6 ms·

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. T

by gmac 6y ago

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.

aembleton 6y ago
> 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.
- gmac 6y ago
  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. Edit: maybe you were joking? Ha ha.
  - aembleton 6y ago
    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.
    - willmw101 6y ago
      > the UK used to be a major world advocate for human rights >Yes, but we aren't any more Have you got a source for this?
      - aembleton 6y ago
        https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/22/uk-failing-on-many-human-rights-measures-report-claims https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/22/uk-failing-on-ma...
        willmw101 6y ago
        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.
Nursie 6y ago
> 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.
- gmac 6y ago
  > 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1pZfFY132Q
  - aembleton 6y ago
    > "all come to the conclusion that the effect of low-skilled migration on low-skilled wages is zero" I haven't watched the video yet. But does she address the BoE paper? https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2015/the-impact-of-immigration-on-occupational-wages-evidence-from-britain https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2015/the-impac...
dash2 6y ago
> 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.
- gmac 6y ago
  > 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.
thinkingemote 6y ago
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.
- aembleton 6y ago
  > The benefit of UK in Europe was that it helped curtail the exscesses of the continent. The main representation of the UK in the EU parliament was from UKIP, a nationalistic political party that formed a grouping with other nationalists. By leaving, the UK has reduced the size of that nationalistic group.
- gmac 6y ago
  > The UK is actually the exception to the growing hate and nationalism in Europe! Are you in the UK? I find this a rather peculiar view.
  - CodeGlitch 6y ago
    When was the last time you read about the BNP or Combat18? UKIP has gone. Where is the political party that is far right?
    - gmac 6y ago
      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.
      - CodeGlitch 6y ago
        The Conservatives are "pretty hard right"? LOL
    - dijit 6y ago
      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.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
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. It's interesting how events have turned out.
- dijit 6y ago
  Generally, though, I’m less scared of continental armies that I’m a citizen of. It’s the other continental armies (China, America, Russia) that worry me more.
- SonicTheSith 6y ago
  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.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    >I am unsure about russia. You can easily find this information online. The following picture is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine#/media/File:Sputnik_V_countries.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine#/me... 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.
goatinaboat 6y ago
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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by gmac 6y ago

aembleton 6y ago

> 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.

gmac 6y ago
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. Edit: maybe you were joking? Ha ha.
- aembleton 6y ago
  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.
  - willmw101 6y ago
    > the UK used to be a major world advocate for human rights >Yes, but we aren't any more Have you got a source for this?
    - aembleton 6y ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/22/uk-failing-on-many-human-rights-measures-report-claims https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/22/uk-failing-on-ma...
      - willmw101 6y ago
        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.

Nursie 6y ago

> 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.

gmac 6y ago
> 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1pZfFY132Q
- aembleton 6y ago
  > "all come to the conclusion that the effect of low-skilled migration on low-skilled wages is zero" I haven't watched the video yet. But does she address the BoE paper? https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2015/the-impact-of-immigration-on-occupational-wages-evidence-from-britain https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2015/the-impac...

dash2 6y ago

> 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.

gmac 6y ago
> 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.

thinkingemote 6y ago

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.

aembleton 6y ago
> The benefit of UK in Europe was that it helped curtail the exscesses of the continent. The main representation of the UK in the EU parliament was from UKIP, a nationalistic political party that formed a grouping with other nationalists. By leaving, the UK has reduced the size of that nationalistic group.
gmac 6y ago
> The UK is actually the exception to the growing hate and nationalism in Europe! Are you in the UK? I find this a rather peculiar view.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  When was the last time you read about the BNP or Combat18? UKIP has gone. Where is the political party that is far right?
  - gmac 6y ago
    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.
    - CodeGlitch 6y ago
      The Conservatives are "pretty hard right"? LOL
  - dijit 6y ago
    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.

CodeGlitch 6y ago

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. It's interesting how events have turned out.

dijit 6y ago
Generally, though, I’m less scared of continental armies that I’m a citizen of. It’s the other continental armies (China, America, Russia) that worry me more.
SonicTheSith 6y ago
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.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >I am unsure about russia. You can easily find this information online. The following picture is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine#/media/File:Sputnik_V_countries.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_V_COVID-19_vaccine#/me... 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.

goatinaboat 6y ago

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.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]