'Australia had both a points based system and higher levels of immigration, an argument which has been repeated since. But this is entirely because Australia sets the points required to enter the country very low.'
It's LONG past time that pommies stopped using Australia's 'points-based system' as an example of a desirable immigration regime. I've even heard hard rightists--ie people far to the right of Farage--talk positively of it. It's always been a managerial figleaf to increase third-world immigration. Nobody in Australia ever talks about it in the positive; *for once* the Australian electorate wasn't suckered--not that this rare exhibition of mistrust has so far led to a serious reaction though; Australians are very politically unsophisticated.
'Nor were the ‘Labour Leavers’ and ‘Shire Brexiteers’ motivated by protectionism.'
My impression from pub discussions is that this is true. What they were concerned about was quality of life--noisy Romanians, surly Poles, thieving Gypsies. It really was a vote against E European immigration. I don't think many ordinary people even thought about the possibility that immigration from elsewhere would increase. Yet it was pretty obvious well before Brexit was officially accomplished that the elite would converge on exactly this fix.
'Gove infamously claimed at the start of the referendum campaign that ‘one thing which won’t change is our ability to trade freely with Europe’. He wouldn’t have done this if he felt he was trying to win over supporters of autarky. Nor would the supporters of autarky or protectionism have come out to vote Leave having heard messages like this consistently throughout the campaign.'
I fear this reveals too touching a faith in democracy. Seems to me more like 'narrative-seeding'/nudging. Even if there had been lots of autarchs among Brexit voters, I wouldn't have expected the elite to acknowledge them.
eh maybe I was a bit reductive. I also heard a lot of people from both left and centre talking about money--dispropotionate contributions to EU, sheer waste etc--as well as sovereignty.
But I'm not British and don't live there now. I accept of course on principle that you as an Englishman would know better than I by dint of experience and 'feel'.
I stand firm on mischief of 'points-based immigration' though.
Gud piece!
'Australia had both a points based system and higher levels of immigration, an argument which has been repeated since. But this is entirely because Australia sets the points required to enter the country very low.'
It's LONG past time that pommies stopped using Australia's 'points-based system' as an example of a desirable immigration regime. I've even heard hard rightists--ie people far to the right of Farage--talk positively of it. It's always been a managerial figleaf to increase third-world immigration. Nobody in Australia ever talks about it in the positive; *for once* the Australian electorate wasn't suckered--not that this rare exhibition of mistrust has so far led to a serious reaction though; Australians are very politically unsophisticated.
'Nor were the ‘Labour Leavers’ and ‘Shire Brexiteers’ motivated by protectionism.'
My impression from pub discussions is that this is true. What they were concerned about was quality of life--noisy Romanians, surly Poles, thieving Gypsies. It really was a vote against E European immigration. I don't think many ordinary people even thought about the possibility that immigration from elsewhere would increase. Yet it was pretty obvious well before Brexit was officially accomplished that the elite would converge on exactly this fix.
'Gove infamously claimed at the start of the referendum campaign that ‘one thing which won’t change is our ability to trade freely with Europe’. He wouldn’t have done this if he felt he was trying to win over supporters of autarky. Nor would the supporters of autarky or protectionism have come out to vote Leave having heard messages like this consistently throughout the campaign.'
I fear this reveals too touching a faith in democracy. Seems to me more like 'narrative-seeding'/nudging. Even if there had been lots of autarchs among Brexit voters, I wouldn't have expected the elite to acknowledge them.
I disagree with these objections for the reasons I raise in the article, but I think they're judgement calls, so there's no use in arguing.
Sure ok
eh maybe I was a bit reductive. I also heard a lot of people from both left and centre talking about money--dispropotionate contributions to EU, sheer waste etc--as well as sovereignty.
But I'm not British and don't live there now. I accept of course on principle that you as an Englishman would know better than I by dint of experience and 'feel'.
I stand firm on mischief of 'points-based immigration' though.