Brexit

[DaveP]

I agree that there have been benefits from being in the EU, clean beaches, common standards for manufactured goods and reduction of pesticide use etc.  However, there have been some very high profile legal cases where the European court has held up/delayed extraditions of radical preachers and undesirables, the public frustration from these events has far outweighed any perceived benefits.

There has been quite a lot of crime committed by migrants too, there was a recent case where an east European had murdered his wife, been let out early then came to the UK and murdered a young girl in broad daylight, he was later found hanged.  There has also been a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Asians (nothing to do with the EU), which has added to the overall desire to take back control of  UK borders, whatever the financial cost.  The refugee crisis last year was the final straw for the British public, you could not have manufactured a worse event if you tried, it tipped the result over the edge.

I think the EU has moved much too fast on enlargement, there has been too much change for populations to assimilate.  Having lived in France for several years now, I have noticed that it is a deeply conservative society that is averse to change, whether it be labour reform or immigration.  The rapid growth in support for Marine Le Pen is evidence of this.  Incidentally, I watched her getting a grilling on the the UK politics programme "Hard Talk".  She was extremely good at answering the questions and keeping her composure, a very accomplished politician, unlike Trump.  You have the same underlying discontent about the EU in France and Le Pen is picking up support from this demographic.

Ironically, I have just finished a history of WW2 written by Winston Churchill, in his final summing up, he said he could not wait for a United States of Europe to come into being!  Unfortunately, General De Gaulle's pride was so hurt by being beholden to the UK and USA during the war, that he blocked our membership at every turn after the war.  I wonder what would have happened if we had been in at the beginning?

DaveP

 

[sahib]

Personally, I think the entire referendum is and was a farce -- right from its announcement to the way it was campaigned and including the outcome.

Would you say the same if the outcome was IN?

It was about nothing but feelings, sentiments and most probably even ressentments -- but not about reality-checked policies.

Immigration played a big role in this.

Can you say that Europe had and in fact still has a "reality-checked" immigration policy?

It would have been interesting to see what people really 'feel' and 'think' about it all had the campaigning on both sides been more detailled, more fact-informed and speculatively future projective.

People had been expressing their feelings on immigration and OUT camp has capitalised on it well and won.

....Not being British myself, looking from the outside, the Brexit votum seems a purely sentiment-infused decision (much like: 'like potatoes' or 'don't like potatoes' -- no, actually it was more along the lines of 'tomatoes' than 'potatoes'). And that's why I think that it is most definitely not something that will be remembered as a 'highlight' in democracy or democratic processes.

Can you say that the entire IN voters based their decision on "unsentimental" reasons?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I agree that there have been benefits from being in the EU, clean beaches, common standards for manufactured goods and reduction of pesticide use etc.  However, there have been some very high profile legal cases where the European court has held up/delayed extraditions of radical preachers and undesirables, the public frustration from these events has far outweighed any perceived benefits.

I understand that, but the same public should question why these persons have been allowed by their government to preach hatred for more than 10 years., and, if they think these persons should be held in prison for life,  why their judges have , in essence, disagreed.

There has been quite a lot of crime committed by migrants too, there was a recent case where an east European had murdered his wife, been let out early then came to the UK and murdered a young girl in broad daylight, he was later found hanged.  There has also been a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Asians (nothing to do with the EU), which has added to the overall desire to take back control of  UK borders, whatever the financial cost.

There will always be crime, and when perpetrated by foreigners they seem more unbearable. If all migrants were extradited, the only benefit would be "100% of criminals are English". The less people in a country, the less crime, though.

The refugee crisis last year was the final straw for the British public, you could not have manufactured a worse event if you tried, it tipped the result over the edge.

Being, like you, on the wrong(?) side of the Channel, I wonder what the refugee crisis means for the English people. I don't think there's anything comparable to the Calais "jungle" and shanty towns near Paris in England.

I think the EU has moved much too fast on enlargement, there has been too much change for populations to assimilate.

I agree 100%. The reason being that merchants wanted to have the largest possible playground possible, causing a forced march to assimilation, not respecting the prerequisite of unified social environment.

 
Having lived in France for several years now, I have noticed that it is a deeply conservative society that is averse to change, whether it be labour reform or immigration.  The rapid growth in support for Marine Le Pen is evidence of this.

  You may find that it is effectively the case in the provinces, but not so much in Paris. National Front is well perceived in two social classes: retired bourgeoisie, as in many places in le Midi, and the working class that suffers of deindustrialisation. The former are the typical reactionary who think their values go down the drain, the latter are simply disgusted with traditional politicians, and are ready to vote for Le Pen, just for a change.

 
Incidentally, I watched her getting a grilling on the the UK politics programme "Hard Talk".  She was extremely good at answering the questions and keeping her composure, a very accomplished politician, unlike Trump.

That is very true, and embarassing; howevver, we're yet to see a plausible government program from the FN.

You have the same underlying discontent about the EU in France and Le Pen is picking up support from this demographic.

That is also very true, and worrying; my hope is that the situation in the UK shows leaving EU is not the way to go. After all, Brexit may prove beneficial to UK in the long run, but like any major change, it's the transient situation that makes victims.

Ironically, I have just finished a history of WW2 written by Winston Churchill, in his final summing up, he said he could not wait for a United States of Europe to come into being!  Unfortunately, General De Gaulle's pride was so hurt by being beholden to the UK and USA during the war, that he blocked our membership at every turn after the war. 

It seems a different view is expressed here
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/why-did-the-united-kingdom-not-join-the-european-union-when-it-started/
I don't think you can tax the King's College of "brit-bashing"...
The antagonism between WC and CdG is well-known; I'm not a fan of reading memoirs of politicians, but I suspect CdG's memoirs put the blame on WC.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thanks guys for the thoughtful discussion and insights we don't easily grasp overseas.

JR

 

[Script]

Would you say the same if the outcome was IN?

Yes, I would say absolutely the same thing. The referendum was a farce. The consequences (both OUT and IN), however, are not.

Immigration played a big role in this.

Yes, but the referendum was about much more than that.

Can you say that Europe had and in fact still has a "reality-checked" immigration policy?

No, the EU hadn't. And they still don't. However, there are far less people coming to the EU these days. And that has not much to do with the referendum in the UK.

People had been expressing their feelings on immigration and OUT camp has capitalised on it well and won.

Again, the referendum (and its consequences) was/is not only about immigration.

Can you say that the entire IN voters based their decision on "unsentimental" reasons?

No, they didn't. And neither did the other camp.

In Japan, they quickly formed a word for the overly emotional reaction after the big quake, tsumani and nuclear meltdowns in 2011. The word is 'OVER,' as in over-reaction/over-emotional (i.e. people panicking and getting hysterical). I think Britain has experienced a somewhat comparable moment of nation-wide OVER before voting in the referendum. In Britain it was OVER in terms of 'fear' versus 'jubilance' to the point of hysteria.

Similar thing happening right now with the presidential elections in the US. We don't hear chains of arguments any more. It's all slogans, polemics and smearing -- all way too emotional -- just OVER.

---------
Why was there hardly any serious discussion among politicians/experts 'before' the referendum? It's always the same.

 

[s2udio]

---------
Why was there hardly any serious discussion among politicians/experts 'before' the referendum? It's always the same.

Simple, they (the UK government) never thought the vote would go for brexit,
They had based  all the plans for  staying  in the EU, the chips were all on that bet.
Cameron was caught with his "pants down" and no belt to hold them up.
He called the peoples bluff, and it totaly backfired on him and the government.
Even the Leaver's were a little stunned.
Its not even started yet..........food price hikes, fuel price hikes....,and as always there is money to be made, by the
Unscrupulous large corperations ,and of course the bankers !
Just blame it on brexit.

 

[sahib]

And that has not much to do with the referendum in the UK.
Again, the referendum (and its consequences) was/is not only about immigration.

I did not say the immigration was the sole reason. I said it played a big part.

 

[leadbreath]

My lovely Chinese neighbor had someone knock on her door and tell her that  "Foreigners were not welcome here anymore" :'(

I would love whoever did that to come to my door and say that... 

This election has brought out the worst in people .

 

[Script]

I did not say the immigration was the sole reason. I said it played a big part.

I do not see where we disagree on this. Yes, immigration played a big role -- for many people, not for all though. The way I see it and the way it turned out, the ref was about at least four different things -- almost four referendums amalgamated into one:

(1) immigration
(2) economy, & access to markets
(3) EU membership
(4) bashing politicians

You couldn't cast a vote on one without the others. Yes, they do hang together, but why not try to untangle them.

Add to this national pride (in a positive sense).
Add social injustice (growing since Thatcherism).
Add corporate cronyism and criticism of capitalism
etc etc

IMO, it would have been better to have several referendums on issues at the same time (Yes/No) to give politicians (either those back then or others after general elections) a whole series of democratically backed guns to fire at several negotiation fronts. The referendum as held was not a gun armory, it was a powder barrel.

--------------------

Percentage of foreigners in 2007:
Switzerland: 22.9%
Germany: 12.3%
France: 10.7%
Netherlands: 10.1%
Great Britain: 9.1%

Don't have numbers by foreign nationalities though.
And not fully aware of the numbers in 2015/16.

 

[[silent:arts]]

Those numbers of foreigners are looking a bit high.

I know from different sources Germany is nearly hitting 10% now but have never been over it yet.

Some valid looking numbers from 2015:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266170/share-of-foreign-nationals-in-eu-member-states/

 

[mattiasNYC]

Those numbers of foreigners is looking a bit high.

I know from different sources Germany is nearly hitting 10% now but habe never been over it yet.

Some valid looking numbers from 2015:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266170/share-of-foreign-nationals-in-eu-member-states/

The problem with numbers like that is that they contain no parsing, no subsets. Similarly, terms are tossed around by those who want to "close the borders" without any concern for discernment of what they mean.

So in the case of these statistics we don't really know how many are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, (legal) foreign workers, foreigners living with a loved one (citizen), adopted children, refugees.... and so on.

It's no wonder hatred and distrust is spread when the arguments so easily shift from being concerned about a large amount of refugees that a nation is unable to take care of to "immigrants" in general to proving crime is statistically high in some groups. After all has been said people will feel like the only group that can be trusted is "us", "we" who are citizens and ethnically of this "nation". No distinction is made between any of those categories.

That's why you'll see 2nd generation (or older) immigrants be on the receiving end of xenophobia and hate, because there's absolutely no distinction in the end, because of this sloppy rhetoric.

 

[DaveP]

I can see from your post that you feel deeply for this subject, you may even have been on the wrong end of xenophobia yourself.

I know what it is like to be a foreigner in another country, I spent two years on voluntary projects in the Congo where a good percentage of the population were hostile to our presence,  mostly resulting from government propaganda.  We are also foreigners here in France but welcomed in this case.

The stated object of IS is to commit acts of terror to stir up hatred of Muslims in general and so attract more recruits, fortunately this has failed to come about, but there are certainly pockets of resentment in parts of most countries now.

In the UK, the problem has been the scale of immigration changing certain areas so that they no longer resemble what they once were.  The road where I grew up in the fifties was once completely white, I never saw an Asian until 1971 when the first family arrived, now all the white people have either died or moved and the entire town is now a Bangladeshi suburb.  I don't think that immigration was supposed to have that kind of outcome, not that governments ever seem to manage these results of their policies  any way.

I hope that things calm down again after IS has been eradicated, maybe next year if we are lucky.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

In the UK, the problem has been the scale of immigration changing certain areas so that they no longer resemble what they once were.  The road where I grew up in the fifties was once completely white, I never saw an Asian until 1971 when the first family arrived, now all the white people have either died or moved and the entire town is now a Bangladeshi suburb.  I don't think that immigration was supposed to have that kind of outcome, not that governments ever seem to manage these results of their policies  any way.

I understand what you're saying and you're neither alone in that view nor is it local to England. But it does beg the question: So what? So what if "certain areas" "no longer resemble what they once were" and thus are no longer "completely white"?

Before you respond I admit that the way I phrased that question, meaning the way I quoted you, makes it seem as if I'm putting your words in the worst possible light. But the reason I did that is to point the question where it needs to go in my opinion. All of this really does have a lot to do not only with culture but also race. In a much longer perspective most of us are immigrants one way or another. In some cases ancestors indeed did settle unpopulated areas, but in a lot of cases that didn't happen. In a lot of cases it wasn't just mingling with the locals but even exterminating them.

So it's not without a sense of irony some people (not you) decry immigration because of all the problems it causes yet still refuse to acknowledge their ancestors immigration as having been problematic with the excuse that we're all just being too "PC" about it all (i.e. Columbus day etc)....

Anyway, like I said, the larger question is "So what if our society changes? Is it really for the worse or are people just xenophobic to a much larger degree than we care to admit?" (and by "xenophobic" I mean people that look or seem different, so to a Brit a Dane wouldn't be much of a problem, nor a Venezuelan to an Ecuadorian....etc)

 

[DaveP]

Obviously as you say, areas do not have to remain exclusively white, a small scattering of other races adds vibrancy and interest to an area and promotes cultural understanding.

But it should equally be obvious that entire areas being changed culturally leads to resentment and the attitudes expressed via Brexit.  To feel a stranger in your own town or area is not something that is sufficiently covered by saying "so what".  Many people have affection for the area that they grew up in, if you can't appreciate that then you will not be able to see their side of the story.

DaveP

 

[Phrazemaster]

Both Dave and Mattias you have valid points. It's hard not to sound racist but the simple fact is we all tend to like things a certain way.

Said another way, we hate change. I see both opinions as valid and actually just expressions of preference.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Things change. The world changes. It's in constant progress as all species evolve and move around.

I would like to think what we want to do is progress in the best way possible rather than dig our heels into the ground trying to resist change, since change is coming no matter what.

In this case I think the options aren't as clear as people want to make them seem. The point of no return has already been past in a lot of European countries, and this division along "cultural" lines, or, rather, along ethnic, tribal and racial lines, won't hold for that long. People continuously get over that nonsense and start dating and mating across those lines. The only real way to "protect" the current status will be truly horrible measures (which doesn't mean Brexit).

 

[Script]

Not to forget that Brooklyn NY and Boston UK are simply not comparable.
The former is a huge melting pot, the latter (next to most countryside UK) is cute flower pots.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Not to forget that Brooklyn NY and Boston UK are simply not comparable.
The former is a huge melting pot, the latter (next to most countryside UK) is cute flower pots.

Of course that's the case. "Brooklyn" however is a Dutch name, and hints at the problems with white European immigration.... well, depending on who we ask of course, which is the point.

 

[micaddict]

"Brooklyn" however is a Dutch name,

Yup, as is Harlem.

 

[ruffrecords]

There is a myth about the EU that needs to be corrected if the single market/free movement of persons debate is to be reconciled. The original Common Market treaty (of Rome) provided only for free movement of labour, not persons. In fact, the treaty only allowed movement  to accept offers of employment actually made. It still does,  but those words were interpreted to mean a worker could look for a job as well for a limited period. The economic case for free movement  relates only to workers. Free movement of persons goes beyond economics, which is why the EEC became the EC. Access to the market therefore need not extend to unlimited free movement of people.

(quote by Dr Christopher Whelan, University of Oxford)

Cheers

Ian