It was populist dissatisfaction with immigration that was displaced onto the EU. Misplaced populism. Populism is the idea that the common man is being abused by the political elites, but if that's the case, and immigration (especially of muslims) was the major issue, the common man took aim at the wrong targets.
Says who? The EU was pushing for MORE immigration to the UK not less. If the target was immigration, and to a large extent it was then it was pretty much right on target.
Of course the EU will still trade with the UK, but the UK now has less influence on EU policy and still has to negotiate deals with the EU externally. That's an inherently weaker position. Also why would financial services for the EU continue to headquarter in London if there's any barrier to negotiation there? Supposedly they are
already preparing to shift some of their operations.
They won't and even if they did out of pure spite, who cares? The Financial sector provides virtually no benefit to the local economy. Its the same absurd arguments that made around sports teams or Olympic games. The financial sector pushes a lot of money around and pays taxes on almost none of it. When the financial sector largely relocated to London from New York because of legal changes it made absolutely no economic difference to New York at all despite all the empty rhetoric. The only reason for these firms to relocate would be if London/UK started actually cracking down on them the way New York did, which is in and of itself an inevitability.
I'm looking for practical policy instead of empty rhetoric. Some idea of how the economic approach and immigration approach will now differ... there's nothing.
That is utterly unreasonable on day one. These things need to be negotiated. I don't even think there will turn out to be much difference at all. I suspect what will happen is that the UK government (that was strongly opposed to leaving) will simply negotiate a "separate" agreement with the EU (that were opposed to the UK leaving) that is basically the same agreement in all but name and apparent flavor.
I don't think in a situation like this its even possible to serve the will of the people when every institution of government and media is against them, short of an armed murderous revolution.
The EU didn't set the UK's immigration policy to any great extent. Displacing immigration anxiety on the EU was misplacing the blame. The economic and immigration policies leading to their current migrant situation were entirely British, and they aren't in any better position to negotiate them from outside the EU.
This is simply not true. The EU allowed millions of immigrants in, gave them free passage throughout the EU, and were in the process of doing it again and increasing the numbers. The UK government was complicit and trying to dissolve the national ethnic identity (according to their own documentation, this was the stated goal) but the EU made it functionally impossible to stop immigration.
They made a vote about an economic union into a vote about immigration. They didn't offer solutions to the economic changes they were advocating, or the dissatisfaction with immigration they identified. Personally I thought the Brits were unlikely to vote for that sort of demagoguery. I don't see how it was the right choice, because I don't see any path to improvement being offered.
The EU is more then an economic union. Far more in fact and they are headed towards a US style system with rapid moves towards further integration. That type of integration isn't good for any of its participants.
Yes, I'm familiar with the ideas. I'm on the Prometheus Awards mailing list and have been reading Libertarian fantasies for decades. It's not usually the tech I find unconvincing.
I also already know of plenty of small, independent communities (some of which have been living off the grid for decades). Spent years in one myself. None of them really provided a viable model for global society though.
I think you misunderstand me. I am not talking the viability of such an isolated community, I am talking about the efficiency. Living in cities isn't particularly efficient. It certainly has its benefits, but the only thing that really makes it truly viable is the economic advantages of this clustering. Take this away and there are many reasons to believe that a population dispersal might happen. Its one possibility, I was bringing up, not really musing on any isolationist fantasy.
Between the freedom of being in the EU and out? I don't believe you. There's clear differences in freedom between living in Singapore and living in Australia, between the UK in the EU and out?
They made a vote about the European economic union into a vote about immigration, offering a "freedom" from an immigration policy that the EU hadn't set, and which they haven't even actually promised to address. That's marketing through and through, and Lynton Crosby pulled the same trick here. Conflating immigration and a "Stop the Boats" campaign on the small number of refugees coming here each year by boat.
No I am talking about the freedom of living in the society I grew up in, and the society that exists now in exactly the same place. There is a difference, a huge one, on virtually every level.
First off a vote about immigration is to a large extent a vote on economics. The economic impact of a immigrant flood is pretty damn substantial. Second populist catch phrases are the same as any other catch phrases, they are often poor representations of the reality of a position, they are jingoistic by nature and provocative when effective.
Your position seems to reflective of the popular rhetoric, why do this? its bad for the UK. But there is no more substance to the notion that its bad for the UK then there is that it is good for the UK.
Functionally the UK traded some of their sovereignty for a seat at the EU table. The EU became more draconian, the UK economy continued to degrade, and the population shift accelerated. Some of that was on bad leadership in the UK, some of it on the EU. But to suggest that he UK had benefited from the relationship with the EU would be essentially impossible to prove because it just isn't true.
Thus, the UK is giving away their seat at the table in order retake the sovereignty they gave up. Right now, nobody knows exactly how things will shake down. But it could go either way and I am guessing it will be a tiny positive.
