Brexit

[LuisDantas]

This, too.

I suppose.

Trouble is, globalization isn't really avoidable. Not if you want to remain economically and politically relevant. Or if you are not interested in severely limiting your population levels and regressing to an economic model centered around subsistence agropecuary.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see how any of this was reasonably foreseeable. I don't know anyone who foresaw it. No-one in my family seemed to.

I take it that your social circles aren't all that fond of the Guardian, nor of Channel Four? Or even the Mirror? (Edited to add: or James O'Brien on LBC)

Even the otherwise admirable BBC seems to have gone far out of its way in order to protect the perception of Brexit as a Worthy Thing, but there were exceptions even in the famously biased British media.

And then there are the YouTube media. Surely they are not censored in the UK?

Frankly, it wasn't all that hard to learn - from thousands of miles no less - how full of it Nigel Farage was, how delirious the JRM is, and how much the Tories have been toying with lies since at least 2019.

 

[Rival]

I suppose.

Trouble is, globalization isn't really avoidable. Not if you want to remain economically and poltically relevant. Or if you are not interested in severly limiting your population levels and regressing to an economic model centered around subsistence agropecuary.

The problem is a bit more nuanced than this.

Globalisation might be inevitable on our current trajectory, but the issue the voters are seeing is that it's not benefitting us. As Stevicus said, my region is not seeing any benefit of globalisation and only seems to becoming poorer, while the capital grows richer. We wouldn't be as opposed to it if it included us. The problem is that the goods based economy has ceased, that is, in many places in England, the US etc. industry has been lost, jobs outsourced, and a service economy taken over. The problem is that this service economy never reached us, so we have nothing to replace the loss of industry, goods making etc., so we are not benefitting in any way from this new economic model either locally or internationally. Globalisation may be helping the cities, but has not reached beyond them. My local college recently shut down, and now they're threatening the hospital. This simply isn't sustainable. We want to see the benefits of globalisation but all we see is more suffering.

 

[Rival]

I take it that your social circles aren't all that fond of the Guardian, nor of Channel Four? Or even the Mirror?

Even the otherwise admirable BBC seems to have gone far out of its way in order to protect the perception of Brexit as a Worthy Thing, but there were exceptions even in the famously biased British media.

And then there are the YouTube media. Surely they are not censored in the UK?

Frankly, it wasn't all that hard to learn - from thousands of miles no less - how full of it Nigel Farage was, how delirious the JRM is, and how much the Tories have been toying with lies since at least 2019.

You're taking far too intellectual and removed a stance. On the ground we couldn't give a hoot about the ins and outs. We knew what we wanted and were going to vote for it. It really is that simple, which is what I'm trying to get at. It's easy to look at it from a 3rd party view when you don't live here without being able to be on the ground, experiencing the issues that made this vote possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're taking far too intellectual and removed a stance. On the ground we couldn't give a hoot about the ins and outs. We knew what we wanted and were going to vote for it. It really is that simple, which is what I'm trying to get at. It's easy to look at it from a 3rd party view when you don't live here without being able to be on the ground, experiencing the issues that made this vote possible.

So I am told.

All the same, I have to wonder why you bother to vote at all if you feel so unmotivated to seek information about the very issue that matters to you.

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem is a bit more nuanced than this.

Globalisation might be inevitable on our current trajectory, but the issue the voters are seeing is that it's not benefitting us.

It isn't?

What evidence do you have to point to that conclusion?

As Stevicus said, my region is not seeing any benefit of globalisation and only seems to becoming poorer, while the capital grows richer. We wouldn't be as opposed to it if it included us. The problem is that the goods based economy has ceased, that is, in many places in England, the US etc. industry has been lost, jobs outsourced, and a service economy taken over. The problem is that this service economy never reached us, so we have nothing to replace the loss of industry, goods making etc., so we are not benefitting in any way from this new economic model either locally or internationally. Globalisation may be helping the cities, but that has not reached beyond them. My local college recently shut down, and now they're threatening the hospital. This simply isn't sustainable. We want to see the benefits of globalisation but all we see is more suffering.

Again, I am just not seeing the connection. You seem to be blaming globalization for what is far more than likely to be lousy domestic policies.

 

[Rival]

So I am told.

All the same, I have to wonder why you bother to vote at all if you feel so unmotivated to seek information about the very issue that matters to you.

The information is around me in my living conditions. That's why I vote. I don't need someone on TV or YouTube to tell me.

 

[LuisDantas]

The information is around me in my living conditions. That's why I vote. I don't need someone on TV or YouTube to tell me.

I beg to differ.

You well may sincerely feel that it is somehow unfair or wrong to seek information, but at the end of the day that only leads to being less capable of making the informed decisions that you British apparently sorely need.

 

[Rival]

It isn't?

What evidence do you have to point to that conclusion?

Everyone around me lives worse off than they should? This is unmissable.

Again, I am just not seeing the connection. You seem to be blaming globalization for what is far more than likely to be lousy domestic policies.

We saw those policies as being driven by both Westminster and the EU, which is why I'm against both. This is exactly what my OP is about. I'm just not sure those outside the UK get it. We want socialistic economic policies, hence a Labour government, paired with a more socially right-wing outlook. Most of us would be considered Social Democrats. We are against centralisation, either by Westminster or the EU. We want more local control and we believe this would better drive economic success.

Basically this,

This trade-off – between the economic gains of global trade and the desire for local control over a country’s economy and markets – is what Harvard economist Dani Rodrik called “The Globalization Paradox.”

It leaves countries with essentially three choices:

1. They can reject globalization’s deeper integration and risk losing out on economic prosperity
2. They can simply cede control of large parts of their economic policy to prevailing international standards, risking the ire of their citizens
3. They can help shape globalization by joining and helping create the international organizations and agreements that set trade standards, giving up some control but having a seat at the table.

Brexit could spell the end of globalization, and the global prosperity that came with it (theconversation.com)

 

[Rival]

I beg to differ.

You well may sincerely feel that it is somehow unfair or wrong to seek information, but at the end of the day that only leads to being less capable of making the informed decisions that you British apparently sorely need.

How do you think folks voted before TV? Or radio? We looked around us and saw what needed fixing. I can listen to politicians, but ultimately my decision is made by my immediate local reality. The politicians in Westminster and other places are so removed from my day to day experience that they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

 

[LuisDantas]

Everyone around me lives worse off than they should? This is unmissable.


We saw those policies as being driven by both Westminster and the EU, which is why I'm against both. This is exactly what my OP is about. I'm just not sure those outside the UK get it. We want socialistic economic policies, hence a Labour government, paired with a more socially right-wing outlook. Most of us would be considered Social Democrats. We are against centralisation, either by Westminster or the EU. We want more local control and we believe tis would better drive economic success.

Basically this,

This trade-off – between the economic gains of global trade and the desire for local control over a country’s economy and markets – is what Harvard economist Dani Rodrik called “The Globalization Paradox.”

It leaves countries with essentially three choices:

1. They can reject globalization’s deeper integration and risk losing out on economic prosperity
2. They can simply cede control of large parts of their economic policy to prevailing international standards, risking the ire of their citizens
3. They can help shape globalization by joining and helping create the international organizations and agreements that set trade standards, giving up some control but having a seat at the table.

Brexit could spell the end of globalization, and the global prosperity that came with it (theconversation.com)

I stand reminded of why we call Brexit "chasing unicorns".

There isn't really any way to run with what you are saying. I am leaving this thread.

 

[Nakosis]

Brexit vote explained: poverty, low skills and lack of opportunities | JRF

• The poorest households, with incomes of less than £20,000 per year, were much more likely to support leaving the EU than the wealthiest households, as were the unemployed, people in low-skilled and manual occupations, people who feel that their financial situation has worsened, and those with no qualifications.
• Groups vulnerable to poverty were more likely to support Brexit. Age, income and education matter, though it is educational inequality that was the strongest driver. Other things being equal, support for leave was 30 percentage points higher among those with GCSE qualifications or below than it was for people with a degree. In contrast, support for leave was just 10 points higher among those on less than £20,000 per year than it was among those with incomes of more than £60,000 per year, and 20 points higher among those aged 65 than those aged 25.
• Support for Brexit varied not only between individuals but also between areas. People with all levels of qualifications were more likely to vote leave in low-skill areas compared with high-skill areas. However, this effect was stronger for the more highly qualified. In low-skilled communities the difference in support for leave between graduates and those with GCSEs was 20 points. In high-skilled communities it was over 40 points. In low-skill areas the proportion of A-level holders voting leave was closer to that of people with low-skills. In high-skill areas their vote was much more similar to graduates.
• Groups in Britain who have been ‘left behind’ by rapid economic change and feel cut adrift from the mainstream consensus were the most likely to support Brexit. These voters face a ‘double whammy’. While their lack of qualifications put them at a significant disadvantage in the modern economy, they are also being further marginalised in society by the lack of opportunities that faced in their low-skilled communities. This will make it extremely difficult for the left behind to adapt and prosper in future.

So, there was the group of "unskilled" labor who saw the EU as a threat to their livelihood?
Whereas those with higher education/desirable skill sets saw the EU as an opportunity to seek European employment opportunity?

I'd have different thinking. I don't like the idea of consolidating power.
The larger the government, the more global the goals. Some see this as good but then the needs/concerns of the individual often get overlooked.

Your government had a opportunity to fix some of these economic issues. Maybe the intent was there but when you start dealing with national issues, your goals simply change.

I don't look to national governments to fix economic issues, they usually just make things worse. Despite what they say, their interests are on the national/global level. Just the nature of big government.

 

[RestlessSoul]

One is reminded of the flight to "law and order" that gave the world Benito Mussolini.

Mussolini the revolutionary nationalist, precisely.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I take it that your social circles aren't all that fond of the Guardian, nor of Channel Four? Or even the Mirror?

Even the otherwise admirable BBC seems to have gone far out of its way in order to protect the perception of Brexit as a Worthy Thing, but there were exceptions even in the famously biased British media.

And then there are the YouTube media. Surely they are not censored in the UK?

Frankly, it wasn't all that hard to learn - from thousands of miles no less - how full of it Nigel Farage was, how delirious the JRM is, and how much the Tories have been toying with lies since at least 2019.

You don't get much of a personal perspective from thousands of miles away. And it's hard to empathise from there, with the emotions of human beings who see their communities ignored by policy makers who are similarly distant, both geographically and socially. Reading worthy articles in The Guardian, perhaps over an oat-milk latte in a fashionable urban cafe, doesn't quite capture the experience of walking past yet another boarded up shop in your local High Street.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Everyone around me lives worse off than they should? This is unmissable.


We saw those policies as being driven by both Westminster and the EU, which is why I'm against both. This is exactly what my OP is about. I'm just not sure those outside the UK get it. We want socialistic economic policies, hence a Labour government, paired with a more socially right-wing outlook. Most of us would be considered Social Democrats. We are against centralisation, either by Westminster or the EU. We want more local control and we believe this would better drive economic success.

Basically this,

This trade-off – between the economic gains of global trade and the desire for local control over a country’s economy and markets – is what Harvard economist Dani Rodrik called “The Globalization Paradox.”

It leaves countries with essentially three choices:

1. They can reject globalization’s deeper integration and risk losing out on economic prosperity
2. They can simply cede control of large parts of their economic policy to prevailing international standards, risking the ire of their citizens
3. They can help shape globalization by joining and helping create the international organizations and agreements that set trade standards, giving up some control but having a seat at the table.

Brexit could spell the end of globalization, and the global prosperity that came with it (theconversation.com)

That's a fact, but not evidence.
It's a fact that you live in an impoverished area,: one that is getting worse all the time. Evidence would include by what proven causal link the sinister 'globalization' has made your situation any worse, AND it would show that domestic policies are NOT the cause (which, in all likelihood, they are - evidenced by the fact that your region's situation has been going downhill for many years before the EU was even formed, and domestic British policies (and companies) are all that have led you down that slope).

It leaves countries with essentially three choices:

1. They can reject globalization’s deeper integration and risk losing out on economic prosperity
2. They can simply cede control of large parts of their economic policy to prevailing international standards, risking the ire of their citizens
3. They can help shape globalization by joining and helping create the international organizations and agreements that set trade standards, giving up some control but having a seat at the table.

Brexit could spell the end of globalization, and the global prosperity that came with it (theconversation.com)

.
Of the 3, only the third choice ever offered you hope for the future.
In years to come, when England is desperately trying to get back into the EU (as they're floundering economy will force them) ; they they will have a much smaller and weaker seat at the table.

Bottom line....you were tricked into voting against your best interests, with very few "winners", who, as usual, were billionaires to begin with.

 

[Flankerl]

Oh my Rival I'll never understand how you could fall for it.
Westminster always only cared about the south, specifically London.
Meanwhile rural England, all of Wales and Cornwall were sprinkled with new buildings that had plaques on them that said "paid for by the EU".

The EU was the reason money was poured into these regions that were abandoned by Westminster.

And so you rebelled against those who gave you something for some unicorn that those who've never cared about you suddenly will.
And why? Because you did what they wanted.


Well what is done is done. Try not to start a war in Ireland and let the Scots leave if they want to.

 

[Koldo]

Sure. But I am not seeing it here. Nor in Brazil's situation. Not exactly, anyway.

Don't you?
I am going to comment about this on your topic.

 

[Rival]

Bottom line....you were tricked into voting against your best interests, with very few "winners", who, as usual, were billionaires to begin with.

Again, this is what I am trying to emphasise.

We were not tricked into voting for anything. We looked and came to the conclusion to leave for ourselves, based on what we see around us and we decided this decades before the vote.

Why are folks finding this such a hard concept? I wrote this:

"But the bottom line is, even if there were no Brexit campaign at all, everyone I know who voted for Brexit would still have voted for it and voted Labour at the same time."

 

[Rival]

Oh my Rival I'll never understand how you could fall for it.
Westminster always only cared about the south, specifically London.
Meanwhile rural England, all of Wales and Cornwall were sprinkled with new buildings that had plaques on them that said "paid for by the EU".

The EU was the reason money was poured into these regions that were abandoned by Westminster.

And so you rebelled against those who gave you something for some unicorn that those who've never cared about you suddenly will.
And why? Because you did what they wanted.


Well what is done is done. Try not to start a war in Ireland and let the Scots leave if they want to.

I must admit, I never saw such a plaque. It's possibly because I live in a village and always have lived in villages and have never even been to cities like York or Leeds. I can't say I saw any development where I am, really. The EU sponsored educational and work programmes, but those were pretty middling. I grew up in a village of ~300 folks and our local town of ~20,000 folks, many unskilled workers who just float around both foreign and native, so that might add some perspective.

GB wants to be like the other Anglophone countries. I just can't grasp why this isn't possible.

 

[Rival]

You don't get much of a personal perspective from thousands of miles away. And it's hard to empathise from there, with the emotions of human beings who see their communities ignored by policy makers who are similarly distant, both geographically and socially. Reading worthy articles in The Guardian, perhaps over an oat-milk latte in a fashionable urban cafe, doesn't quite capture the experience of walking past yet another boarded up shop in your local High Street.

This captures it pretty well,

The focus groups confirm that the story of being “left behind” remains common in both the U.S. and UK. Participants highlighted the ways in which the forces of globalization left them rudderless, closing industries, leading people to abandon their homes and harming them economically. But the group conversations also reveal a narrative of being “swept up” by globalization. Those who are swept up experience dislocation because of too much attention from global forces – investment and new job creation supplant traditional work, inflate real estate prices and displace some people from their homes and communities. Stories of being left behind and swept up both lead to feelings of alienation and loss.

Given that people can feel dislocated whether they are left behind or swept up, what separates those who see globalization negatively from those who see it positively is how they perceive changes to their country, rather than their neighbourhood. Those who are more locally or nationally rooted tend to see globalization breaking down the national community and changing what it means to be part of the nation-state in ways they find disaffecting. In contrast, those who embrace globalization tend to focus on the ways in which globalization itself can create community – fostering new connections by breaking down boundaries between people to foster international cooperation and understanding.

In U.S. and UK, Globalization Leaves Some Feeling ‘Left Behind’ or ‘Swept Up’ | Pew Research Center