There is a really interesting and seemingly important conversation going on about how globalization will evolve. This touches everything from trade agreements a

There is a really interesting and seemingly important conversation going on about how globalization will evolve. This touches everything from trade agreements and financial unions like the one Britain exited to restrictions on technology export (e.g. to China) and data harvesting (e.g. EU server requirements) to new thinking about immigration (usually restricted) and labor (expanding benefits and improving wages, more often promised than delivered). There are credible arguments for clear answers on aspects of this debate, for example that fear of immigrants is almost all xenophobia, as opposed to genuine protection for labor and the poor. (I’m not saying this, but in corners of the broader conversation, you can credibly make these sort of arguments.) But I don’t think there’s a credible argument that this whole global conversation has some pat clear answer and this article seems to just be simplistically saying we need to go back to a wholesale embrace of globalization. It’s pretty polarizing, for example calling Jeremy Corbyn (a heroic figure to some in the left) an example of Labour losing its mind. It treats Brexit as unalloyed bad. No acknowledgement I can see of why so many people felt compelled to support it. It feels to me a hard conservative opinion presented as The Truth. Compelling I guess if you agree but given how under siege globalization is right now feels odd to read something so unabashedly one sided. Even in The Economist.