It is constantly shocking to me that no matter how many times and where in the west people vote against immigration (which is what most of these votes boil down to), they can never get it.<p>It's truly a crown in the gutter moment where you can be completely off-the-wall nuts (vide AfD) and, if you're just willing to campaign on anti-immigration, your ranks will instantly swell. Yet the establishment is somehow completely incapable or unwilling to capitalize/capture this.
Because the establishment knows how integral to the economy immigration is and because it isn't that easy to stop even for an island. Unless you want to shut down tourism and trade.
Based on what data?<p>The immigration we're talking about, the one of Africans etc. immigrants flooding west, is destructive to the economies based on pretty much every statistic I've seen.<p>Those immigrants are on welfare in disproportional numbers compared to native population.<p>E.g. in US 72% Somalis are on welfare and the same stats are in West Europe.<p>They cost the state gigantic amount of money.<p>And per-capita crime stats are so bad that governments are hiding them from public.<p>This is all documented by government's own statistics and reasonably well reported.<p>Immigration COULD be a net positive to the economy IF it was managed properly but it isn't and it isn't.<p>Tourism isn't immigration and I don't see what trade has to do with it.
Stopping is a long way from "actively encouraging it and calling racist everybody who disagree" (and actively hide horrific stuff like the rape gangs).
The transition from Nationalism to Globalism and back to Nationalism (rather, a more broad iteration of it) cannot be achieved with micro revolutions like what we see in the US.
The real problem is the uneducated masses who buy the propaganda that immigration is the issue they should care about the most.
the anti-immigration right in Denmark was successful because they were data-driven and could show that unskilled non-Western immigration was a net negative even by 3rd generation.<p>the American and German far-right by contrast seem to be the polar opposite of data-driven. No the lazy 'IQ by country' maps don't count.
Nicholas Taleb has a great article about this - <a href="https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-world-in-which-we-live-7255aad3e18c" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-world-in-which-we-live-7255a...</a>
But they do meaningfully try to address this.<p>Almost every country in the west is tightening it's system. In the UK claiming ILR will take a significantly longer period of lawful residence, and a shorter time will require you to meet a high income threshold. It is nearly impossible to get PR in Canada now unless you are fluent in both English and French and have a PhD or several years of canadian work experience. The bar has also gone up in Australia too.<p>The reason why this doesn't seem to move the needle on the anti-immigration vote is because the folks on that side can always just move the goalposts and be the "true" anti-immigrant party. I believe these days Reform UK wants cancel all ILRs and start actively deporting long term residents who don't meet an ever raising bar. Its madness.
I assume it's economically catastrophic to cut off the supply of young, low-wage labour and that's why no responsible government will ever do it.
This would be a good explanation but most of these immigrants, especially from outside the EU, are not net contributors.<p>vide <a href="https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20211218_EUC232.png" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...</a><p>from <a href="https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-turned-against-immigration" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t...</a><p>And I highly doubt other governments don't have similar calculations or aren't aware of them.
That Economist stat often gets misunderstood. It is "net contribution to public finances" (= how much taxes do they pay), not "net contribution to the economy". This is because they are overly represented in low wage jobs, or indeed on longterm welfare. People in the lowest tax brackets pay very little of it.<p>I do agree that there needs to be a honest conversation about what (economic) immigrants offer vs. what they cost, but it needs to be done properly.<p>We <i>will</i> need immigrants because we are below 2.1 in Total Fertility Rate. But, the EU doesn't need to be the comfy life raft of the world as it has been for the past 2-3 decades.
<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6938108633c7ace9c4a41e42/The_Fiscal_Impact_of_Immigration_Final__1_.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6938108633c7a...</a><p><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/10daa0e9-d57b-4ccd-9bdc-87d321283398" rel="nofollow">https://www.ft.com/content/10daa0e9-d57b-4ccd-9bdc-87d321283...</a>
...but Brits voted against EU immigrants.
Yeah, what I am saying is that these votes, regardless of their formal content, are usually an expression of general anti-immigrant sentiment.<p>Like voting for AfD. I doubt many people look at this organization and its leaders to conclude that "ah, here is the talent I would love to have running my country." They're merely the only available option against. Same with brexit.
Because Poles and Romanians are "other" enough to be hated... Ironically Britain had then to "import" people from Asia, Africa to e.g. work in the hospitals.<p>The foreigner-hate is so short-sighted. Your underpaid hospital worker, house cleaner, fruit picker, taxi driver, UberEats delivery is usually foreign, they don't mind working the exploitative conditions because for them the money is much better than home, providing you with affordable fruits, taxis and delivery (until the rent-seeking corporations want even more than 30%...). Get rid of them, and you'll have to pay living wages for your fruits and delivery. Heh, Westerners, still wanting to enjoy the fruits of colonization.<p>(Yeah the solution shouldn't be to continue allowing the exploitation, probably a better wealth distribution, but hey, why are you looking at my wallet, look at Elon's wallet!)
Bingo. Just like wanting to leave the EU was self destructive cutting off immigration is as well. The US is in the process of trying to hobble its own economy right now.
If that’s indeed the case, how do you explain the lack of catastrophe in Japans economy ?<p>Japans big catastrophe happened in 1990 with the bubble bursting, but that was years before the peak in working age population. Since then, the economy has not improved much but also has remained somehow stable.
That’s funny in light of one of our Canadian governments (Alberta) recently calling for a referendum on immigration levels, with the government claiming immigration levels are too high to support the housing, economic and social needs of the sheer quantity of people coming in. Seems like the government is trying to be responsible by making sure the social welfare system can still support people as it was designed
This is because of massive unchecked corruption. In the UK this has become multibillion per year industry where connected landlords / agencies get lucrative contracts from Home Office for keeping immigrants in their properties and then you have complete supply chains developed around this where each entity skims money.<p>There are billboards where offers of guaranteed rents are advertised etc.
[flagged]
The UK is such a trap for professionals. It's one of the worst places in the developed world for living standards of white-collar professionals, except a tiny slice of finance workers in London. Especially bad for engineers, and has been for a long time.
No surprise, you had to be over the age of 39 before you were more likely to vote for Brexit.<p>By the time we got around to implementing it enough old people had died off that the vote would have gone the other way already.
Regardless of the value of Brexit, people tend to be biased against things that have happened or are around them when things are bad.<p>Like when people are against a president if the economy isn't doing well, regardless of if the alternative candidate would've been better.<p>This also isn't an issue thats being campaigned on. If there was another vote to join the EU, and people got flooded with anti-eu messaging specifically targeted at the demographic, I'd bet that number would drop.
The EU always has been a scapegoat for incompetent politicians. Now the EU is out of the picture, there’s no-one left to blame. And we can clearly see that the EU, for all its faults, is a very beneficial institution for all involved.
People may agree or disagree on Brexit. But my god your sentence sums up what is happening in the UK, without anyone to blame, whether it is Russia, China, US or EU, UK have simply failed to strategically plan or execute on anything.<p>And there are plenty of people on HN would say otherwise and say UK is fine.
> when people are against a president if the economy isn't doing well, regardless<p><i>Sortez les sortants...</i>
Yep, there's a lot of (continuing) economical damage and still a lot of new immigrants every week.
I think some time still needs to pass before Brexit politicians dare to change their stance, now confronted with the results of their choice.
In the mean time, Brexit rules are <i>quietly</i> being undone without losing face too much. See the EU-UK trade deals from May 2025.
Been reading a lot of novels set during the golden years of the British Empire. It is both amazing and terrifying how far a country can fall in less than a century… which for some lucky people is a single lifetime.
65+ is the only age group in which >50% still believe Brexit was a good choice.
I'm way below that age group but I feel Brexit was a good choice long term. It gives more autonomy and the EU was a spanner in the works. Unfortunately (1) the politicians had to "lie" about getting the voters onboard (2) the politicians had a sour culture to start with, it's not going to fix itself with or without the EU, but without the EU you have a better chance.<p>Short/medium term though - and I think the voters should have understood this, you'll struggle a bit. But after about 15-20 years the UK will be fine. You just have to suffer a bit now. Look at the big picture.
That's great, only like a generation of people having to suffer and struggle from say age 20 to 40 so that their masters can attempt to be a superpower.
Help me understand your thinking. I was very against Brexit (and still am). What is there to be gained, in your opinion?<p>In my view, you traded being one of the leading voices in what is increasingly shaping up to be one of the world's superpowers for being a somewhat isolated middle power, nostalgic for its former glory.<p>Why would that be worth it?
UK did <i>not</i> need the EU for trade agreements. Those can be set up separately. There were a number of examples where the UK kept losing control, and instead having the EU try to determine the direction.<p>This led to loss in sovereignty and freedom. Sadly though it doesn't seem like the UK politicians are taking advantage of this (regulatory, laws, borders, immigrations etc) just yet, but at least now it's possible.<p>My point is: How can you become a superpower again if your foot is chained to a sluggish red tape monster like the EU? Even Norway recently learned that the EEA is not fully respected by the EU (ferroalloy imports).<p>I think you - and seemingly most others, are focusing on the short term downsides and negative economic impact.<p>But that would have happened regardless. Now it's up to the UK to try to increase productivity again, and only then Brexit will make sense. As mentioned, this will take 15 years at minimum.
The Red Tape <i>is</i> the super power. From India to Mercosur, from Canada to Japan, the world follows rules <i>we write</i>.<p>You gave up the ability to dictate the rules. You'll still have to follow them.
Institutions like the EU are hard to build. It's easy to leave or destroy an institution. Much harder to reform or improve it.<p>The idea that we should have free trade and movement within Europe is not bad. Even unified regulation, etc.<p>Otherwise, we'll never have to scale to be competitive in the world.<p>The regulation could be better, less red tape. But that's always the case, everywhere.<p>But at the end of the day there isn't going to be an alternative to the EU in Europe. So it's better to remain in, and try to improve (yes, this is hard and slow).<p>The alternative is nothing, maybe a few remote trading partners, but physical proximity matters if you want industrial integration/growth.
> This led to loss in sovereignty and freedom<p>I think you need to expand on this into some kind of actual, tangible result, this is just feelings. And even for feelings, it's nonsense - before Brexit my kids could legally move and work anywhere in the EU, how are they more free now?
> It gives more autonomy and the EU was a spanner in the works<p>And yet the biggest trading partner now dictates the standards, now without any UK input.
The cohort least likely to vote.
And the cohort most likely to vote well when they do.<p>The 18 year olds who vote less but vote for good parties are doing good, overall. The 60 year olds voting Tory their whole lives - not so much.<p>It's very easy to blame the young for all the problems earlier generations created and exacerbated. Not too wise though.
Who defines what voting well is? Or what a good party is?<p>The observed damage that the UK has inflicted to itself has been caused so far by all the parties that have been in power.
Voting in ways that genuinely serve their interests, perhaps?<p>Voting in an educated manner?<p>Voting for candidates and policies that will help people overall, rather than those that will hurt people overall, just so that they can hurt Those People?
> <i>And the cohort most likely to vote well when they do</i><p>Eh, this is far from a given. Mao's Red Guards were passionate idiots. And America's young men are in thrall of Clavicular.<p>The most powerful empires in history have had large rebublics at their cores for good reason. The wisdom of a crowd greatly increases with its diversity.
Yes, although there was notably a much higher turnout from this cohort in the elections when Jeremy Corbyn was labour party leader (although still lower turnout than other age demographics). I'd expect a similar effect for Zack Polanski in the next election.
It was pretty stacked by age even during the vote to leave.<p>Unfortunately the UK has a voting cohort that is both large and willing to screw over subsequent generations.
I was too young to vote in the referendum. I’m incredibly angry about having lost freedom of movement. If the UK by some miracle rejoins the EU I will make the jump to Europe the very same day. Still looking for a way out in the meantime.<p>The UK just keeps kicking young people down. The boomers voting against our interests are whipping us into working to pay for their triple locked pensions.
> Still looking for a way out in the meantime.<p>Have you got an ancestor that was born in Canada? [1]<p>It sounds like that a child of a "red coat" born on the lands that would become Canada is sufficient... [2]<p>[1]: [Heads Up: Canadian Genealogy is about to get VERY popular!](<a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/Genealogy/comments/1qqkzte/heads_up_canadian_genealogy_is_about_to_get_very/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/Genealogy/comments/1qqkzte/heads_up...</a>)<p>> On December 15, 2025 Canada enacted "Bill C-3", granting citizenship to people born before Dec. 15, 2025 with ANY level of Canadian ancestry they can document. (It used to be a "first generation limit")<p>[2]: <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/Genealogy/comments/1qqkzte/heads_up_canadian_genealogy_is_about_to_get_very/o2hxc1y/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/Genealogy/comments/1qqkzte/heads_up...</a><p>> ancestors domiciled in the former colony of Newfoundland are still considered as Canadian born or naturalized for the purpose of citizenship by descent.
> December 15, 2025 Canada enacted "Bill C-3", granting citizenship to people born before Dec. 15, 2025 with ANY level of Canadian ancestry they can document. (It used to be a "first generation limit")<p>This is misleading.<p>Outside the first generation, the Canadian parent must have spent 3 years cumulatively in Canada prior to the birth, otherwise the child will not be a citizen. That's not a threshold you're likely to meet with a few holiday trips here and there.<p><a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2025/12/bill-c-3-an-act-to-amend-the-citizenship-act-2025-comes-into-effect.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ne...</a>
Unfortunately not, but thank you.
You have a way out... you are allowed to live and work in Ireland. Stay there for a few years (I forget how many) and apply for an Irish ( = EU) passport
Yes, it’s a path I have considered/am considering, but it’s a 5 year commitment. I’m in my mid 20s and want to be able to travel without worrying if my residency application will be jeopardised.<p>The years where I want the freedom of movement the most will have passed by then.
I tried to vote, by post, as I lived in the EU.<p>The ballot paper arrived the day before the vote.<p>It was impossible to return it in time, and indeed, when I checked, my vote had arrived too late and was not counted.
Worth mentioning that 16-year-olds will be able to vote in the next general election. Hopefully they will use that vote.
Freedom of movement applies to the territory of a country [1]. Sorry you learned the hard way. Historically you get rights when you pick up a service weapon. Everything else is privilege granted by others.<p>[1]: Gilbert, Nomadic Peoples and Human Rights (2014), p. 73: "Freedom of movement within a country encompasses both the right to travel freely within the territory of the State and the right to relocate oneself and to choose one's place of residence".
What makes you believe you have lost freedom of movement, I’ve met British people all over Europe. If I can meet a Russian living in Switzerland in Amsterdam and a British couple that took the ferry from the island, why are you not free to “move”?<p>On a related note; do you enjoy what America is right now? Because centralizing power and handing your country’s (American states are/were/should be essentially countries) sovereignty and self/determination to Brussels is how you get this, become the US of Europe, the next iteration in the centralized war machine of the psychopathic, narcissistic parasitic ruling class. When you lack diversity through separate, unique, district, and sovereign countries where people have oversight and control and can push back against horrible ideas and actions, you end up like us.<p>I’ve always found it unfortunate that the EU did not become a legitimate, constitutional form of the USA like it was before the Civil War that created this centralized authoritarian fake federal state that we know today. It would have been awe inspiring and really could have become the example for the rest of the world. Instead, the current version of the EU is strangling the whole continent.<p>The EU is right now talking about becoming a great military force to fight Russia. That’s the kind of movement you’re advocating for, my friend.<p>You think young people are kept down now, wait till they’re laying in some muddy battlefield as chopped meat or hiding from drone swarm or hypersonic missile attacks on their cities due to the belligerence of the EU aristocrats with no clothes.
That is one of the most idiotic things I have read. Obviously it's not impossible to travel for them anymore, but freedom of movement referred clearly to the rights of free movement between EU States as a citizen for Work, Education, Travel and Business<p>Obviously they can still travel to Europe, but they will need an ETIAS Visa Waiver in the future, instead of just going, they can't move for work and studying just as easy without applying for Visa/Permits and they don't have the same rights and access to services as Citizens of a country.
<i>>separate, unique, district, and sovereign countries that can push back against horrible ideas and actions, you end up like us.</i><p>The separate, unique sovereign countries are the ones with the horrible ideas and actions. See Victor Orban's Hungary. The whole point is to not let some goulash mussolini control European affairs.<p><i>> The EU is right now talking about becoming a great military force to fight Russia. That’s the kind of movement you’re advocating for, my friend.</i><p>Would you rather... <i>not be able to fight Russia?</i> It's not like the EU is the one with the invasion plans and threats, they're just preparing for the changing world order.
>What makes you believe you have lost freedom of movement<p>Uh, the fact that I cannot stay in Europe for more than 90 days in a 180 day period without a visa?
As for all that other rubbish, every European city I’ve been to lives better than the people where I live in London. That’s proof enough for me that the EU is working.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
No public healthcare for you and for those you love and care about.<p>Keep paying Thameswater so their execs get bonuses while their pipes leak and destroy roads
IIRC, only education outranked age in predicting how likely you were to vote leave. In short, the younger and more intelligent you were, the more likely you were to vote remain.<p>Looks like today's youth continues that trend.
[flagged]
im laughing out loud about your definition of politics as an abstract thing that is related to feelings instead of being literally something related to a concrete things that has to do with people working and surviving. The reason you are describing is political, its just materialistic political not idealistic political
Obvious LLM comment, so are the other recent ones.
Hmm, is it? Why do you think? I'm not saying it ain't so, but I wonder what signs I'm missing. I couldn't smell this one. Probably because, fundamentally, I find myself agreeing with it. I'm sure this contributes to me be being somewhat tone deaf.
He probably got triggered by those dashes. The comment lacks other obvious LLM clues, like its not just this but also that.
Looking up about Erasmus+ it didn't start until a year after Brexit finally took place, so it can't be really called a loss.
> "not just X; it's Y"<p>...is a typical tell-tale cadence in the current breed of LLMs.<p>The tell-tale signs change over time, but this one is very obvious.
American em-dashes to start ...
I think the idea I see here that young = modern = pro-EU and old = anti-EU by ignorance is a gross oversimplification which doesn't stand.<p>I personally was very pro-EU in my youth and deeply soured as I knew more and more to the point I'm staunchly against nowadays.<p>It started in 2005 with the referendum result being ignored. Then 2012 came with the shambolic management of the Greek crisis, something even the IMF points as ineffective. Then I was paid to put in place the Green Taxonomy and I saw how unready and dumb the whole thing was. Then there was the rejection of the Draghi report which made lose hope.<p>I find the mix of the euro being a deeply unfair currency union strongly advantaging Germany at the expense of the periphery, the fact that Germany keeps playing on it and amplifying the effect in direct violation of the treaty and yet always get a hall pass and their holier than though attitude despite being basically free loaders completely impossible to tolerate.<p>The 2019 CEP study showed it well. The union costs billions of GDP to France and Italy to give a minor advantage to the German. It's a dogmatic straight jacket managed by priests with zero actual economic understanding and serving the interests of a big mercantilist using development funds to shore up its tributaries in the east and still managing to gradually lose relevance as it can't even manage having a proper strategy despite the advantages, and a few fiscal parasites around it.<p>At 36, I deeply wish from my country to be free of the monster than the union has become and deeply ressent being a prisoner of a monetary union which intentionally didn't plan an exit path. And for what? Surrendering the ability to make law to the citizen of other countries who share neither my language, nor my culture, clearly don't have the same vision of the future than us and wants to force us into their ineffective model? No, thanks. No GDP gains or alleged diplomatic weight is worth this debasement.<p>I don't understand Brexiters because being out of the euros they had the best of both worlds but I respect their desire to be truly sovereign and free from the constant Germanic hegemonic push.<p>Edit:Lots of downvotes, very few counterarguments. I'm guessing facing the tensions at the heart of the project makes some of you frankly uncomfortable.
source: a UK public service broadcaster poll........
Many may change position when they grow up<p>Also young people always blame last gen for whatever, so expects -8 ~ 0 years old would vote for exit again…