Brexit is a disaster for the UK economy

Post Reply New Topic

I read it as you were talking about what I wrote - that mass migration in Britain started with Industrial Revolution and enclosure. So, if that was "starting to take the drug", getting to the state before it would be indeed feudalism. If you think inner mass migration was good but only "outer" migration should be stopped, I wonder what's the fundamental difference.

I haven't lived in Japan. I spent just a week in Korea and this experience made me realize what cultural differences are. I couldn't live in East Asia, I'm deeply incompatibile with the way they're organized.
I know in Korea (immigration level similar to Japan) extreme poverty among old people is a big problem. A quick google indicates something similar in Japan. So the problem of too many seniors in proportion to working people seems not entirely made up.

I'm indigenous Central European. I'm a descendant of people who lived here since Stone Age and countless waves of immigration since then, nearly all of them assimilatted - the exceptions that remained to the historical times, like Jews and Gypsies, did not come in any kind of a violent conquest. A strange irony of history is that they disappeared in an extremely violent conquest...
Various multi-ethnic political entities like Poland-Lithuania or Holy Roman Empire contribute to a large part of history here - and numbers of small duchies within the same ethnicities were also common. Within them and between them, migration happened all the time, whenever some under-populated land needed settlers.
Nationalisms in modern meaning developed only in the 19th century.

When I look at Brexit I mostly see it as a reaction to a problem that was peaking in the mid 2010's as a result of the Syrian civil war, ie. the sense that EU Parliament was going to make critical decisions, for them, regarding immigration and other issues which seemed like they could have really bad turnout down the road and many Brits (again - just my outside read) got the sense that all of the EU countries, including themselves, were just places for Brussels technocrats to slot problems in a round-robin fashion. A person can genuinely be racist and just not want non-white people in their country but far more people can have concerns about pace of immigration and race has far less to do with it than economic, values, and cultural assimilation.

I don't think that instinct to want sovereignty in the face of emergencies is particularly strange, just like having a foreign country tell you what your immigration policy will be - to suit its needs instead of your own - is particularly appealing (I can't imagine the United States taking that from Brussels either).

That crisis, along with the factors Mark Blyth talked about in his 2016 lecture 'Global Trumpism', where both left and right-wing populists were winning due to dissatisfaction with economics, seemed to play a role and the migrant crisis just accelerated that.

The challenging thing now - Brexit got drawn out to such a degree that it's still in process and now it seems like the migrant crisis has died down which means a lot of the red flags that the Brits who voted for Brexit were seeing at the time are also a lot less prominant.

I think this just goes to show how tricky the proposition of the EU is, how easy it is for a centralized technocracy (still a 'foreign' body of technocrats and lawmakers) to alienate any member state to where most of that state's members want to leave, and as I remember for much of the early 2010's, even before the migrant crisis, there was the seeming permanent cycles of austerity with many of the Southern / Mediterranean countries, most prominently Greece.

I get how Brexit would be particularly challenging as well if it's putting the UK at a disadvantage with respect to trading with Europe, or forcing the UK into closer trade alliance with the US on the US's terms. At the same time, again - as a somewhat detached observer from across the Atlantic - much like in the same way genuinely sane concerns people can have get hammered down with cudgels (racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc.) until only very right-wing and even racist people are allowed to talk about them (because they wear the epithets and say 'So what'), the 2010's really showed the cost of delegating national sovereignty to Brussels and clearly a a lot of countries - including Hungary, Poland, and Czech Republic, didn't like what they saw and similarly it looks like both the UK and Italy also didn't like what they saw (there was some concern that Italy as well would go the same way and exit from the EU).

If I had any advice to Brussels - they're going to need to be extremely results-oriented, as impartial as possible, and see 'feels'-based political decisions as very nasty and costly, especially when they're forced to make decisions on those lines, because they'll be polarizing and they'll threaten to shed whichever member states find the costs to be unacceptable. Unlike the US federal government, which has fifty states in relative captivity, and can have batisht crazy politics, I think Brussels - to work and to hold the EU together - needs to be incredibly, incredibly boring.