4 ms·

This would have made sense if people would have voted against immigration per se. In reality they didn't -- very few people actually get offended by a sight of

This would have made sense if people would have voted against immigration per se. In reality they didn't -- very few people actually get offended by a sight of someone with a different colour skin so badly that they want them away at once. What people actually voted against is losing their livelihoods -- jobs, communities, families -- to a steady march of progress. That loss is real, but make no mistake, no politician can stop it by signing any sort of trade treaties, limiting immigration to any extent, or outlawing EU Directive 89/686/EEC. So the sad reality of Brexit is that the people who voted leave will see no change. Immigration may be restricted as a result of the vote, but it won't save them from anything because the moving force potentially causing what you call "a greater anti-immigration backlash" has immigration as just one of its many symptoms, and not a root cause.

surfmike 10y ago
That's a decent argument to say immigration wasn't a real concern (that was the second counter point I mentioned). Although it does seem like a fair bit of Leavers voted because of migration (at least according to polls).
alva 10y ago
"..to a steady march of progress. That loss is real, but make no mistake, no politician can stop it by signing any sort of trade treaties, limiting immigration to any extent, or outlawing EU Directive 89/686/EEC." I used to believe the same, that globalisation in its current form is an absolute inevitability. That any efforts to react and adapt to it would always be counter-productive and fail to this invisible force. We have had this drilled into us ad nauseam. I am starting to doubt that this is the case. I see no reason why the future has already been determined at this point and that we must accept it, resigning ourselves to believe change is an absolute impossibility. Are interventions for the better 100% likely to fail? Why? Is largely due to the nature of macro-economics and free trade? Are there no mechanisms possible present or future that can address these effectively and to the majorities' satisfaction? I do not intend this to come across as a hostile response, I am genuinely interested in everyones thoughts on this. "...symptoms, and not a root cause" What do you believe is the root cause?
flukus 10y ago
> What people actually voted against is losing their livelihoods -- jobs, communities, families -- to a steady march of progress. That loss is real, but make no mistake, no politician can stop it by signing any sort of trade treaties, limiting immigration to any extent, or outlawing EU Directive 89/686/EEC. That may be true, that no politician can stop it, but at the moment (at least here in Australia, which seems to have the same trend as UK and America) no politician will acknowledge it. We've had three recessions in 10 years that have been "hidden" by immigration. The economy has grown but everyone's relative share has shrunk.

surfmike 10y ago

That's a decent argument to say immigration wasn't a real concern (that was the second counter point I mentioned). Although it does seem like a fair bit of Leavers voted because of migration (at least according to polls).

alva 10y ago

"..to a steady march of progress. That loss is real, but make no mistake, no politician can stop it by signing any sort of trade treaties, limiting immigration to any extent, or outlawing EU Directive 89/686/EEC." I used to believe the same, that globalisation in its current form is an absolute inevitability. That any efforts to react and adapt to it would always be counter-productive and fail to this invisible force. We have had this drilled into us ad nauseam. I am starting to doubt that this is the case. I see no reason why the future has already been determined at this point and that we must accept it, resigning ourselves to believe change is an absolute impossibility. Are interventions for the better 100% likely to fail? Why? Is largely due to the nature of macro-economics and free trade? Are there no mechanisms possible present or future that can address these effectively and to the majorities' satisfaction? I do not intend this to come across as a hostile response, I am genuinely interested in everyones thoughts on this. "...symptoms, and not a root cause" What do you believe is the root cause?

flukus 10y ago

> What people actually voted against is losing their livelihoods -- jobs, communities, families -- to a steady march of progress. That loss is real, but make no mistake, no politician can stop it by signing any sort of trade treaties, limiting immigration to any extent, or outlawing EU Directive 89/686/EEC. That may be true, that no politician can stop it, but at the moment (at least here in Australia, which seems to have the same trend as UK and America) no politician will acknowledge it. We've had three recessions in 10 years that have been "hidden" by immigration. The economy has grown but everyone's relative share has shrunk.