It's a mix. A lot of people voted that way for economic reasons BUT they think those problems are caused by 'foreigners taking our jobs'. A lot of people I saw interviewed were also trying to protect jobs that are unsustainable or wanted protection from competition. People who voted economically were thinking sort-term. A lot of people in their 50's who want to protect their job and don't want to retrain.

>protect jobs that are unsustainable or wanted protection from competition

A) Everybody wants protection from competition. Where do you think profits come from? There's no shame in wanting protection, especially not as the social safety net is hollowed out. If they were not subjected to austerian measures / offshoring in the heartlands the "remain" vote probably would have won.

B) The same economists who are absolutely certain that these people's jobs are unsustainable are the same economists who pushed for offshoring and were completely blindsided by the financial crisis in 2008. The experts thing rang true because economists have no credibility left any more.

In fact, the only economist I know of who actually saw 2008 coming wanted brexit (though not for economic reasons).

Leave won because of a variety of factors, including economics, racism/xenophobia, misinformation, youth apathy, belief that protest vote wouldn't win, so on and so forth. There isn't a single main reason it won, and it barely won anyway (and probably wouldn't have won if all voters showed)

And also that the highest court should be in the UK, often overlooked but main reason for many (sovereignty).

The ones you mentioned were irrelevant to me and a lot of people I know.

I watched in dismay a few years ago at the prospect of Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), it was delayed as a result of this referendum - it would practically a disaster for the City of London and nothing the UK could do to stop it, despite parliament having control of the law.

I would say it not just inequality. It's inequality combined with a job market that has been in a gridlock in Europe since the financial crisis causing people outside of the experienced urban population to be unemployed or underemployed.

Overly tight money from the ECB and too low inflation is destroying the young and the rural's career prospects (this will go on until the baby boom retires) and is forcing them to fund boomers' retirements even if they were excluded from good careers for so long.

Even though the UK doesn't use the Euro, it is close enough to be impacted by its mismanagement.

More thoughts here: http://bessiambre.tumblr.com/post/146561613022/the-euro-make...

Well, it's the cause of the symptoms that many people took to be caused by migration, globalisation and federalism.

For me, it was that the ECJ could overrule the UK parliament, the implications were too grandiose for the meagre 9.7% (and decreasing ever since the 1970s) representation to represent. Simple as that.

Also Trump in November

Not following US politics, so honest question: is Trump campaigning against income inequality?

> is Trump campaigning against income inequality?

You can't really answer the question "what are Trump's positions", because he contradicts himself all the time.

Trump has had the most inconsistent campaign I could ever imagine. You name a political position, and he's had it. He's been pro-choice, except he also wants to punish women who have had abortions. He's been pro-gay, except now he's not. He wants to stop getting into wars overseas, except he also says he wants to increase military funding and engagements. He's advocated single-payer healthcare, but he wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a "free-market insurance system".

The only thing that he's been pretty clear about the whole time is that he wants to "build a wall". (Though you could even argue he's been inconsistent on his immigration position in other ways).

It goes something like: He's anti free-trade -> outsourcing stole your paycheck/politicians trying to screw you -> income inequality

That is not a causal chain that Trump has campaigned on.

Yes it is. The people are not complaining about income inequality directly. They are complaining about jobs and wages. Increase those two and suddenly income inequality becomes less of an issues because people have enough to live on.

relevant username. I doubt he'll win the general election though. But it wont be an easy win for Hillary imo.

Careful. We also doubted the Brexit would win and the chavs used that to fuck us over.

So 51% of people in the UK are chavs?

Well racism and xenophobia are often products of income inequality. Its what happens when you pair poor education with poor living standards. Your judgement becomes based on emotions that can be easily swayed by a political class ready to point the finger at anyone but themselves. Hitler's opportunity wasn't that germany was racist, but rather the brutal socioeconomic conditions of the weimar republic. One thing though makes way for the other.

The sad thing is that brexit wont do a single thing to diminish austerity. On the contrary its the people who voted out who will be affected the most.