Brexit was logical, neither racist nor irrational

Summary: The campaign against Brexit featured fantastic predictions of doom (but seldom with much supporting fact or logic) and assertions that it was racist and irrational. Europe’s elites resorted to these barrages of fear for good reason: the EU does so much for them. Here’s a look at the costs to Europe’s people, which journalists seldom report.

“Simple Brexit lesson: When people are pissed off about mass immigration address their concerns — don’t call them racists.”
Mickey Kaus (conservative gadfly).

The voice of the ruling elites in the US & EU, united.
 But too much of a good thing is disruptive.

Will Brexit begin the End Times? While the result will not be a box of candy for Europe, I doubt the results will match the hysterical anti-Brexit propaganda of UK (& US) elites. But the responses of most journalists and columnists, as usual, faithfully parrot the establishment’s views.

“With a single vote, England just screwed us all. …The result is that we are now entering a world in retreat from progress…”
 — Felix Salmon (financial journalist), boldly speaking for UK and US elites. He lividly fantasizes about the horrors in the future if we dare to disobey.

Slate’s headlines today provided a full suite of elitist anti-democratic advocacy. Elections & courts are good only when they endorse elite opinion! This is the dumbest (as if investors are the global economy, and their happiness is the top goal of public policy: “The Brexit Just Gave Us Global Financial Turmoil, Just as “Remain” Supporters Warned” by Henry Grabar (a hysterical reaction to one day’s market action — which wasn’t extraordinary).

A close second is “Old England’s Overthrow” by Gabriel Roth — “The doughty British establishment conspired with voters to bring about its own destruction.” Any bets on UK elites still in the saddle next month? Next year? In 20 years?

Seldom mentioned in the news were calculations of Brexit that contradicted the narrative of doom. For example, in Au Revoir, Europe: What if Britain left the EU?

David Charter (a Times journalist) reported that if the UK and EU negotiated a bilateral trade treaty (likely, the medium-term effects would be small. Despite the confident predictions of certain catastrophe, the overall effect depends on the speed of the Brexit and how the UK and EU implement it.

Massive immigration is a box of candy for a nation’s elites. It forces wages down (supply and demand). It boosts aggregate economic growth, although not necessarily per capita growth (nor does it usually “trickle down” to the average Jane and Joe). The combination of these two factors boosts profits. If done on a large scale, it can destabilize a society — making organization against its elites less likely (e.g., unions).

Elites hijack the EU

Most importantly, as Susan Watkins explains, Europe’s elites hijacked the unification program. Europe’s people hoped the EU would prevent another war and create prosperity. Instead their elites use it to bypass the democratic machinery built with so much blood and tears during the past 2 centuries.

It’s evident in the voices of the elites and their supporters. See examples posted in the comments

Why Brexit?

A few columnists gave a fair look at the drivers of the Brexit vote. Such as “Why Immigration Pushed Britons to Brexit” by Reihan Salam at Slate.

“To that end, Blair also presided over the opening of Britain’s borders to immigrants. Since 1997, when the Labour Party, under his leadership, swept into office in a landslide, British society has been transformed by a wave of immigration unprecedented in its history. Over the following years, roughly twice as many immigrants arrived in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous half-century. Many who arrived during that earlier era hailed from the Caribbean and South Asia, and by the early 1990s, 7% of England and Wales’ population belonged to ethnic minorities. By now, that share has grown to over 14%.
“This, more than anything else, has been Tony Blair’s legacy, and it is a legacy his successors Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been grappling with ever since.”

Another sound analysis is “Why Britain Left” by David Frum at The Atlantic — “The June 23 vote represents a huge popular rebellion against a future in which British people feel increasingly crowded within — and even crowded out of — their own country.” Excerpt…

“The force that turned Britain away from the European Union was the greatest mass migration since perhaps the Anglo-Saxon invasion. 630,000 foreign nationals settled in Britain in the single year 2015. Britain’s population has grown from 57 million in 1990 to 65 million in 2015, despite a native birth rate that’s now below replacement. On Britain’s present course, the population would top 70 million within another decade, half of that growth immigration-driven.
“British population growth is not generally perceived to benefit British-born people. Migration stresses schools, hospitals, and above all, housing. The median house price in London already amounts to 12 times the median local salary. Rich migrants outbid British buyers for the best properties; poor migrants are willing to crowd more densely into a dwelling than British-born people are accustomed to tolerating.
…The June 23 vote represents a huge popular rebellion against a future in which British people feel increasingly crowded within — and even crowded out of — their own country: More than 200,000 British-born people leave the U.K. every year for brighter futures abroad, in Australia above all, the United States in second place.
“…Is it possible that leaders and elites had it all wrong? If they’re to save the open global economy, maybe they need to protect their populations better against globalization’s most unwelcome consequences — of which mass migration is the very least welcome of them all?
“If any one person drove the United Kingdom out of the European Union, it was Angela Merkel, and her impulsive solo decision in the summer of 2015 to throw open Germany — and then all Europe — to 1.1 million Middle Eastern and North African migrants, with uncountable millions more to come.
“Merkel’s catastrophically negative example is one that perhaps should be avoided by U.S. politicians who seek to avert Trump-style populism in the United States. Instead, the politician who most directly opposes Donald Trump — presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton — is doubling down on Merkelism.” Hillary Clinton’s first reaction to the Supreme Court decision on executive amnesty looks at the issue exclusively and entirely from the point of view of the migrants themselves: “Today’s heartbreaking #SCOTUS immigration ruling could tear apart 5 million families facing deportation. We must do better.”
That U.S. citizens might have different interests — and that it is the interests of citizens that deserve the highest attention of officials elected by those citizens — went unsaid and apparently unconsidered.”

Frum is right. Mass immigration in a slowing economy was a key driver of American populism in 1880–1932, as it is a driver of its resurgence in 2016 — with Trump as its avatar. See The numbers about immigration that fuel Trump’s campaign and Immigration to the US surges. It’s good news for Trump.

For More Information

The best analysis of Brexit I’ve seen, written with an anthropologist’s dispassionate vision: “The World Changed Overnight” by Maximilian Forte (Prof of Sociology and Anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal). Also see this shocking analysis by John Fund in National Review — “Brussels elites ignored sound economics to further their own agenda“.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See these posts about immigration, and especially these…

Like what you read? Give Larry Kummer a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.