If I can play devil’s advocate for a second:

Maybe the UK’s working welfare system can’t cater for all of Europe’s economic refugees plus the middle east’s conflict refugees.

For a representation of a labour market + immigration free-for-all, at least in theory, I invite you to live in Brussels for 12 months.

Dilapidated infrastructure, abandonment by national population, high levels of petty crime and a de-facto skills test where regardless of who you are and how well educated you’ll fail a job interview if you don’t speak both fluent French and Dutch. A simple way to keep the _good office jobs_ for the locals.

That is once you jump through the many bureaucratic hoops-on-fire

> Maybe the UK’s working welfare system can’t cater for all of Europe’s economic refugees

Which European economic refugees did you have in mind? The ones that live on benefits while simultaneously stealing local jobs?

> you’ll fail a job interview if you don’t speak both fluent French and Dutch.

That seems entirely reasonable in a country that speaks French and Dutch. Try getting an Engineering job in the US without speaking English. Even in low skill retail you need to speak Spanish, English, or both preferably.

Yes it does. If, and only if, the Belgians themselves spoke both languages fluently. A large proportion doesn’t. Mostly the business language is English. No such obligation is required in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Mostly because knowing only one European language well is not a big impediment.

I work in IT in the Netherlands where you can get away with only English, but I'd say if you don't speak Dutch in English and are not in a highly sought after profession such as software engineering then you're out of luck for 99% of the jobs.

I know three different people who lived in the Netherlands for multiple years whose Dutch is basically good enough to order a beer. Loads of people work office jobs for companies whose EMEA HQ is in Amsterdam. Most of the population of Amsterdam wasn't born in the Netherlands. Given how easy it is to live in the Netherlands speaking English it's honestly amazing so many foreigners do end up learning Dutch.

> Maybe the UK’s working welfare system can’t cater for all of Europe’s economic refugees

The first time that I read about this argument in relation with the support to the Brexit I was a bit surprised.

Do you guys really believe in that? Massive amount of people from Germany, France, Italy, Belgium or Spain demanding refuge from those extremely damaged countries, and requesting support from UK?

But I must note something. Where I live I actually see in the hospitals (in medium and big cities) queues of lots British refugees looking for a better health care. If you take the train in those places you will not listen the local language, but only some Cockney variation of English.

> The British had something precious until not long ago: a working welfare state, a welcoming society, and an influx of enthusiastic citizens from all across the EU. It’s sad that they are throwing it all away.

The British have many more precious things that that.

They also have a rule of law determined by the BRITISH (NOT Brussels), responsive and accountable government (even though of course trade offs must always be made), and still have enthusiastic citizens from around the world banging at the door wanting to get in. As well as a dynamic and capable population of natives willing to bear the costs and risks of really changing their society in the 21st century. And they are still a welcoming society, them feeling they are in control again will make them more welcoming, not less.

People counting out the UK yet are being very premature. There will certainly be economic pain from this and likely other costs, but there are potential big benefits too. Brexit is a story that will play out over the next 10-20-50-100 years, not just the next 5-10. Would not surprise me at all to find the UK a wealthy more developed nation than Germany by 2050.

Even when you look at the Boris Johnson Cabinet, the ideas and intent that is emanating from there is very promising. No more "we can't do this because Brussels" or "nothing can be done". Real thought into how to make the UK remain relevant in the 21st century on its own terms, real efforts into how to improve the country.

This isn't the End of History. This is the end of the insular old folks home the EU is at danger of becoming.

I assume these tradeoffs you're thinking of might be proroguing parliament for political intent, purging anyone Cummings can't dominate from the cabinet, withdrawing the whip from anyone wanting to vote their conscience, attacking the independence of the judiciary any time it finds the government has acted illegally, and expelling journalists from the lobby for unfavourable coverage? It's a pity such tradeoffs are inevitable (if you exclude all previous governments from both sides of politics).

Snark aside, I think your comment is a useful example of a kind of patriotic (or dislike of international orders in general) motivated reasoning. Is the population of natives (perhaps citizens/residents would have fewer negative connotations?) really willing to bear costs and risks? It's a bit hard to know when there's been so much noise on the potential financial upsides/downsides of leaving the EU. Will people become more welcoming when freedom of movement is ended or does insularity have other costs? These are hard questions with difficult answers and patriotic optimism is no substitute. I'm certainly not prepared for you to assert anything about the cabinet being promising without proper justification.

All in all, I hope you're right. As far as I can tell the evidence is against you, but people survive falls from aeroplanes so stranger things have happened.

> All in all, I hope you're right. As far as I can tell the evidence is against you, but people survive falls from aeroplanes so stranger things have happened.

How in earth can you say the evidence is against that view? The U.K. is the most successful country in the history of the world, and it achieved all of it without the EU. The U.K. has an established track record of success without the EU. It’s the EU that lacks any antecedent historical evidence of long term viability.

Maybe your point is that, in modern times, you need to be part of an “international order” to be prosperous. Australia, Canada, and Japan are stark counter examples—they’re richer than nearly every EU country and have achieved that without ceding sovereignty to an international body.

I'm sorry but if you think Australia is rich without America's defense budget you have some serious rethinking about geopolitics that you need to do.

> The U.K. is the most successful country in the history of the world, and it achieved all of it without the EU.

You might be too young to remember, but before joining the EU, the UK was something of a failed state. It had to go cap in hand to the IMF begging for handouts, the rubbish was piling up on the streets, and so on. Look up the Winter of Discontent.

Brexit not a choice between the British Empire or the EU, it is a choice for being run by Johnson’s SPADs rather than a sane government.

>Is the population of natives (perhaps citizens/residents would have fewer negative connotations?) really willing to bear costs and risks?

86% of the current population of the UK was born there. The overwhelming majority voted for the current Tory government and as such, for Brexit.

So therefore yes, I believe the natives are likely to bear the costs and risks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the...

Only 42% voted for Tories, while more than 50% voted for parties endorsing a 2nd referendum. So much for “the overwhelming majority voted for Tories”.

I don't know where this idea that brexit has fundamentally changed british society, it hasn't, all it has shown is that the entire country is still polarized by class and political leaning. The two party state still exists, or perhaps one party state by the current looks of things, a broken FPTP voting system still in use. The undemocratic house of lords still lives and monarchy that uses celebrity style PR to justify their existence by attributing all tourism revenue to their existence. The welfare of this welfare state slowly decaying away.

Leaving the EU won't stop the twilight years for a generation of people that want things the way they never will be the same again.

The FPTP system is designed to result in strong goverments with working majorities.

I'm not so sure the system would really work if we had proportional representation, each government would have a questionable mandate and every decision would end up a compromise between coalition partners.

In the EU you can't really argue it has worked out, the lions share of the budget and regulations goes towards agricultural policies biased towards industrial french farmers and crops that operate in a much different environment than the countryside found in other nations. France and Germany bully the commission, and if the EU wants to take big decisions or persue a different direction it needs the consent of all 27 members, impossible!

I know this is changing with the loss of vetos and qualified majority voting, but don't kid yourselves that it's democracy. Your vote is meaningless. It would be better in my mind to enrich a benevolent dictator than to pin your hopes on a commission and parliament susceptible to lobbying and corruption. It is already clear to many they do not act in the interests of the European populace.

Hopefully it will die, and something better will form from its ashes.

But if you represent part of the society that is entirely against said strong governments policies which directly affects you, relations, or your morals and ideals - you don't want strong governments to have unmitigated power.

But instead people end up voting for a party just because its the only one that can beat "the other", not because it actually represents their ideology. All the talk of freedom and sovereignty goes out the window when we concede that our only practical options are limited by the ruling system and not stifled by a foreign entity.

A meaningless vote to me is one that only counts for one and only one possible option in a vast sea of them. That's what PR and STV address better than FPTP in a democracy.

Bigger unions in the world are forming not dying and the UK will get eaten up by one of them or remain a secluded island of funneling suspect finances, it won't be the one pushing its weight around other big unions, it's the empire mentality that hasn't been shaken off and the sooner it fades the better decision making by the national government and people.

> Would not surprise me at all to find the UK a wealthy more developed nation than Germany by 2050.

It's also not unlikely the UK constitutes just England and Wales at that point.

What do you mean you wouldn't be able to? From the linked article, you can get 50 points by having a job offer, having the job at a relevant skill level, and speaking English. You can get another 20 points from earning more than 25k GBP a year, which is 2k GBP a month. That brings you to 70.

Are you unable to fulfill any of the above? Or are you saying that the criteria is onerous for the average immigrant? If so, would be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

That was my thought: I studied a PhD in the UK and left several years ago (I am not form the EU).

Looking at this point system seems that it will be easier for me to get into the UK:

- STEM PHD (Comp. Sci) 20 - More than 25 GBP (I would look for a Sr./Tech Lead or managerial position) 20 - English speaking (well... I did write a PhD thesis in English so I try my best haha) 10 - Job at appropriate skill level: That reads subjective but I assume it will be easy to confirm 20 - Job in Shortage Occupation: 2136 Programmers and software development professionals: 20

So it seems that I would cover the 70 points even without a job offer. Now I only need to find the right company.

I guess I "like" this system because it looks skewed towards people with my profile.

My post was about the weird feeling of walking down a path and shortly afterwards seeing it carried away by a sudden landslide. I took steps and lived my life without realising that the ground was about to shift just under where my feet had been.

Nowadays, if I wanted, I would be able to move to the UK as well. Would I do it? Probably not. It’s sad, but I wouldn't want to go back to a place that is becoming more and more unwelcoming.

His issue might be that he works remotely. Those points are probably only valid if you're employed in a UK company.

Exactly. There won’t be a route for self-employed workers either.

> The British had something precious until not long ago: a working welfare state, a welcoming society, and an influx of enthusiastic citizens from all across the EU. It’s sad that they are throwing it all away.

That’s a breathtakingly arrogant assertion. The UK and it’s constituent countries have a 2,000 year history. England invented parliamentary government—it eased gently into democracy several hundred years ago, whereas on most of the continent, democracy had to be achieved through violent revolution. Much of the EU didn’t even achieve democracy until the 20th century. It invented many of the concepts of legal rights that are encoded in law across the world. Many countries around the world have language in their constitutions that traces its origins back to the 800 year old Magna Carta. Countries that use British law account for 40% of world GDP. English speaking countries account for a quarter of the world’s GDP. The EU is a tiny blip in British history.

"It eased gently into democracy several hundred years ago"? It's a shame it didn't extend that courtesy to my homeland, Ireland—we were one of those countries that had to wrest democracy through violent revolution, except it was from the British state. As someone who's great-grandfather was lynched by British soliders, I'll thank you not to whitewash your state as a benevolent beacon of democracy and human rights.

I didn’t say it was benevolent, I said it was successful. That said, it has done better by its former colonies than pretty much any other world power. I’m Bangladeshi (married to an American whose family immigrated Ireland). My respect for Britain is a bit grudging at best. But let’s be real—both Bangladesh and Ireland have benefited from British language, institutions, law, and culture.

>> But let’s be real—both Bangladesh and Ireland have benefited from British language, institutions, law, and culture

Well you cannot check out the alternate world where this didn't happen.

How can you be a proponent of democracy at home and still be a colonialist ? To give an example of this British schizophrenia, John Stuart Mill, who wrote On Liberty, worked for the EIC for 35 years. I am still trying to understand how he would reconcile this with what he wrote.

"I am still trying to understand"

Please be encouraged to continue trying to understand and resist falling into the easier binary explanation currently popular in politics. History is your guide.

I agree, and I am not trying to judge him here (who am i!). All you can do is try to understand them through the things they have written.

I understand one can hold conflicting ideas knowingly or without realizing the contradiction between them. Or may be you don't have an option because it is the only game in town.

We see this analogue in our own times, people support freedom yet work on mass surveillance technologies/companies willingly. Do they not understand where it leads ? or just ignore it, or shrug helplessly.

>both Bangladesh and Ireland have benefited from British language, institutions, law, and culture.

You must be joking. If you look at historical share of world GDP, or (most strikingly in the case of Ireland) historical population, you get a very good picture of the 'benefits' of english institutions. Ireland has still not recovered to the pre-british occupation population levels.

Ireland was part of the domain of the English crown for 800 years. There is no way that the current Irish population is below that of 1169 when Strongbow invaded. At the time Ireland's only cities were those founded by the Vikings and they were by any modern standard towns. The rest of the island was mostly pastoral. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Irish history would know that.

It also enslaved almost half of the world.

" a working welfare state, a welcoming society, and an influx of enthusiastic citizens from all across the EU."

? The welfare state is not really changing, why would this be part of your point?

? The UK is always among the most welcoming nation in Europe to new migrants. The ideology betraying 'Brexit' as somehow implying the UK is toxic to others is false, people keeping saying this but the data says the exact opposite.

Various Pew Surveys concerning attitudes towards migrants put the UK always within the top couple of nations with respect to tolerance on various issues. [1] Literally, the UK is one of the countries least likely to want 'fewer migrants' (this is 2018) [2].

Here's some more data [3]

Also, for example, the mayor of London is Muslim, and up until last week, the #2 most powerful person in the UK was Muslim, the #3 most powerful person is a woman of Indian heritage. There's been very little fuss over that.

So I think it's basically inconsistent with reality to lament the UK as somehow 'unwelcome' especially relative to most EU nations (almost all of E. and S. Europe) which are borderline hostile.

? EU citizens will be able to come to the UK, but now that it's not a part of the EU, obviously, there'll be some kind of paperwork required. If you have an education, a specific job, or you marry your partner etc. I suggest it won't be that hard.

Finally, I would say that odds are even the UK gives more points to EU citizens after trade negotiations than they do people of other nations. Within about 2 years it will be easier for EU citizens than others.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/05/12/chapter-3-most...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/19/europeans-cred...

[3] https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...

> Also, for example, the mayor of London is Muslim, and up until last week, the #2 most powerful person in the UK was Muslim, the #3 most powerful person is a woman of Indian heritage. There's been very little fuss over that.

And since last week the #2 is a man of Indian ethnicity. There is a quite decent chance that the first non-white PM of a major European country will be a Tory in post-Brexit Britain. (Certainly, it’s the most likely to happen in the U.K. Meanwhile, what are the odds of say an Algerian PM in France or a Turkish PM in Germany?)

They have had some serious economic stagnation problems for more than a decade now that were and are increasingly spreading their resources ever thinner. Their welfare state isn't working because they're eroding per capita economically.

Zero net economic growth for 13 years (16 years with any inflation included) while adding six million new people (10% population expansion). GDP in 2006 of $2.7 trillion; GDP of $2.7 trillion in 2019. That's a recipe for disaster as each person starts seeing their slice of welfare state pie shrink. Maybe they could hike taxes further to compensate some. Eventually you have to generate economic growth to go with the population expansion, or else the population will begin to react badly.