Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Just watched a video and discovered TikTok "landlord influencers". Regret to discover I'm a Maoist now

[Grey Fox]

How do you define native? Place of birth or culture?

[Valmy]

How do you define native? Place of birth or culture?

As a North American that gets especially tricky doesn't it?

In an old world context I would say culture/ethnicity is more important. That is why many countries over there have it easy to get citizenship if your grandparents were citizens but harder if you were actually born there and lived there your whole life but are of a different culture.

Now how I would define it is by birth but being a cultural or ethnic Texan is kind of a joke as a concept. And being an ethnic or cultural American is less of a joke, it is pointing towards something, but kind of an abstract and weird concept. Traditionally this would be some vague sense of "whiteness", a moveable and hard to define concept that is more about who it isn't than who it is, and "Christian" in some sense. Now it is even more vague. It is a thing I think, but a hard one to nail down. The Christian Nationalist types are trying though.

[Sheilbh]

As a North American that gets especially tricky doesn't it?

It gets even more tricky when you have North American language applied in a European context. I saw an article - I think in Time - about the Sami as Europe's only "indigenous" people and I was just slightly thinking we really, really do not want to get into talking about "indigenous" Europeans

In an old world context I would say culture/ethnicity is more important. That is why many countries over there have it easy to get citizenship if your grandparents were citizens but harder if you were actually born there and lived there your whole life but are of a different culture.

So this varies and I think they're slightly mixed. In general there's three factors that play out slightly differently across Europe - diasporas, naturalisation and dual citizenship.

On the diasporas and citizenship by descent from a grandparent isn't that common. But there are countries with it and I think it seems to be a feature of countries where there's a diaspora that was to some extent forced out by political or economic conditions. Ireland and Italy, for example, have that system  - and I don't think it's a surprise that they're two countries with huge diasporas of Italian and Irish descended communities around the world.

With naturalisation it varies - some countries are stricter. But in general there's variations around tests and language requirements but it's generally that you can acquire citizenship after at least 3 years of residence (at the lowest end) plus normally (not always) a citizenship test and a language test. I think Austria is one of the most difficult because I think it requires at least 10 years continuous residence, plus tests.

The other bit is dual citizenship there are a few European countries - for example Germany, Austria and Spain - which generally don't allow dual citizenship (with exceptions). That creates a challenge for migrants who may want to naturalise but would be required to renounce their existing citizenship in order to do so. I think there's generally a direction of travel to more openness to dual citizenship.

The UK isn't far from a norm for a lot of Europe (German reforms to citizenship that Scholz has discussed will make their system very similar to ours for example). There's no descent from a grandmother in the old country route. But basically it is five years of residence (including one year with "indefinite leave to remain") plus a "Life in the UK" test and a proficiency test in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. Multiple citizenship is allowed.

In terms of birth until 1983 it was birthright citizenship. Since then it's if you're born in the UK to a parent with British or Irish citizenship (or now someone who has EU settled status) then the child is automatically a citizen. Other kids basically follow their parents (unless they live in the UK for ten years before they're 18 in which case they can become citizens) - there's no citizenship test or language test, it's a registration not an application.

Now how I would define it is by birth but being a cultural or ethnic Texan is kind of a joke as a concept. And being an ethnic or cultural American is less of a joke, it is pointing towards something, but kind of an abstract and weird concept. Traditionally this would be some vague sense of "whiteness", a moveable and vague concept, and "Christian" in some sense. Now it is even more vague. It is a thing I think, but a hard one to nail down.

Yes - although I think there's an irony here because a lot of the UK's accoutrement of becoming a citizen is modeled on the US because it's not about ethnic or cultural Americans but how you create Americans as a national identity and it's a nationalist thing. The US was an explicit model when we decided to implement a test for citizenship, also to have a citizenship ceremony (which is actually, apparently, very popular with people acquiring citizenship because it's a significant life event for them) which is presided over by the local mayor or whatever and they all swear allegiance to the monarch and sing God Save the King. That is about creating Brits and Britishness.

I think generally Europe is moving more to their national identities being national identities as in the US, rather than ethnic or cultural identities. It always feels like a slight gap in how North Americans talk about European identities, perhaps because in North America Irish or Italian is a cultural or ethnic signifier, that they seem culturally or ethnically framed while in Europe they are national identities of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies.

[Admiral Yi]

Keeping your credit rating as high as possible in the short term at the expense of both the same rating in the long term and everything else in the country  is pretty shit prioritisation.

"At the expense of ... the same rating in the long term" is another one of those statements of yours that defies logic.  Britain's credit rating has not declined.  I can not think of a single country who's rating has declined, over any time span, as a result of cutting deficits.

"Over everything else in the country" is exactly the reason why permanent, never ending Keynesian stimulus has become the norm in virtually every country which has the ability to borrow.  All current spending makes someone, somewhere happier, and their lives better.  And so the voting public is happy with the situation.

You also seem to be missing the fact here that austerity is actually worsening the situation for future generations whilst spending is creating a better situation and less debt to worry about for future generations.

Another head scratcher.  Every country that can borrow (maybe Germany excepted because they've--to their credit--fetishized debt) has seen debt/GDP grow.

[Josquius]

Keeping your credit rating as high as possible in the short term at the expense of both the same rating in the long term and everything else in the country  is pretty shit prioritisation.

"At the expense of ... the same rating in the long term" is another one of those statements of yours that defies logic.  Britain's credit rating has not declined.  I can not think of a single country who's rating has declined, over any time span, as a result of cutting deficits.

"Over everything else in the country" is exactly the reason why permanent, never ending Keynesian stimulus has become the norm in virtually every country which has the ability to borrow.  All current spending makes someone, somewhere happier, and their lives better.  And so the voting public is happy with the situation.

You also seem to be missing the fact here that austerity is actually worsening the situation for future generations whilst spending is creating a better situation and less debt to worry about for future generations.

Another head scratcher.  Every country that can borrow (maybe Germany excepted because they've--to their credit--fetishized debt) has seen debt/GDP grow.

We haven't entered the long term yet. We're still just talking about policies implemented a decade ago.  Things are really starting to creak though there's not been a comprehensive bill on fixing things yet.

Interesting you think never ending Keynsian spending is the norm. Thats basically the opposite of the current situation.   

Debt/GDP is a greatly overrated figure. Way too many people think of national economics like household economics where debt on such levels is an absolute disaster. Worth noting too that if that's what you're so concerned about...austerity has increased it. Under the last Labour government pre-2008 they spent and decreased the debt. Investing works.

[Sheilbh]

Just saw the Economist piece on this and basically agree - Brits are hypocrites/cakeists on immigration (and much else), so politicians are too:

British voters want more immigrants but less immigration
The government's immigration policy is incoherent because voters are incoherent
May 25th 2023

The biggest lie in British politics is that voters want honest debate. Whenever a policy problem emerges, sensible types call for the trade-offs to be laid out before an informed voting public who will carefully weigh the options. Anyone who has sat through a focus group or gone canvassing with a politician knows this is nonsense. When faced with an either/or question, British voters usually give a decisive answer: "yes".

Nowhere is this more true than immigration. A majority of voters think migration is too high, according to most polls. Almost nine out of ten Conservative voters think this; a plurality of Labour voters agree. At the same time, British voters say they want more nurses, doctors and fruit-pickers. Carers, academics, computer whizzes and students are welcome, too. Big-hearted Britons thought the country was completely right to let swathes of refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong into the country. Britons may not much like immigration, but they are keen on immigrants.

If so, then the Tories have come up with an impeccably botched policy response. A Conservative government that has pledged to cut immigration at the past four elections has instead overseen an increase to a record level. Net migration hit 606,000 in Britain last year, according to figures published on May 25th, as people took advantage of a more liberal post-Brexit immigration regime. The British government has thrown open the country's doors while complaining about the people who walk through them. It is utterly incoherent. But when it comes to immigration, so are voters.

Public opinion on immigration was not always so confused. Attitudes used to move in lockstep with numbers. In the 1940s and 1950s Britain accepted workers from across the Commonwealth, who could enter the country as they pleased. By the 1960s eight out of ten people wanted lower immigration; hard-nosed and rather racist legislation followed. Likewise, when immigration increased during the 1990s and 2000s, so did concern. This trend reached its apex in 2016, when, with just a month to go until the Brexit referendum, the government announced a then-record net influx of 330,000 people. Britain voted to leave the EU, with immigration cited as one of the main reasons.

This tidy relationship has broken down. Immigration has increased sharply since the Brexit vote but concern about it has, if anything, gone down in the past decade. In 2012 a quarter of voters thought immigrants boosted Britain's economy; half thought immigrants harmed it, according to British Future, a think-tank. Now those proportions have reversed. The number of people who cite immigration as the number-one problem facing the country has plunged, while issues such as lousy health care and high inflation top the worry-list.

Attacking immigration was once an easy win for politicians. In 2015 almost 70% of voters wanted immigration reduced. Now, only 42% do. At the same time, a hard-core minority of people now want migration to increase. In 2015 only one in ten wanted this. Now about a quarter do. James Dennison and Alexander Kustov, a pair of academics, label this phenomenon a "reverse backlash". Politicians have tried to placate voters tempted by anti-immigrant populist parties and ignored others in the process. Once-silent liberal voters have started demanding to be heard. (Intriguingly, about half of people think the British public has become less tolerant overall, even though most polling points to the opposite; when discussing immigration, Britons think in irregular verbs: "I am tolerant; you are prejudiced; he is a complete bigot.")

Conservatives are split on how to deal with this change. For some, the increasingly liberal views of British voters when it comes to immigration should be seized on. Dominic Cummings, the architect of the Vote Leave campaign in 2016, argued that voters would be happy with high levels of immigration as long as it was controlled. Judging by the positive shift in attitudes on immigrants, he was right. If the government can stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats (some 45,000 arrived last year in this manner) voters will not care about the larger numbers of migrants arriving through official channels. There are few benefits of Brexit. But Britain's immigration policy could be one.

For other Conservative advisers—including those currently in Downing Street—immigration simply must come down if the government is to have any chance of surviving. In their view, the liberal turn is a mirage. When voters eventually notice that immigration has, in fact, hit an all-time high they will be furious. People have mistaken a drop in salience with an increase in liberalism. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real life: if voters want control rather than reductions, what if more than half a million arrive every year? Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, thinks he knows the answer to that question, and has pledged to reduce the numbers.

Welcome. Now get out

Taking numbers down a little is easy. Unless another war breaks out in Europe, there will be fewer refugees next year. Bringing them down a lot is harder. If the British government wants fewer people to come, it can change the law and suffer the consequences. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already tightened rules on the number of international students who can bring dependents, even though voters are broadly comfortable with people coming to Britain to study and universities rely on their fees. The government could crack down on fruit-pickers, but farmers in Lincolnshire would scream. Few voters would thank a government that turns away nurses. Cutting immigration comes at a cost that voters show no willingness to pay.

Rolling out the welcome mat and then shouting at anyone who wipes their feet on it may be an imperfect approach. But from the government's point of view, it will have to do. Voters do not want to live with the consequences of their opinions. When voters are hypocrites, politicians must be too.

[Admiral Yi]

We haven't entered the long term yet. We're still just talking about policies implemented a decade ago.  Things are really starting to creak though there's not been a comprehensive bill on fixing things yet.

Interesting you think never ending Keynsian spending is the norm. Thats basically the opposite of the current situation. 

Debt/GDP is a greatly overrated figure. Way too many people think of national economics like household economics where debt on such levels is an absolute disaster. Worth noting too that if that's what you're so concerned about...austerity has increased it. Under the last Labour government pre-2008 they spent and decreased the debt. Investing works.

So we haven't yet entered the time when cutting a deficit will lead to a decrease in credit rating, but you're fairly confident it will happen.  You do realize this goes directly against economic theory and historical evidence, right?

We simply must have totally different understandings of Keynesian stimulus.  As I already said virtually every developed country I can think of is currently running a deficit.  Please either direct me to a link that shows they are in fact running surpluses or explain your alternate understanding of stimulus to me.

People think of high debt/GDP as a disaster because that is what it has proven to be.  Time and time again.  People didn't stop buying Greek bonds because the Greeks are hairy and smelly.  They stopped lending because they thought they wouldn't get repaid.

[Valmy]

People didn't stop buying Greek bonds because the Greeks are hairy and smelly.

That didn't help though.

[Grey Fox]

Just saw the Economist piece on this and basically agree - Brits are hypocrites/cakeists on immigration (and much else), so politicians are too:

British voters want more immigrants but less immigration
The government's immigration policy is incoherent because voters are incoherent
May 25th 2023

The biggest lie in British politics is that voters want honest debate. Whenever a policy problem emerges, sensible types call for the trade-offs to be laid out before an informed voting public who will carefully weigh the options. Anyone who has sat through a focus group or gone canvassing with a politician knows this is nonsense. When faced with an either/or question, British voters usually give a decisive answer: "yes".

Nowhere is this more true than immigration. A majority of voters think migration is too high, according to most polls. Almost nine out of ten Conservative voters think this; a plurality of Labour voters agree. At the same time, British voters say they want more nurses, doctors and fruit-pickers. Carers, academics, computer whizzes and students are welcome, too. Big-hearted Britons thought the country was completely right to let swathes of refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong into the country. Britons may not much like immigration, but they are keen on immigrants.

If so, then the Tories have come up with an impeccably botched policy response. A Conservative government that has pledged to cut immigration at the past four elections has instead overseen an increase to a record level. Net migration hit 606,000 in Britain last year, according to figures published on May 25th, as people took advantage of a more liberal post-Brexit immigration regime. The British government has thrown open the country's doors while complaining about the people who walk through them. It is utterly incoherent. But when it comes to immigration, so are voters.

Public opinion on immigration was not always so confused. Attitudes used to move in lockstep with numbers. In the 1940s and 1950s Britain accepted workers from across the Commonwealth, who could enter the country as they pleased. By the 1960s eight out of ten people wanted lower immigration; hard-nosed and rather racist legislation followed. Likewise, when immigration increased during the 1990s and 2000s, so did concern. This trend reached its apex in 2016, when, with just a month to go until the Brexit referendum, the government announced a then-record net influx of 330,000 people. Britain voted to leave the EU, with immigration cited as one of the main reasons.

This tidy relationship has broken down. Immigration has increased sharply since the Brexit vote but concern about it has, if anything, gone down in the past decade. In 2012 a quarter of voters thought immigrants boosted Britain's economy; half thought immigrants harmed it, according to British Future, a think-tank. Now those proportions have reversed. The number of people who cite immigration as the number-one problem facing the country has plunged, while issues such as lousy health care and high inflation top the worry-list.

Attacking immigration was once an easy win for politicians. In 2015 almost 70% of voters wanted immigration reduced. Now, only 42% do. At the same time, a hard-core minority of people now want migration to increase. In 2015 only one in ten wanted this. Now about a quarter do. James Dennison and Alexander Kustov, a pair of academics, label this phenomenon a "reverse backlash". Politicians have tried to placate voters tempted by anti-immigrant populist parties and ignored others in the process. Once-silent liberal voters have started demanding to be heard. (Intriguingly, about half of people think the British public has become less tolerant overall, even though most polling points to the opposite; when discussing immigration, Britons think in irregular verbs: "I am tolerant; you are prejudiced; he is a complete bigot.")

Conservatives are split on how to deal with this change. For some, the increasingly liberal views of British voters when it comes to immigration should be seized on. Dominic Cummings, the architect of the Vote Leave campaign in 2016, argued that voters would be happy with high levels of immigration as long as it was controlled. Judging by the positive shift in attitudes on immigrants, he was right. If the government can stop people crossing the English Channel in small boats (some 45,000 arrived last year in this manner) voters will not care about the larger numbers of migrants arriving through official channels. There are few benefits of Brexit. But Britain's immigration policy could be one.

For other Conservative advisers—including those currently in Downing Street—immigration simply must come down if the government is to have any chance of surviving. In their view, the liberal turn is a mirage. When voters eventually notice that immigration has, in fact, hit an all-time high they will be furious. People have mistaken a drop in salience with an increase in liberalism. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real life: if voters want control rather than reductions, what if more than half a million arrive every year? Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, thinks he knows the answer to that question, and has pledged to reduce the numbers.

Welcome. Now get out

Taking numbers down a little is easy. Unless another war breaks out in Europe, there will be fewer refugees next year. Bringing them down a lot is harder. If the British government wants fewer people to come, it can change the law and suffer the consequences. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already tightened rules on the number of international students who can bring dependents, even though voters are broadly comfortable with people coming to Britain to study and universities rely on their fees. The government could crack down on fruit-pickers, but farmers in Lincolnshire would scream. Few voters would thank a government that turns away nurses. Cutting immigration comes at a cost that voters show no willingness to pay.

Rolling out the welcome mat and then shouting at anyone who wipes their feet on it may be an imperfect approach. But from the government's point of view, it will have to do. Voters do not want to live with the consequences of their opinions. When voters are hypocrites, politicians must be too.

My solution to Immigration reticence is the same than to NIMBYism. Give people money.

[Jacob]

I enjoyed this line in particular: "Britons think in irregular verbs: "I am tolerant; you are prejudiced; he is a complete bigot".

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I liked that a lot. I think it's very true.

[Sheilbh]

Separately from Rachel Reeves' new pamphlet on Labour's economic strategy (via Duncan Robinson) - which sounds interesting and positive. Britain's economy: London, oil and gas, Edinburgh, the M4 and Cheshire


Also still light on detail (which is very sensible - the Tories already stole Labour's childcare policy ), but I'm won over by any politician talking about planning as the "dead hand on the tiller" The stuff about how much of an issue it is in energy transition is also really, really key:

Making it easier to build
Few of our economic ambitions - on growth, on jobs, on climate and on housing - can be achieved if we do not make it easier to build in Britain. Today, our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller of Britain's ambition. Housebuilding, infrastructure and business investment all grind to a halt when they come into contact with vested interests and opaque bureaucracies. This constrains the supply of housing and commercial space. It stops areas from developing. And it has a social impact, condemning many to unaffordable, poor quality and insecure housing.

It is also holding Britain back from seizing the opportunities of tomorrow. To give just one example, it currently takes up to 13 years to develop a new offshore wind farm, with four of those years spent fighting our antiquated planning system. Since 2017, not a single offshore wind farm has been approved by the Planning Inspectorate. If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs.

The next Labour government will reform our planning system. We will make sure net zero is embedded throughout the system, cutting restrictions for onshore wind, in line with other infrastructure. We will impose new targets to get planning decisions on renewables down from years to months, ensuring decisions no longer languish on a minister's desk and that local authorities are encouraged to identify land for development. And we will ensure that the local communities who host infrastructure always feel the benefit of doing so.

Obviously planning reform is hard and those vested interests will fight...but still there's lots she's saying that seems very positive to me.

[Josquius]

Promising giving recent labour vibes have been about giving more power to communities and other nimby flirt.

[Gups]

quote author=Admiral Yi link=msg=1410554 date=1685025462]

"At the expense of ... the same rating in the long term" is another one of those statements of yours that defies logic.  Britain's credit rating has not declined.  I can not think of a single country who's rating has declined, over any time span, as a result of cutting deficits.

Yes it has. The UK lost the AAA rating it had held since 1978 in 2013 and has never got it back