost.

I don't know if you read my article Zia, or my other article which was more specifically about the reasons behind the Leave vote, but I have tried to be fair to both sides, and to carefully analyse the different opinions. I have recognised that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the Brexit debate. I wish everyone would do the same.

Zia Uddin from UK on January 03, 2019:

This election in 2016 was unnecessary, I don't know why this referendum happened when the rift was between Farage and Cameron. It was a racist vote and immigrants did not take away British jobs at all because they've been doing hard work in certain professions where the majority of others do not want to do.

I'm a taxi driver, and I once had a passenger who had a go at me. He said I was taking his job, and I told him to become a driver you have to apply to the local council and pay the fees and pass the tests. It's that simple even though the process is long. No one is stealing others jobs regardless of race and sex.

This Brexit has given a new platform to people who've got nothing better to do with themselves apart from moaning.

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on June 04, 2017:

Scott Bateman; Thank you Scott. An interesting question, but as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of any attempts to hack or leak information, and neither side in the referendum debate has claimed such evidence.

As you say, it is true that Mr Putin was more than happy to see the Brexit result, but I do think (and hope) that that is just an unfortunate byproduct of the result. And although Brexit may slightly weaken the EU's economic bargaining position, it certainly shouldn't weaken coordinated European security measures, or of course the commitment of EU NATO members to defence. Alun

promisem on June 02, 2017:

In light of Russian interference in the U.S., French and other elections, I now wonder if they played a propaganda role in Brexit.

It would be in the best interest of Russia to see Britain leave the EU and remain out of it. Divide and conquer.

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on February 17, 2017:

Bill De Giulio; Thank you Bill. U.S politics does increasingly interest me, and particularly of course those issues which - as a superpower - affect the rest of the world including the UK; issues such as foreign policy, environmental policies, and basic democratic principles. It is hard for many people in the UK to understand how someone like Donald Trump can be elected to power - almost every time he speaks he says things which would cause derision, incomprehensibility or outrage here.

As a supporter of Brexit, it does concern me that many see links between Brexit and Trump - hence the desire to write this article; although there are some undoubted similarities, it is very possible for someone like me to be in favour of Brexit, whilst being very worried about the election of Donald Trump.

It also bothers me that current politics in America are making America something of a laughing stock to many in Europe. I know through watching American news commentaries, and indeed by reading some of the views here on HubPages and elsewhere, that there are plenty of extremely wise, thoughtful and objective Americans - both Democrat and Republican - but it seems sometimes that such people are not electable to the highest office of all in the polarised climate of today.

Bill De Giulio from Massachusetts on February 17, 2017:

Very well written Alum. It's amazing to me what has happened here in the United States, but it clearly highlights the major problem, which you have so eloquently pointed out, mistrust and dislike of the establishment. I do not like what is happening here but the people have spoken and we will have to live with this for the next four years. I had hoped that Mr. Trump would surround himself with quality people but even that does not seem to be the case. Great job as always.

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on February 11, 2017:

Paula: Hi Paula. Yes there's two shows (both of which I think also now have versions in the States): 'The X Factor' which is specifically a pop music talent show, and 'Britain's Got Talent', which is much more varied, with all kinds of entertainers. Simon Cowell's involved with both, but I think the Gary you're referring to is Gary Barlow, who was a judge of 'The X Factor', and he also used to be in 'Take That' with Robbie Williams :)

Suzie from Carson City on January 31, 2017:

Alun, Let me prove how compatible I am & comply with your request. At GREAT sacrifice...(lol) I will not respond to our "political" exchange. Frankly, I'm just as adverse as you obviously are to belaboring the topic.

I'm sure it is no shock to you whatsoever to be told you are in fact, a superb writer. Just now noticing you are from Essex, I recall researching Essex, UK after hearing it mentioned so often by numerous contestants on "Britain's Got Talent" (that's the correct name of the program, right?) a few years back I watched the program religiously. I had a massive Senior Citizen's crush on not only Simon Cowell, but Gary, ummmm, I'm trying to remember...Barden? and definitely Robbie Williams. I've since out-grown them (which I already had, in years!!)....LOL....Best Wishes to you as well, Alun. :)

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on January 31, 2017:

Paula; Ooh Paula, would I delete you? No. Leastways not as long as you keep calling me an exceptional writer!! :) :)

But I must, as you would expect, disagree on a few points. The whole thrust of my article was that, although there are obvious similarities between the U.S election and Brexit, the scale of the 'dislike of authority' as you put it, is not comparable. Of course people in the UK are cynical of politicians but Brexit did not indicate a problem with central government as such - rather with the gradual transference of power to the EU. Indeed Brexit gives more power - not less - back to the British government. The American election seemed to be much more an attack on your national political establishment. And there is a very considerable difference between our attitudes regarding individual v societal rights. More public (government) control - not less - is favoured in the UK for many services - most notably of course the National Health Service, in order to keep it free to all.

Re-Hillary Clinton, I know from our previous little exchanges that she's not quite your favourite person, and you may well think I am 'in the dark' about her. But I have never claimed her to be an honest, or worthy leader - merely that the most serious allegations against her have not been proven. (And that she would be a much more stable, reliable president than Donald Trump). However, I think you're being unfair to suggest that I've been taken in by 'fake news' in her favour (unless you think all news even in the British media is fake and biased in her favour?) I'd hardly even seen any mainstream U.S news broadcasts in the six months before election day, so I haven't been taken in by those.

The fake news in favour of Mr Trump, on the other hand, is quite undeniable. The deceit in much of what he has said is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever by video or audio recordings of past statements he's made!! You seem reasonably relaxed about his presidency Paula, but I know you're not blind to his faults in the way that his hardened supporters are, and I fear you may become less relaxed as the months go by. His first actions since becoming President seem to have provoked unprecedentedly hostile reactions in America, and certainly so in the nations of all of your traditionally closest allies. His election is increasingly regarded as seriously worrying, and many think that the next four years is becoming dangerously unpredictable. It's hard to see America getting through them without some very major internal or external crises.

Phew! Glad that's over with. Best wishes Paula. Can we discuss something non-political next time? :) Alun

Suzie from Carson City on January 31, 2017:

Alun....We meet again! You surely didn't suspect you would be able to "dodge" me, I hope. I followed you from Jodah's site like a stalker. LOL You're stuck with me Alun, although you can simply delete me~which would only hurt my feelings.

OK, serious mode:

You are an EXCEPTIONAL" writer and I mean this sincerely. For me, this is as clear & comprehensible an education as I could have hoped to find. (I confess my focus has been elsewhere & I've not closely followed your events)

I see that what's occurred in your world and in mine are stunningly similar~and for much the same reasons & mindset of the "people."

At this point, it seems to me, it should be fairly obvious that Human Beings do not like authority in general, wish not to be led & directed of our every thought, deed or behavior by outside forces (ruling group). We have a basic/instinctive need to live in our own manner for our individual ideals, utilizing our own intelligence, talents & moral fiber to make all individual choices in life. Minimal government & fewer rules & restrictions placed upon the masses, based on what may be best for the very few, is now what people demand.

By your stellar article here, I can plainly see you continue to have an unfavorable opinion of our President. I do not & will not defend him ( it's not my job) nor will I argue with anyone in terms of personal opinion. Rather, I might agree that he's crude, rude & perhaps a bit shady. Out of thousands ( or more) of politicians, my personal opinion is there are less than 10, to whom I would give a nickle or a smidgen of faith & trust. Donald Trump is just one more undesirable. What matters most to me is that (pardon me) he is kicking ass, cleaning house, taking names & getting a very vital (long overdue) job done! This is where I stand, so this may clarify where I am coming from, in most cases. DT doesn't upset me any more nor any less than the majority of them do....save the single-most corrupt HRC. (You have your right, Alun, to remain in total darkness about that pathetic person. ) I am much too well-informed & involved to be betrayed by her fraudulent front. You may need to know she was NY Senator for 8 "dreadful" years. I am a lifelong New Yorker. I'll say no more because I find it distressing to deal with those in deep denial, ( especially because you're very likeable & accept fake news (America) as fact :) I hope your sense of humor is on full blast today, Alun......

So, I apologize if I have droned on for too long. It was so nice to have run into you today & it's been a pleasure. Peace, Paula

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on December 16, 2016:

SANJAY LAKHANPAL; Thank you very much for that Sanjay. I appreciate your comment. Alun

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on December 16, 2016:

simplehappylife; Thanks a lot for your follow up comment. People sometimes seem to think that those in the 'establishment' are some kind of alien species, different - and less moral - than the rest of mankind. I suspect as you suggest, that the business associates and supporters whom Mr Trump seems to be bringing in, will be prone to at least as many vices as those they replace. Somehow I don't see a bright new utopia dawning :) Alun

Sanjay Sharma from Mandi (HP) India on December 15, 2016:

You have beautifully juxtaposed the two global phenomenons. Thanks for sharing.

simplehappylife on December 15, 2016:

That's it exactly. There is, and always has been a deep feeling of distrust for our politicians and government. Some seem just to accept it as the norm, while others (and some quite extreme individuals) completely reject it in all its forms.

However, the irony is (from what I can see, so far), is the very system that many people here reject, the savior (Donald Trump) seems to be in the process of installing new faces of the 'establishment' (i.e. the unaccountable). He's supposed to represent the tearing down of the way things are and installing a new, smaller, and more free form of government. Although, from what I can see (as well as many others here), it's beginning to look a lot like the same old system.

I remain hopeful though :) We'll just have to wait and see. I'm with you, Life Goes On (◠‿◠✿)

and the world certainly didn't end when Brexit happened ٩◔‿◔۶ LOL

Greensleeves Hubs (author) from Essex, UK on December 15, 2016:

simplehappylife; Thanks for your kind comment. I think you're absolutely right and not oversimplifying at all in what you say. I think that's the point - the concerns which arose during Brexit and possibly during the presidential election were very simplistic - they're to do with basic feelings of how we want to live our lives, rather than the complexities of economic policy which dominate most campaigns. Globalisation has its good points, but people just aren't ready to see their lives controlled by others who seem unaccountable. Perhaps in that respect, some Americans view your federal government in Washington in the same way that we view the EU government in Brussels?

Yes Brexit was six months ago now, and so far despite some of the dire warnings, we still haven't sunk beneath the waves or degenerated into insurrection and anarchy. Life goes on :)

simplehappylife on December 15, 2016:

Exceptionally well-written and informative! I think there is a looming fear (globally speaking) of the eventuality of becoming a "one world govt.". I think the ordinary Brits have many of the same concerns that ordinary Americans seem to have, losing their identity, sovereignty, and way of life through accommodating 'outsiders' and other governments over their own people. I could be simplifying the issue, but I do believe that this sentiment does linger in the recesses of the common person's mind.

By the way, I can't believe Brexit was back in June 2016!! Time flies!!!

Related Articles