What you said was probably meant as a joke, but it may be true.
Women working cannot be the answer: poor women work more than rich women, and have more kids anyway. Women having access to contraceptives isn’t the answer: I’ve lived in sub-Saharan Africa where birth rates are high, and contraceptives are abundant, cheap, and promoted everywhere: they choose to have children anyway. Low birth rates correlate not with contraceptives or labour market participation, but with wealth. And wealth buys nice entertainment systems.
Yes, comments do have a habit of becoming UnSeen on UnHerd.
Peter KE
3 years ago
This article seems to focus on immigration as being the main divide between remain and leave. The were in fact many other issues such as sovereignty, removing the dead hand of eu bureaucracy and uk bureaucracy, economic etc.
I don’t think immigration as such was a massive or key issue, the idea that it was and is, used by remainers who seem unable to adjust their way of thinking, as an *illegitmate* reason that appeals to thickos.
Like any ‘issue’ anyone wants to mention there are ‘worries’ around that can be pointed to. But the problem is , to my mind, best approached by David Goodhart’s anywheres and somewheres idea..or to be more polemical somewheres and nowheres.
One question that hasn’t been really addressed in all the sterotyping and Gammonising is that the cohort that in 1975 delivered a @70/30% win for staying the EEC went massively against the EU in 2016.
Pretending people just get thicker, or more racist, or whatever as they get older is easy..and it must be what remainers have persuaded themselves is the explanation…I prefer to think it is the power of lived experience, and the change of many minds has more to do with the progression from *Community* to *Union* in Europe.
Adrian Smith
3 years ago
This article has been written on the entirely false premise that the right voted leave and the left voted remain. The fact is the issue cut across those traditional political boundaries.
I voted leave. I have no issues with immigration from any country as long as the tap can be controlled to meet the economic circumstances of the time – a growing economy need more people. I don’t care what colour or religion immigrants are as long as they are prepared to obey our laws and contribute positively to our society. Filipino care workers, yes please Romanian drug dealers no thanks.
D Glover
3 years ago
‘ironically, as it turns out, since the new trade deal will almost certainly mean more Turkish immigration than would have been allowed if we were in the EU’
I’m not sure this is the correct use of ‘ironically’.
It’s an example of Boris promising people one thing, and doing the opposite once their votes were in.
Indeed. A majority of the UK population don’t want immigration to continue at current levels, and want it greatly reduced. The political class clearly aren’t listening and don’t care.
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Given the “wholesomeness” of female promiscuity, “woman’s right to control her own body”, and the ready availability of the means, “child support”, absent a formal partnership contract, needs to be abolished. Equally, since it is purely a matter of private individual and/or contractual “choice”, it must also entail the assumption of the liability; and, state subsidies for reproduction, and tax benefits for dependants need to be abolished.
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
“The edgiest the official Vote Leave campaign ever got were the notorious adverts warning about Turks coming here’ ironically, as it turns out, since the new trade deal will almost certainly mean more Turkish immigration than would have been allowed if we were in the EU.” Ed’s taste for irony seems to run ahead of the facts. Turkey is the 13th largest economy in the world, just behind Italy, and closer to the UK than any larger economy that is not a member of the EU, so in this sense it is a logical country to pursue an FTA with. The new trade deal wouldn’t mean anything for Turkish immigration according to the link he provides. The FTA is one agreement, and there is another agreement being negotiated that is “a visa scheme pact for Turkish businesspeople predating Britain joining the EU”. This sounds similar to the provisions in the new USMCA allowing movement of technical personnel between countries when connected with international trade. If so, these people are not immigrants. They remain citizens of their own countries, and their temporary right of residence does not give them a right to become citizens. If this is not the case, perhaps Ed should explain. In any case, these are two agreements, and the FTA might well go forward without the visa agreement. Our Foreign Affairs Minister at the time, Chrystia Freeland, was looking for expanded access of Canadian workers to the rest of North America in the negotiations of a new NAFTA, which almost all economists agreed would be to our economic benefit, but, as was her wont, she was unable to do so, and the provisions in the USMCA are essentially unchanged from the NAFTA. I don’t know if the visa scheme pact would have the same kind of benefits for the UK. Canada and the US are very similar countries, Turkey and the UK not so much.
Thank you AB, for a factual exposition. I finished reading this article with the thought – this is nothing but, hyperbolic rhetoric. Ergo an exploitation of figures and facts, due to the author experiencing a moment of mischevious ‘malice’. Disappointing; but perhaps revelatory. A brief indication of the absence of any ‘real’ or genuine understanding to the essential differences between Leave and Remain voters. Short answer: Remainers, e.g. Soubry et al, emphasised the enormous, historical ‘Class’ divide and self-identified ‘elitism’, which still exists in the UK (most specifically in England) – ‘we insist you vote for us, if you know what’s good for you, even though you are uninformed, racist and nothing but ‘Little Englanders’.
Amstel Light
3 years ago
what a chaotic piece..
Robin Bury
3 years ago
Perhaps the referendum was the mistake. The ramifications of leaving the EU are too vast and complex for a plebiscite. So media propaganda won the referendum a la Boris and his Cummings team. Promises of increased wealth may well turn into a severe economic downturn so the economists seem to agree now.
Leti Bermejo
3 years ago
Back in 1997 it would have seemed ridiculous that the Conservatives would become the party of the working class,
Get real folks, in 2020 it STILL seems ridiculous. No hay nada más tonto que un obrero votando a la derecha as we say in españa.
Not at all, it’s just history repeating itself like in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher’s government came to power on the back of the working class vote. Everything that goes around comes around, so they say.
A great mass of unproved assumptions.
The “jaw dropping” drop in fertility can be explained by better TV programming, especially into the wee hours.
What you said was probably meant as a joke, but it may be true.
Women working cannot be the answer: poor women work more than rich women, and have more kids anyway. Women having access to contraceptives isn’t the answer: I’ve lived in sub-Saharan Africa where birth rates are high, and contraceptives are abundant, cheap, and promoted everywhere: they choose to have children anyway. Low birth rates correlate not with contraceptives or labour market participation, but with wealth. And wealth buys nice entertainment systems.
What happened to all the other comments ?
This site isn’t called unheard without a reason
It’s called UnHerd, or hadn’t you noticed?
Please disable your irony- blocker
Yes, comments do have a habit of becoming UnSeen on UnHerd.
This article seems to focus on immigration as being the main divide between remain and leave. The were in fact many other issues such as sovereignty, removing the dead hand of eu bureaucracy and uk bureaucracy, economic etc.
I don’t think immigration as such was a massive or key issue, the idea that it was and is, used by remainers who seem unable to adjust their way of thinking, as an *illegitmate* reason that appeals to thickos.
Like any ‘issue’ anyone wants to mention there are ‘worries’ around that can be pointed to. But the problem is , to my mind, best approached by David Goodhart’s anywheres and somewheres idea..or to be more polemical somewheres and nowheres.
One question that hasn’t been really addressed in all the sterotyping and Gammonising is that the cohort that in 1975 delivered a @70/30% win for staying the EEC went massively against the EU in 2016.
Pretending people just get thicker, or more racist, or whatever as they get older is easy..and it must be what remainers have persuaded themselves is the explanation…I prefer to think it is the power of lived experience, and the change of many minds has more to do with the progression from *Community* to *Union* in Europe.
This article has been written on the entirely false premise that the right voted leave and the left voted remain. The fact is the issue cut across those traditional political boundaries.
I voted leave. I have no issues with immigration from any country as long as the tap can be controlled to meet the economic circumstances of the time – a growing economy need more people. I don’t care what colour or religion immigrants are as long as they are prepared to obey our laws and contribute positively to our society. Filipino care workers, yes please Romanian drug dealers no thanks.
‘ironically, as it turns out, since the new trade deal will almost certainly mean more Turkish immigration than would have been allowed if we were in the EU’
I’m not sure this is the correct use of ‘ironically’.
It’s an example of Boris promising people one thing, and doing the opposite once their votes were in.
Indeed.
A majority of the UK population don’t want immigration to continue at current levels, and want it greatly reduced.
The political class clearly aren’t listening and don’t care.
Given the “wholesomeness” of female promiscuity, “woman’s right to control her own body”, and the ready availability of the means, “child support”, absent a formal partnership contract, needs to be abolished. Equally, since it is purely a matter of private individual and/or contractual “choice”, it must also entail the assumption of the liability; and, state subsidies for reproduction, and tax benefits for dependants need to be abolished.
“The edgiest the official Vote Leave campaign ever got were the notorious adverts warning about Turks coming here’ ironically, as it turns out, since the new trade deal will almost certainly mean more Turkish immigration than would have been allowed if we were in the EU.” Ed’s taste for irony seems to run ahead of the facts. Turkey is the 13th largest economy in the world, just behind Italy, and closer to the UK than any larger economy that is not a member of the EU, so in this sense it is a logical country to pursue an FTA with. The new trade deal wouldn’t mean anything for Turkish immigration according to the link he provides. The FTA is one agreement, and there is another agreement being negotiated that is “a visa scheme pact for Turkish businesspeople predating Britain joining the EU”. This sounds similar to the provisions in the new USMCA allowing movement of technical personnel between countries when connected with international trade. If so, these people are not immigrants. They remain citizens of their own countries, and their temporary right of residence does not give them a right to become citizens. If this is not the case, perhaps Ed should explain. In any case, these are two agreements, and the FTA might well go forward without the visa agreement. Our Foreign Affairs Minister at the time, Chrystia Freeland, was looking for expanded access of Canadian workers to the rest of North America in the negotiations of a new NAFTA, which almost all economists agreed would be to our economic benefit, but, as was her wont, she was unable to do so, and the provisions in the USMCA are essentially unchanged from the NAFTA. I don’t know if the visa scheme pact would have the same kind of benefits for the UK. Canada and the US are very similar countries, Turkey and the UK not so much.
Thank you AB, for a factual exposition. I finished reading this article with the thought – this is nothing but, hyperbolic rhetoric. Ergo an exploitation of figures and facts, due to the author experiencing a moment of mischevious ‘malice’. Disappointing; but perhaps revelatory. A brief indication of the absence of any ‘real’ or genuine understanding to the essential differences between Leave and Remain voters. Short answer: Remainers, e.g. Soubry et al, emphasised the enormous, historical ‘Class’ divide and self-identified ‘elitism’, which still exists in the UK (most specifically in England) – ‘we insist you vote for us, if you know what’s good for you, even though you are uninformed, racist and nothing but ‘Little Englanders’.
what a chaotic piece..
Perhaps the referendum was the mistake. The ramifications of leaving the EU are too vast and complex for a plebiscite. So media propaganda won the referendum a la Boris and his Cummings team. Promises of increased wealth may well turn into a severe economic downturn so the economists seem to agree now.
Get real folks, in 2020 it STILL seems ridiculous. No hay nada más tonto que un obrero votando a la derecha as we say in españa.
Not at all, it’s just history repeating itself like in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher’s government came to power on the back of the working class vote. Everything that goes around comes around, so they say.