- 200 years
- Study
- International
- Business and employers
- Research
- About us
Listen to the episode of the RAH! Podcast from the Arts and Humanities Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University on Perceptions of Brexit.
Listen to the episode of the RAH! Podcast from the Arts and Humanities Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University on Perceptions of Brexit.
This episode explores Perceiving Brexit. In particular we explore:
Featuring:
Read along while you listen! Find the full episode transcript below.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the RAH! Podcast belong solely to the speaker, and are not necessarily reflective of the views of Manchester Metropolitan University, or the speaker's employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.
RAH! Opening Jingle
Julian Holloway: Hello and welcome to the RAH! Podcast from Manchester Metropolitan University. My name is Julian Holloway, and I'm a lecturer in human geography here at Manchester Met. This podcast showcases some of the excellent work being done by our students and staff within the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. Each monthly episode is themed to reflect the diversity of this research from across the faculty. And if you haven't already done so you can catch up with previous episodes on SoundCloud. Just head over to Soundcloud and search for MMU RAH! podcasts. There you will find episodes on topics such as Modernist Architecture, Gaming and Creative Encounters with Death, and much more besides.
So today's episode will explore perceptions of Britain leaving the European Union and Brexit more generally. First, we'll hear from Catherine Fox, who live blogged her novel during the referendum of 2016. And so we'll hear about her experiences of depicting Brexit and trying to write characters on both sides of the Brexit divide.
Next we'll hear from Eleanor Byrne and Fiona Barber, talking about creative and artistic responses to Brexit and their recent Brexit Wounds symposium.
Finally, we'll hear from Stephen Harper, a PhD student in history about parallels between modern day Brexit and The Great Fear of 1659.
Don't forget you can join the conversation on Twitter by hashtagging #RAH_Podcast. So stay tuned and on with the show!
RAH! Mini jingle
Julian Holloway: Okay, I'm joined by Catherine Fox who's a returnee to the podcast
Catherine Fox: Yes - delighted to be back.
Julian: Welcome! Welcome back to the podcast, Catherine. We spoke last time about your Lindchester Chronicles where you - you live blogged your novel in effect didn't you?
Catherine: I did.
Julian: Can you explain the process there?
Catherine: Well, it was sort of a tribute to the Victorian serialised novelist and I wanted to capture a kind of 21st century version of that, and it seems to me obvious that blog was a really great format for doing that. So I sort of set out to write kind of like a soap opera about the Church of England, initially in 2013, and then I was writing the final volume in 2016. Each week, I would upload a new post of about 2000 words, looking back on the week that had just happened. And I had no idea when I started in 2016, what a year it was going to be. So, I absolutely didn't set out to write about Brexit, but as the referendum drew near, it began to loom very large indeed, and I - there was no way I couldn't write about it. And so what I had to do each week was remind myself I wasn't here as a novelist to propose answers and to - to offer kind of any kind of punditry on the political situation we found ourselves in, but simply to gather up almost what was in the air and try and process what I was feeling, knowing that a great many of my readers would be feeling something similar
Julian: Right.
Catherine: So we got to that halfway through the novel, Chapter 25 of 50 -
Julian: To be precise!
Catherine: - was exactly the week of the referendum. So in terms of narrative structure, it was brilliant. So thanks 2016 for giving me my - my novel structure. But I decided that I needed to write the first half at least of the - of the chapter before the vote, because I wouldn't ever be able to re-capture what it felt like not to know. So, writers now who are trying to engage with writing about Brexit are writing in the knowledge that they know what happened. So - so just almost by accident, I've ended up capturing in real time, as it were, what it felt like at any rate for people of my kind of persuasion.
Julian: So have you got an extract you’re going to read for us?
Catherine: Yes
Julian: Kindly going to read for us.
Catherine: Yes, I - I've got a few that I hope kind of gather up the before -
Julian: That'd be really interesting.
Catherine: - and then the - the moment after, which is the end to chapter 25 - still kind of gathering it up somehow through the lens of maybe theological reflection and the Church of England because that was still my primary concern, but it got a heck of a lot more political than I ever thought it would. Okay, so this is the beginning of chapter 25:
“The summer solstice dawns, the longest day of the year, we tell one another Northern centrically. Longest of days, shortest of days. It all depends on your point of view. Everything depends on your point of view, because the British people are sick of experts. What's important is your truth. Postmodernism has gone to seed, bolted like old rhubarb. Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb. Words can mean whatever you want them to mean, facts are anything you conveniently invent. And there's glory for you. Glory Glory hallelujah in the Humpty Dumpty EU referendum debate. Why it is purely my whimsy that today our planet’s rotational axis is most inclined towards the sun and that it is therefore the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, You believe whatever you like.
Petrol rainbows smear on roads and run down the gutters. The sun comes out again, Mackerel sky mackerel sky over the Diocese of Lindchester. Not long wet, not long dry. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, still lie ahead. A little plane doodles over Lindchester landscape trailing a “vote leave” banner. In Linford General Hospital, there are births and deaths. Elsewhere committees action things or not. People shop and book their holidays. They renew their passports. They pay rent or mortgages. They claim their benefits or beg. They go to work. They look for work. They splash out, they eek out. The clock ticks, the unimaginable approaches. On Thursday morning, myriad little plywood portals will open up to the undiscovered post-referendum country. From who's born, no traveller returns. We must all walk into the booth alone and make our cross. There will be no time travelling doctor to report back from 2020 with reassurances or warnings.”
So that was the before and as we know, with our - like the time travelling doctors ourselves, we know what happened.
“On Thursday, we signed off our choice with an X. Never believing it would really happen. On Friday morning, we woke and found it had and that nobody had a plan B. What have we done? What have we done? Do we really mean it? Can't we wind back, think again? Uncross the X.
The sun comes up over this green and pleasant diocese. Hey lies in sodden windrows. A slit of sky runs along a water channel through a field, as though the world might split in half. The wind stirs shoals of silverbacked leaves on the trees and a magpie flies up. Wings a blur of light. The bowing grass heads are all light. The river running is light. The church spires rearing, the sheep grazing, the cars driving. They are all light. The children playing, people walking, working, shopping, begging: light. All we see is light, not the things but the light bouncing off them. Nothing but light. And this is the judgement that the light has come into the world. This is how it ends. Nothing but the light streaming back at us from future glory. No words or truths or facts of ours can comprehend it. And yet, it is always breaking into our darkness through that tiny pinhole where the two lines intersect. On a Green Hill far away. Where a cross marks the spot.”
Catherine: So that was chapter 25 ended.
Julian: That was marvellous, absolutely marvellous. Thank you very much indeed. So I mean, there's loads of things going on there. When you're talking about the ‘we’ in that, who you're imagining the ‘we’?
Catherine: Well, it’s a device it's a - it's the narrative voice which is close to my own personal voice, and normally the end section that I read there about the light would have been filtered through the consciousness of one of the characters. But it felt so urgent and personal as that week landed, that I felt that I almost needed to stand up above the parapet and just have that spoken in the narrative voice -
Julian: Mm, right.
Catherine: - quite close to my own. So, the ‘we’ I think it was almost a lament for - for those people for whom the referendum result felt like the end of the world. And - and what was - what really brought me up short was how - how half the country would not consider themselves or half the people who voted which is a slightly different thing from half the country - would not consider themselves represented by that ‘we’ who voted the other way, in fact. And as I was coming up to the midpoint into the book, I realised that none of my - I have a huge cast of characters, but none of them - none of them would have voted leave. So I'd having been scrupulous to represent the viewpoints right across the spectrum of the various churchy kind of debate, say on equal marriage or women's ministry. I have just not done that for the political spectrum.
Julian: What - why do you think that was?
Catherine: I think because I was living in a bubble. I was living in Liverpool, working in Manchester - great bastions of remain. And I simply didn't think I knew anybody who seriously - because we didn't hear the thoughtful voices on why we might wish to leave. We only heard these caricatures. And those voices are there, but I think they're now silenced because they - people don't want to be shouted at as bigots. So I have since met people who said, “well, frankly I voted leave but I'm not going to say that loud and clear” because - because I'm - I'm now kind of lumped together with racists.
Julian: Absolutely there is an issue there.
Catherine: And I think it's - the problem is that that this is inherently going to happen if you give people a 'yes' or 'no' kind of option to something which isn't capable of actually having a 'yes' or 'no' answer.
Julian: I mean this is definitely something –
Catherine: Football, 'yes' or 'no'? And you think well, I kind of - I don't know, I like watching it but I don’t think –
Julian: Bread, 'yes' or 'no'!
Laughter
Catherine: I don't think that footballers should have that much money. Maybe there's corruption in FIFA. So I don't – well. But you can only say 'yes' or 'no', or not vote at all. It’s like I don't know. It's just it's - it's made - made us in into a very divided kind of cartoon nation.
Julian: Absolutely. And there's - there's caricatures on on either side -
Catherine: There really is
Julian: - as you pointed out.
Catherine: Yeah.
Julian: In the sense that, you know, if you voted leave for the most part, you're either a posh toff with business interests that would do well out of it or you're somehow from the working class and therefore you're racist. You know, that's the way it seems to have gone.
Catherine: Yeah.
Julian: Or on the flipside, if you voted remain -
Catherine: You're a snowflake.
Julian: - you’re a snowflake or you're in this urban Metropolitan elite.
Catherine: Yeah.
Julian: You know that and there doesn't seem to be any nuance. And I think you're right. I think it comes back to the fact that such an incredibly complex issue came down to, as you said, in your extract there, putting across on a piece of paper for 'yes' or 'no'.
Catherine: Yeah.
Julian: Particularly the second extract you read there, what I really got from it was a - and I guess this is coming in the theological influence of the of the novels - is a real sense of hope.
Catherine: Yes.
Julian: About light, I love how you played on the fact that there was light and obviously that reflects into theologically speaking as well.
Catherine: And I think I am - I am, although I'm quite capable being very gloomy indeed, in the end, there is hope. That's what my particular faith tradition has at its heart. Resurrection, hope of coming glory, how that will pan out, we just don't know. And there are times when it seems very dark indeed. And I think it may well get much darker. That's my sense, and I think we need novelists. Well, I say novelists, that's probably again speaking to very small minority people who are at all interested in reading novels. But I think there's something that can be done with a - curiously with a cast of imaginary characters that can speak truth side-long, as it were. And people can enter those fictional worlds and explore new ideas without - without the risk of being shouted out.
Julian: And this is we're talking, you know, in terms of art and cultural responses to Brexit, you're - I guess you're not a lone voice in terms of artists.
Catherine: No I'm not, I've recently read a fabulous kind of tour de force of a novel by Maggie Gee called Blood which is engaging with - with Brexit, through - through the - the device of a family with a very powerful, manipulative, abusive father figure. And how the various other members of the family navigate that. And I've just started reading the first of Ali Smith Seasons Quartet Autumn, which is a series of four novels, I think she's about to release Summer, which is writing into that same year of the referendum. But I think that same sense of that kind of white hot moment of contemporary -
Julian: Immediacy
Catherine: Yes! You've got to get in there and do it now because it's so important!
Julian: Yeah.
Catherine: Sort of like a call to arms. We've got to write about this. Maybe having never, in my case, tried to write anything remotely political before. But the only way I can do this is by reminding myself I'm not an expert. I'm just somehow gathering up what's in the atmosphere. But as I said, You gathering up half of the atmosphere, as it turned out.
Julian: That is interesting, because you know, the idea of experts as you said, I think actually in your extract is something that -
Catherine: And each week I could - I would, I was writing right up to the wire. I think eight - 8pm was when I when the blog went - new post went live. And if I was late I could start seeing on Twitter “I'm waiting where is it? Where is it?” I thought, I’m bloody writing it now!
Julian: The adrenaline!
Catherine: Still kind of editing it and sometimes it was an hour or so late. So it really was kind of moulton. Still the paint’s not dry. Here it is. But then people saying “I've waited for that because you've managed to articulate what I was feeling but couldn't put into words” so I felt that that that was my task really - not to say “here's what we should be thinking or doing. This is what our British politicians should be saying or doing now”. Because I didn't know, nobody knew!
Julian: And we still don’t!
Catherine: We still don’t! So I’m not going to be short of material.
Julian: Absolutely, I think you should get back to it! Leave the studio now!
Catherine: Well not this year.
Julian: And go and revisit Linchester and Brexit, will be fantastic. So thank you for so much for joining us again, indeed Dr. Catherine Fox Thank you very much.
Catherine: Thank you.
RAH! Mini Jingle
Julian: So now on this episode on Brexit, we are joined by Ellie Byrne from the Department of English and Fionna Barber from the School of Art.
Ellie Byrne: Thanks.
Fionna Barber: Hi.
Julian: So we are looking at Brexit and I believe in October last year in 2018, you held a symposium called Brexit Wounds, a one day symposium on cultural responses to leaving the EU. Can you either of you explain why you set that up? What was the inspiration behind this particular symposium?
Ellie: We had some discussions about moving or re-centering kind of critical debates that were largely to do with either political or economic issues around Brexit. And thinking a lot more about how we, in arts and humanities, might want to talk about notions of affect, of collective imagining, of the way in which we approach ideas of nation, in literary studies and visual culture, as a fiction. So this becomes a kind of interesting new way then, to think about, well, what are people investing in when they're talking about or using either remain or leave vocabulary? But also that we - we sensed that there was following the vote, a sense of different kinds of divides and divisions. So we felt that there was a big space there for the arts to be talking to and offering a more complex diagnosis of how discussions of Brexit were being held, but what investments emotionally were taking place in them. So we ended up with this interdisciplinary event, which drew scholars who work in art history, fine art, English, social sciences.
Julian: And it was very successful, by the sounds of it.
Fionna: Yes, it was. And also, I think one something that was interesting about it was that we had a range of our speakers came from partly within MMU, partly within Britain, but also from within the European Union as well.
Julian: Ah interesting.
Fiona: So we were getting a range of different perspectives.
Julian: So who are the sort of – some of the major artists working in this field, in the sense of trying to sort of narrate or express the emotions of Brexit? Are there some big names or are there people that you would recommend to our listeners to go and have a look at their work?
Ellie: Clearly, perhaps, most notably would be Allie Smith, who started her Quartet, Autumn, Winter, Spring and Summer.
Julian: Oh right.
Ellie: At the point at which the Brexit vote hadn't yet happened, Autumn was already sort of as - as a draft form. And so Ali has been working on on that what will become a quartet when summer is published. And looking at her attempts, you know, the challenges of writing contemporaneously with historical events, but actually producing full length novels.
Julian: So in terms of coming back to the symposium, do you think there was an overarching emotional trajectory to the papers and the - and the various presentations you had?
Fiona: I think quite varied weren’t they?
Julian: Was there a sense of anxiety or fear hope even?
Pause
Ellie: There wasn’t much hope, I don’t think.
Laughter
Julian: I threw that in there to be on the safe side.
Ellie: So one of our keynote speakers, Sara Dybris McQuaid who's based in Aarhus, specifically talked about Brexit wounds and ideas of the wounded population around things like claiming your nationality or changing your passport or finding yourself actually under attack in terms of, you know, being in a hostile environment. So, what I guess emerged was the more that we looked at these topics that the most incredible sort of critical ideas, but also stories on personal level, around what suddenly making this huge shift in in British politics would look like on a kind of personal level as well as a cultural level.
Julian: So I mean, linking more broadly, then, I mean, one of the things we – we have been discussing on this podcast is the way in which, certainly my lifetime, I can't remember Britain feeling so divided, and so on. Was this it was kind of a unified voice in the symposium or do you get a sense in which there are maybe writers or artists that are coming from maybe beyond the sort of remain? You know, is there is there work out there that's, that's that sort of pro Brexit in that sense?
Fionna: It's interesting. I think when I - when I was thinking about this podcast, I discovered this actually a group called Artists for Brexit. Well, it's a very small group, and they actually don't seem to have any policies. But there's - there's less of the - the kind of the sustained response, or exploration of the effect and the, I suppose, the long term consequences of what Brexit is going to mean actually going on. And I suppose one of the things that I'm particularly interested in is how art can begin to address that, as a place where those conflicts can be explored and maybe alternatives suggested. And one place where I think that is actually happening - I think it's - is actually in art in Northern Ireland at the moment. Now, obviously there's been a huge amount of discussion about the - the Northern Ireland backstop and how that's going to and the possibility of reinstating a hard border. But also, I think it's drawn into attention the fact that power sharing since the Good Friday Agreement has really proceeded through a process of consensus between unionists and nationalists, and that is now completely fractured. And the whole kind of fragility of that peace, I think, is something that's become really tragically apparent in the murder this year of the journalist Lyra McKee, who was shot by a distant republican while she was observing a riot in Derry. And I think that upsurge in violence is directly as a result of the breakdown of consensus. So I suppose I'm particularly interested in art practice and where it relates to this. Art and Northern Ireland, I think, has long provided a means of engaging with and articulating responses to political conflict. And also since the Good Friday Agreement, registering and investigating post conflict trauma, which affects the vast majority of people who live there.
Julian: So we look and learn a lot from those art practices in terms of, as you said, post conflict and potentially consensus building as well. Is that something similar in literature in that sense is there is a ways in which we could maybe look to literature and think about consensus building post conflict, ideas, maybe, you know, we could do some reading to think about what the future might be by looking at some literature from the past maybe?
Ellie: It's an interesting proposition. And of course, I would say yes, as a - as a literature scholar. What's, I guess, been quite interesting is if we take Ali Smith as the example is exactly that - her three novels so far shown characters on the opposite sides of the Brexit vote, but also her work is particularly interested in ideas of hospitality and kind of radical hospitality. So there's usually strangers who turn up in her novels. And this is not just in her Brexit ones, but more generally. And I think her idea around openness and hospitality runs through these books as a really important principle to be thought about that rather than the emphasis on the border as a way to secure yourself or, in some way, keep others out. Her option is essentially open the door and think about the principle of hospitality as a way of building community. Rather than imagining that you build a community by walling - walling yourself in with people who you believe are the same as you. So I think again, her sense that we've always used and always had a relationship across nation, across generation and across difference with others that's actually made us who we are. It's a real insistence in her work.
Julian: Fantastic. Do you envision, you know, some new form of Britishness coming out of this work or more generally?
Ellie: Regionalism to an extent is emerging.
Julian: Yeah I’m thinking that.
Ellie: Many, many of these terms are extremely mobile. They're not easy to define and they're heavily, emotionally invested in in very particular and peculiar ways by different groups. The question of race looms over - the over the future idea of who belongs who gets to claim Britishness and the rise of overt forms of racism have increased sense of precarity of marginalised ethnic groups produces a very unpleasant daily experience.
Julian: And finally to finish off, then you mentioned that your your symposium is coming out as a special issue, hopefully?
Ellie: It’s currently under review -
Julian: It’s under review.
Ellie: - with the Open Arts Journal, basically Open University, which is a kind of art and art history channel, so a selection of the papers and an introduction by Fionna and myself. So hopefully, all being well that will be coming out.
Julian: Fantastic. So, Ellie and Fionna, thank you very much for joining us on podcast.
Fionna and Ellie: Thank you.
RAH! Mini Jingle
Julian: So now I'm joined by Stephen Harper from the Department of History and Politics and Philosophy, who's doing a PhD. Welcome to Stephen.
Stephen Harper: Hello. Hi.
Julian: Can you tell us a bit about your research then to begin us on this discussion of Brexit through time and history and perceptions thereof?
Stephen: Yeah, my research focuses on the Northwest. That's Cheshire, Lancashire, modern day Cumbria in the periods 1658 to 1666, so that’s the transition from the Cromwellian protectorate to the eventual restoration of King Charles the second. It was a time of massive turbulence and chaos, and one in which the North of England and particularly the Northwest played an important part.
Julian: So how does this turbulence manifest itself? What was what was going on? What was the sort of like, the atmosphere and the cultural characteristics at the time, if you like?
Stephen: Well, I think one of the things is that there were various different parties that could not agree. And as a result of that was that there were a constant change of different governments. And there was seven governments in a year, for example.
Julian: Wow!
Stephen: Well, I think the other factor is that overshadowing off these events was the - the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, who I think is characterised as being the father of the army. So he'd sort of been a very important Commonwealth leader. He introduced stability and managed all these divisions and conflicts and these currents and his death, that created a void, and the void, in part, at least led to this outburst of chaos.
Julian: So it was called The Great Fear?
Stephen: Well, that was a term that was given to the summer of 1659 was given.
Julian: So it’s very specific then.
Stephen: Yeah, that's partly because so many changes occurred. So much uncertainty in people's lives. So this - it created this chaotic period.
Julian: So I suppose there's echoes there in the sense that we are as we record this - because obviously we're recording this about Brexit and that's a very difficult topic in lots of senses to sort of, you know, fix in time because it can change on a daily basis if not an hourly basis. But what what was what was normality that people were searching for that and in the in the - in sort of 1659. If they were desiring this normality, again, was it a royalist normality or…?
Stephen: So I think that the - the settlement that people saw was a stable government. But there's another current and that is that one of the things that this set of military inspired regimes on the pinned regime, such as the protectorate brought about was an ongoing demand for a free parliament and free elections. So that's, that's what people were looking for was - was a settlement and normality because you do have to remember that the people who – the electors at this time, we're a very small privileged group.
Julian: I was going to say that.
Stephen: All men, of course. That’s the other thing. So we're not talking - I keep referring to the people. And one of the difficulties in any study of this kind is - is ascertaining exactly what people on the ground, normal ordinary people felt about it because their voices are not very often seen in the historical documents.
Julian: This is one of the issues, I guess, with writing history is you tend to write it from the victor’s point of view, or you at least you hear that voice much more strongly than you do, you know, some pauper, I don't know, in Manchester, who didn't have really much of a say. So was there, would you say - there's two echoes there, I hear, across time. One is populism. And one is sort of sovereignty. Would that be fair?
Stephen: Yeah, I think it is really because populism is really reflected very strongly, particularly in - in 1658 and 1659, an outpouring of pamphlets and tracks and little publications, news-sheets that are used to influence opinion. And this works of all sorts of popular –
Julian: That sounds very familiar!
Stephen: It does, yeah. And one of the ways that this was used, for example, was by Republicans and royalists, who targeted junior officers and soldiers in the army to basically have them believe that their senior leaders were backsliding on their commitments and were greedy, corrupt, etc. And it worked. Sovereignty, which is another point you - you raise, I think that that was in 19, sorry, 1659, people - some people wanted to restore something that had been lost ie. the monarchy. And in 2019, some people want to restore something that they think has been lost ie. sovereignty. So there’s an immediate comparison there. And I think that - that what actually comes out of that is there's a something to do with a promise of a different future. And also a reinvention of the past, because the harkening back in 1659 was to days when the king ruled and everything was fine and dandy, etc. And the similar reference to golden days maybe in the stuff to do with Brexit. And I have to say that one thing about the restoration was, it didn't turn out to be what it was bigged up to be in the sense that there was a lot of disappointment.
Julian: So there's definitely some echoes there. Because I think, you know, a lot of people who voted leave have probably – I mean, given some of the polls that you see - are beginning to think maybe it's not quite what we thought, certainly in terms of the promises that they were given. Yeah, so there's definitely some echoes there, isn't there?
Stephen: There are and I think that the other point is that a lot of the claims that were made in 1659 1658 in these pamphlets that were targeting various different groups and what was said, a lot of those things were wildly exaggerated, and totally untrue. So the way that messages were put across and misleading information was used was - was a key. And again, I would personally feel that a lot of the stuff that happened in the build up to the referendum in 2016 was itself somewhat misleading. Well it was wasn’t it, misleading? Some of the information that was put out there was just made up.
Julian: 350 million pounds for the NHS on a bus. Yeah.
Stephen: Yeah. And some of the kind of images of immigration and stuff like that.
Julian: I mean, certainly there was there was a report today about the religious discrimination and religious certainly hate crimes have gone up –
Stephen: Absolutely.
Julian: - statistically significantly, since the referendum. I mean, this is fascinating. There are obviously lots of echoes going on here lots of parallels and comparisons we can make. Is there a danger in those parallels?
Stephen: Well I think there are. I mean, you have to accept the limitations. I mean, when we said before that those limitations are very significant. We need to recall that. Plus the other thing is we don't have an army in the same ways that has they had and we're not talking about the restoration of a monarchy.
Julian: We're not talking about Catholicism versus Protestantism.
Stephen: No, we're not. No, we're not – it’s a different - some of the drivers are different today.
Julian: But the broad contours we can, we can see.
Stephen: We can, yeah. And yeah, and I think one of the things that's I feel particularly is that agendas, political debates, and also rights of people are different, but some of the motivations that people have, some of the political behaviours that they - they demonstrate, are similar.
Julian: Absolutely fantastic. I've learnt a hell of a lot from you today has been really, really interesting discussion. So Stephen Harper, thank you very much indeed.
Stephen: Okay, thanks. Goodbye.
RAH! mini jingle
Julian: And that brings our RAH! podcast episode on Perceiving Brexit to a close. Thank you for listening. Don't forget to follow us on Twitter for future podcast updates. You can find us at @MMU_RAH. And for more information on all the research and events we discussed in this episode, please go to the RAH! website for full length tune back in soon for more episodes.
RAH! Closing Jingle
Julian: This episode of the podcast was produced by Lucy Simpson, edited by Charlie Fyfe Williams and mixed and presented by me, Julian Holloway.