EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

^^Good luck finding the utopia you're subscribed to.

If that was addressed to me, I haven't subscribed to any utopia.

There are issues, and those issues are real. They can be tackled, we can identify the underlying cause and address those things, or we can ignore those and do superficial other things.

Immigration is not going to be stopped by Brexit. Because ultimately, we're not willing to put guns on borders.

This is a good thing. But the question is, what then do we do? Either you make it work for you, or it works against you.

I don't see anyone currently trying to make immigration work for the country. Which is unfortunate, for a country that has always historically benefited greatly from the numerous waves of mass immigration that have happened.

Where do all these people work? Not just the immigrants but the whole population.
The knowledge economy?
Healthcare?
Manual labour?
Making things?

What?

Not sure anyone is going to be able to answer that unless you can qualify "these people" such that stats can be looked up.

I do not agree there are only two options.

Option 3 is to provide good living standards for people where they are. The world is not large enough for every human to be migratory.

The world is huge.

It's massive.

But if we don't want migration, we should really stop bombing the hell out of other people's countries, we really should stop externalising the costs of globalisation to other countries just so that we can enjoy the profits of that in our country.

In a way, you've just described a policy so far left-wing and unrealistic that even I don't go there... a form of global communism.

It's not going to happen, and we (the UK) enjoys the profits of a global capitalist system far too much to want to really care about anyone other than ourselves. The very policies that help us have good lives (and to pay for lovely bicycles) are the same policies that harm other countries.

For us to enjoy our profits and wealth, immigration is the price.

And again... what are you going to do? Stand at the border with a gun? Because we have no political or economic motivation to provide good living standards for people where they are, and those people are already moving in huge numbers.

This may be of interest to some people:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/

I mean "everyone" who is in the UK/EU.

People need jobs / money/ houses etc

I mean, if people are moving to the UK EU, where are all the jobs for those already and those who are moving here? What investment is necessary to provide decent opportunities for everyone?

Spain has an interesting problem right now. There is a high unemployment rate and also a large number of jobs unfilled and offering rather eyewatering salaries (tech jobs in Spain are currently offering more than tech jobs in the City of London).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-01/spain-is-running-out-of-workers-with-almost-5-million-unemployed

The issue there is that the home population, the younger generation, is unskilled for the current marketplace. There is unemployment and there are jobs, but the Venn diagram does not show a great deal of overlap between the two and the unemployed remain out of work whilst the jobs remain unfulfilled.

Education is the single biggest thing needed across the whole of the EU, but it is really desperately needed in the places currently showing the highest unemployment rates. Jobs are there, but the jobs don't match the skills of the people in those areas who have historically plied different trades than the ones offering jobs today.

Related to this, the free movement of labour can hurt the countries which people are leaving as those with skills and knowledge are the ones to go.

This isn't strictly an international issue though. I think there is a good chance that the migration of those who have the skills or knowledge to do well ultimately negatively impacts the culture and politics of the places they leave. Perhaps the rise of the far right in Poland, Northern England, and East Germany can all be tied to this to an extent.

@Señor_Bear didn't exclude the working classes of the migrant's states did he?

I know many Hungarians (here in the uk) who were vocal about Tesco's expansion into their home country. The free market gave the British company a green light to first decimate local independent retailing there, then the wages.

Nationalism though, is basically never helpful IMHO.

This is an interesting multi-faceted debate and in every way we're all right and all wrong. As long as we debate it in good spirit then all ok.

^This is the sort of diplomacy that could get us all fat-cat salaries working in the Hague.

+1 for good spirit.

It has been a long time since I have felt so strongly and oppositely to so many people on any subject.

Singer is very good imho very precise.

He has a book to on doing good.

Weirdly enough IT is in part trying to tackle it's own skill shortage.

Not going to say it's saintly with jobs moving to cheaper areas too...but it creates ideas perhaps all sectors can use?

It's not really my field, but the philosophy of cosmopolitanism is worth reflecting on in this discussion.

(although I consider myself a philosophical cosmopolitan).

I'm not saying you shouldn't care for others - I'm saying you shouldn't choose who you care for on the basis of nationality. The people I care about are my family and friends - I want them to live in a successful society so by extension I care about that too. I would like that society to operate on the basis of the progressive values I ascribe.

In my team I have six people, three of whom are Spanish, one of whom is French, one of whom is British and born in Nigeria, and one of whom is white British. They are all wonderful people. Why should I prefer others over them on a quirk of birth?

I don't think the PIGS nations have ever had full employment. The mechanisation of their agricutural sectors will have made virtual unemployment, sons/daughters of small scale farmers with little monetary reward, a Government statistic.

The UK agricultural sector has relied upon the free movement of labour to pick produce for generations, the local 'working class' has always seen it as beneath them.

Where does stopping of 'freedom of movement' stop. London has always been a magnet for those who wish to escape provincial backwaters?

The EU has done more for the UK regions than UK Governments since we began the Trickledown experiment in 1979. Contrast the Thatcher regime policy of 'managed decline' for Liverpool with EU Objective One investment for areas with less than 75% of the EU average GDP/income.

@Oliver Schick would rep for the Billy Bragg quote.

You can accept it happens, and figure out how to make it work for you (or the country)
You can pick up a gun and line a border and kill those who cross a line

I'm not joking on that second one, because if a million people really do turn up at your border and keep walking towards your armed guards... either you don't shoot and they walk past, or you've got to be willing to shoot.

The modern world isn't willing to shoot.

This isn't quite true. You only need to build a border function that exceeds the collective will of a determined migrant population to overcome it within the ability of the resources available to them.

As a comparatively remote island nation we have a distinct advantage here. Crossing the Alboran or Aegean Seas in a small boat is one thing, crossing the English Channel is a completely different prospect. So we won't have a million people turning up at our borders because there's a throttle function through assorted fixed points of entry. The necessity for an armed response at border points is basically non existent. It would only require a change in how those points of entry are managed to reduce unauthorised immigration to a negligible level. Guns would only be necessary in circumstances under which we wouldn't normally be willing to use guns/lethal force in a law enforcement scenario.

I do agree with you on how we should approach immigration. However, we could isolate ourselves pretty easily without resorting to drawing a line in the sand.

One of the failings of cosmopolitanism is the 'bleeding-heart liberal' assumption that everyone who voted Brexit did so out of some deep economic suffering and dislocation.

Can someone explain to me how the English thugs who took it upon themselves to smash up Marseille whilst chanting 'Fuck of Europe, we're all voting out' paid for their flights, match tickets, accommodation, skinful of lager and Stone Island clobber?

I'm just putting it out there that maybe most of the people who voted Brexit don't really have it that tough - they did it for reasons of cultural nationalism. We 'liberal metropolitan elite' are all desperate to avoid that conclusion though.

You can't cite an extreme group of dickheads and then lazily align them with the 17m out voters.

This statistic is a bit depressing. 29% of all tax intake comes out of London.

As much as brexit was about taking control of our own country I strongly believe that it means giving even more control to the banks as an independent Britain can't afford to lose the banking sector.

I don't think we're that desperate. However, the economic suffering and dislocation is a far easier and more palatable to deal with than cultural nationalism. If we go out and lift people up to a better standard of living then we get to play out an internal version of the white saviour trope. If we go out and try to tackle ignorance, ingrained racism and bigotry then we're just getting into a knife fight in a phone box.

I'm not sure I follow. A cosmopolitan is more likely to be critical of the "Fuck Europe" and "cultural nationalism" crowd than most.

Can someone explain to me how the English thugs who took it upon themselves to smash up Marseille whilst chanting 'Fuck of Europe, we're all voting out' paid for their flights, match tickets, accommodation, skinful of lager and Stone Island clobber?

This is bad thinking.

The poor waste their money on useless things, be it Stone Island clothing, or Timberland boots, or 50" flat screen TVs.

They waste their money (and opportunities) because they live without hope of ever experiencing a different set of circumstances. They earn enough to get through a month and have a little pocket money, but not enough to think of the future, a pension, a house, the large ticket items. As their small disposable income barely sustains a decent present they seek consolation in what it can buy... and through widely available consumer credit a lot appears affordable when it is not, they can get the flat screen, the trip to a foreign football match, the booze... and pay it off over a long period of time.

It is precisely because they have no future, no hope, no decent income, that they can piss away what little they have on ostentatious but ultimately pointless things.