One of the few things liberals and conservatives can agree upon is solidarity with the Hong Kong protesters.  Indeed, the protests in Hong Kong have received almost universal international approval, from both right and left sides of the spectrum.

The specter of a small, relatively defenseless city-state standing up for its rights against a powerful adversary should be an inspiration to us all.  In the main, almost everyone agrees that the protesters should not give in to Beijing's desire to take away their freedom and civil rights.

So why is there not a similar positive agreement about Brexit?  The pro-Brexit voters are seeking exactly the same thing that the Hong Kong protesters are: control over their own lives.  Each group's members want to ensure that they are not beholden to a large, unelected bureaucracy that seeks to impose regulations and laws by fiat.

Having lived in Hong Kong for a number of years, including during the handover in 1997, I fully sympathize with the protesters.  Unfortunately, their actions have come several decades too late, but certainly they are better late than never.  In the run-up to the handover, British governor Chris Patten did much to encourage Hong Kong people to stand up for themselves by instituting democratic reforms.  Patten's efforts were met with understandable skepticism; as a ruler imposed by their colonizer, he was the wrong person to advocate for freedom for Hong Kong.  And many locals at the time were apolitical, preferring to avoid political controversy and follow the time-honored Chinese tradition of making as much money as they can.

How things have changed: one of history's many great ironies is that the British Empire, once the master of colonized Hong Kong, is now in a struggle to free itself from the effects of foreign influence.  The victor becomes the vanquished, and so on throughout the ages.

I've had a number of discussions about Brexit with liberal European friends and acquaintances.  In most cases, I've found that the conversation comes to a complete halt with a blunt declaration from them that the Brexiteers are obviously "racist."  I find this surprising, not to mention rather rude, to so blithely indict the majority of a population as having only racist motivations.

Any other explanation for Brexit is dismissed out of hand.  I've tried, gently, to raise the notion that there might be other, more logical reasons for a Brit not to want to subject himself to E.U. oversight?  Perhaps a simple desire to have more control over his own life?  But the answer has always been the same: "No, they are racist."

In these liberal circles, Brexit is seen as the unfortunate uprising of the unwashed, uneducated voter to reject the beautiful E.U. created by the liberal elite.  Brexit joins the election of Trump as an apparently damning indicator of the average U.S. and U.K. citizen, and his inability to fully appreciate the correct way of liberal thinking.  It's an intriguing instance of mass psychology: in each case the rejection of liberal organizations or candidates is explained away as being racist in motivation.  No other explanation is considered.

So the next time you're in a discussion about Brexit, you might try this line of reasoning: if you support independence for Hong Kong, you should support independence for Great Britain as well.

Unfortunately, given the Left's ideological blinders, I have little optimism that leftists will appreciate even this simple logic.  It's much easier just to shout "racist!"

Jay Latimer is an international businessman, writer, and investor who has worked in investment banking for several multinational banks in New York, Hong Kong, and Beijing.