I'm 24 and voted for brexit. In fact I campaigned for it and would do so again. It's really a very poor form to resort to the "dumb old racists voted for brexit hurr".
OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to.
The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. This is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff.
Arguments in favour of Brexit thus tend to boil down to immigration and 'sovereignty'.
There's a consensus amongst economists that immigration makes us financially better off. That makes it hard not to ascribe a strong desire to cut immigration to a powerful desire for ethnic homogeneity and/or a powerful dislike of foreigners. Those things are very close to racism.
Meanwhile, the 'sovereignty' Brexit delivers is almost wholly illusory. In practice, we'll get to choose which of the big players to take the rules from. That's going to be either the US (which hardly anybody actually wants — most Brits value our health service, non-toxic food and drinking water, holiday pay, and so on — and also isn't very helpful, because the US is far away) or the EU (whose decisions we used to play an outsized role in, but no longer have any influence over).
It would be hilarious — if it weren't tragic and a little terrifying — that the ones in charge of 'taking back control' are also the ones stifling parliament, suppressing voting, and attacking academics, judges and the rule of law. As far as I can see, the only ones taking back control are the rulers, and the only ones they're taking back control from are the other citizens of the UK.
> The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent.
Is it necessary for the UK to stay in for this peace to continue?
Would you like to talk to some of the southern states about the expansion of prosperity that has come along with monetary union?
> There's a consensus amongst economists that immigration makes us financially better off.
In aggregate, not individually. Great for those of us in the middle classes, but I have a lot of sympathy for those who see their low wages effectively pegged to minimum wage, and who have to compete for those minimum wage jobs with a huge pool of people.
We have stories of fruit and veg going unpicked because labour can't be imported as easily, and the few brits who enquired about the work wouldn't do it, they wouldn't live on the farm and work long days for the lowest possible pay. This speaks to me of industries in dire need of reform, propped up by the importation of those willing to accept standards nobody should have to accept, because of a disparity in wealth between countries.
Was leaving the EU the right way to go about fixing this? Probably not, but to sweep these issues under the rug or worse, call people racist because of them, was counterproductive.
> There's a consensus amongst economists that immigration makes us financially better off.
>> In aggregate, not individually. Great for those of us in the middle classes, but I have a lot of sympathy for those who see their low wages effectively pegged to minimum wage
There are two arguments here:
1. If an aggregate gain isn't being redistributed so we're all better off, that's a failure of the tax and benefits systems that politicians could (and I believe should) address.
2. But aside from that, there's good evidence that immigration simply doesn't hurt those earning least. See Esther Duflo, for example: studies "all come to the conclusion that the effect of low-skilled migration on low-skilled wages is zero". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1pZfFY132Q
"Empirical research on the labour market effects of immigration in the UK suggests that immigration has relatively small effects on average wages, with negative effects on low-paid workers and positive effects on high-paid workers."
I'm going to presume that page is well sourced as it's associated with Oxford University.
I don't disagree that many of the reasons people voted for Brexit were things that could have been addressed by the UK government in various ways. But they weren't, and Brussels Buck-passing was practically a parliamentary sport. Perhaps that can end now.
>In aggregate, not individually. Great for those of us in the middle classes, but I have a lot of sympathy for those who see their low wages effectively pegged to minimum wage, and who have to compete for those minimum wage jobs with a huge pool of people.
The solution is to create more jobs, not shrink the population. The idea that you get free labor and don't take advantage of it so backwards. It's only working because it's a psychological trick. In aggregate you are worse off.
Literally every country suffering from an underutilized workforce should just utilize it, even if artificially. Restricting immigration is basically equivalent to a waiting strategy where you just hope that the competition (e.g. China) runs into labor shortages and thus your own labor surplus no longer becomes a liability. It works but it's so slow that if you were the politician of a waiting nation you should rightfully be criticized for doing nothing.
>We have stories of fruit and veg going unpicked because labour can't be imported as easily, and the few brits who enquired about the work wouldn't do it, they wouldn't live on the farm and work long days for the lowest possible pay. This speaks to me of industries in dire need of reform, propped up by the importation of those willing to accept standards nobody should have to accept, because of a disparity in wealth between countries.
This is where things get absurd. You are complaining that all those immigrants are stealing all the farm jobs with impossibly low pay but at the same time you never cared a single bit about those jobs and would never do them yourself?
> Literally every country suffering from an underutilized workforce should just utilize it, even if artificially
Is this not just the broken window fallacy?
> Restricting immigration is basically equivalent to a waiting strategy where you just hope that the competition (e.g. China) runs into labor shortages
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here?
Are you trying to say that in order to compete on the world stage you need a surplus of low/underpaid labour? Why is that good for the people that find themselves in that surplus?
> You are complaining that all those immigrants are stealing all the farm jobs
I'm doing no such thing. Please re-read my post after discarding some of your preconceptions.
I'm saying the pay and conditions attached to those jobs are wholly unreasonable. That they should not be run like that in the first place, immigrants or no.
Those companies were only viable because people could be flown in from places where there were lower expectations on working conditions and enough of a wage disparity that it made it worthwhile for those workers to be paid the minimum. They were often made to live in cramped conditions in temporary accomodation on-site, in a way that's totally incompatible with (for instance) a family life. That's not a good thing. That sector needs reform.
(Yes, immigration law was hiding this and contributing to wage suppression. I am in no way accusing any class of people, immigrant or otherwise of "stealing jobs".)
> OK, so the problem is that I find it basically impossible to understand how a well-informed and rational person could come to the conclusions you've come to.
That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything, there must be some reasons for it.
You're right about the consensus among economists. At the same time, 10 years ago there was a consensus about the virtues of free trade. Then Autor et al. wrote "The China Shock" and other similar papers, and, well, now there's not a consensus any more. Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing?
Is desire for ethnic homogeneity close to racism? It seems to be very widely shared - including among impeccable liberals. See the evidence on white flight in Kaufmann's Whiteshift. Homophily is close to a human universal, so it's not obvious that it is wrong, or stupid, to prefer others like ourselves.
If we trade we have to accept rules. But now we get to choose which, right? As you say, if we don't like US rules on chicken, we can trade that off against the costs. The value of tying ourselves to the EU depends on how you view its future. There's a fair case that it is an aging, sclerotic continent that can only make money by imposing fines on US tech companies. I don't say that's the only perspective that you can make.
Lastly, the UK is a democracy. The EU, hardly (see Perry Anderson's recent essays in the LRB for a fairly comprehensive account). Democracy sure has its flaws, but doesn't the threat of the boot encourage politicians to get things done? In this context, the contrast between the UK's vaccination program and the EU's is telling.
>You're right about the consensus among economists. At the same time, 10 years ago there was a consensus about the virtues of free trade. Then Autor et al. wrote "The China Shock" and other similar papers, and, well, now there's not a consensus any more. Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing?
Physical reality: Factories are in China we don't have to work in the EU to get manufactured stuff! The Chinese are working their butts off for us and we are making them rich in the process!
Anti free trade idea: Chinese people working their butts off for us should be illegal. We would rather work ourselves and prefer expensive domestically produced products (if you did, why make the "inferior" competition illegal?). We don't need high skill jobs, low skill work is just as important!
"I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that."
One particular reason: while trade increases welfare, it also has distributional effects. As trade barriers go to zero, the marginal effect on welfare of a further reduction becomes small, compared to the marginal effect on distribution.
Another reason: globalization allows capital to avoid restrictions (e.g. on environmental externalities, child labour, slavery) that are seen in the West as part of the social contract.
> That is indeed a problem, but it is your problem. If 48% of people support anything, there must be some reasons for it.
Sure, and I think the most palatable conclusion is that a very large number of people are not well informed. If you look at UK news outlets — what they choose to report, how they choose to report it, and the interests of the people who own them — this doesn't stretch credibility very much.
> Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing?
Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts".
> it is an aging, sclerotic continent that can only make money by imposing fines on US tech companies
The big tech companies are too large and too powerful to be safe for democracy (or indeed for healthy forms of capitalism involving genuine competition). I would like to see more action taken against them everywhere. The EU is large enough to stand up to large corporations of this sort. The UK outside the EU is not.
>> Also, economics isn't immune to bias. Are papers showing a link from immigration to low wages, or crime, or reduced trust, likely to get a fair hearing?
>Yes, I believe they are. I am wary here of Michael Gove's quasi-fascist rhetoric of having "had enough of experts".
1/ You're right, UK is big an rich enough to make them cave a little, and is also speaking english and have a good diplomatic reputation, that will help.
2/ Australia is a weird country and have weird politicians, i don't think any western country could've done the same on their own.
> that the ones in charge of 'taking back control' are also the ones stifling parliament, suppressing voting, and attacking academics, judges and the rule of law.
Do you really want them to have an influence across the whole of the EU? By leaving, our dysfunctional politicians lose influence which will help with the peace and human rights that you mentioned earlier.
I'm in the UK, so you got me: it seems I take a somewhat self-interested view on human rights! More seriously, though, the UK used to be a major world advocate for human rights, so UK human rights going down the pan probably isn't great for human rights worldwide.
Peace takes two sides, so it's hard to argue that having your dysfunctional politicians run unchecked isn't going to lead to worse outcomes across the board.
No, I am not joking. Our politicians running unchecked isn't great for us, but at least they are no longer disrupting and influencing the whole of the EU.
If we had remained then, what would the EU have prevented them from doing so far? Would they have stopped the corruption with regards to the Covid contracts? I guess we would have to keep GDPR, but then GDPR might have been stronger in the first place without the UKs influence.
> the UK used to be a major world advocate for human rights
Yes, but we aren't any more and our press freedom index is quite low by EU standards.
Seems far from definitive, especially given the scale of the claim you're making, to be quite honest. I'll do some research of my own and link back if I find anything more substantial as I'm actually sympathetic to your original point even if I think the evidence you provided is weak at best.
The EU isn't perfect, but you'll struggle to argue that it hasn't expanded peace, prosperity and human rights across the continent. This is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff.
The ECSC then EEC did that, and of course NATO, ECHR, Schengen and various other institutions and agreements. The EU came into existence much later and claimed credit for things that were set in motion decades before. Noone would have voted to leave the EEC, the EEC was great.
I voted remain but would vote leave if we were to ever have another referendum. The reason being is that it's clear to me now the direction that the EU is going in (removal of the nation state, EU army).
Actually I think after seeing the vaccine rollout by the EU, many more Brits would vote to leave.
The mistake the EU did with the vaccine rollout is that it was talking to long instead buying. Otherwise something that needs to be taken into consideration is the following.
Right now we have a global pandemic so all countries world wide are affected. And unless the whole world is vaccinated we won't get past it since the chance that mutations occur that all possible immune against our vaccines increases the more people get infected.
Currently there are 4 Producing Vaccine "producing" countries/groups
USA, UK, EU, Russia and China.
From these 5 groups only the EU and China are exporting vaccines. I am unsure about russia. And the Chinese vaccine is also not that widespread outside China. But I know that the EU even supplies Canada and Mexico with vaccines, while the USA and the UK have export bans. That is one of the reasons why vaccinations are slow in the EU in addition to being slow last year with ordering.
So while they have great numbers at home concerning the amount of people vaccinated. It is morally debatable whether or not that is the correct approach for a global problem.
Also Russia is quite open about licensing the vaccine production technology to other countries, e.g. one of the countries which will soon start manufacturing it domestically is Italy.
Other than the US export ban, I haven’t managed to find any strong online evidence for your claims. Both Russia and China seem to have exported (or plan to export) large quantities of vaccines. And according to the European Commision, the UK does not have a ban in place, at least not officially.
My theory is simply that, at this point in time, the EU countries are insufficiently well linked and coordinated to face a crisis on this scale with the efficiency of something like the US, due in part to the variety of cultures, languages and political philosophies within the bloc.
> Actually I think after seeing the vaccine rollout by the EU, many more Brits would vote to leave.
> It's interesting how events have turned out.
it's more or less the same as every other crisis the EU has had to deal with: it ends up being handling extremely poorly
the EU is more or less good at one thing: trade negotiations
everything else it ends up involved with has pretty much been a disaster (sovereign debt crisis, migrant crisis, last days of yugoslavia, vaccine procurement, Russia, etc)
Most of the EU countries have worrying powerful and popular nationalist political parties which are on the rise.
The UK is actually the exception to the growing hate and nationalism in Europe!
The benefit of UK in Europe was that it helped curtail the exscesses of the continent. I worry for the EU now as it seems more toxic after Brexit than before.
So the really hard right is diminished, but that's arguably because the pretty hard right took on its rhetoric on immigration and is currently in power.
The conservatives have become much more right wing in recent years (recent being around 6 years) as the moderates are being removed and former UKIPpers are turning blue.
I think the fact that dumb old racists voted for Brexit doesn’t preclude that dumb young people also voted for it. They’re probably less racist though.
73% of 18-24 year olds say they voted remain, but did they actually show up? Also did they vote remain because it's cool or did they actually have some other reason?
> 73% of 18-24 year olds say they voted remain, but did they actually show up?
I haven't done the math, so I won't make assumptions, but I would bet the percentages from the polls roughly match up with the actual results from the referendum
> Also did they vote remain because it's cool or did they actually have some other reason?
That's an entirely different point, you're just moving the goalposts now. The question isn't whether young people were justified in voting remain, the question is did they vote remain.
