Thoughts on Brexit

NOTE: For those of you who have been reading my sailing blog, first, thank you for following it. But, second, this is not a sailing post. This is more what I started the blog for in the first place, a place to write on miscellaneous, often political topics, to put into print things I've been going over in my head, with little expectation of anyone actually reading. But if you'd like to keep reading, please do. Finally, there are still a few wrap-up sailing posts coming, so stay tuned.

And with that out of the way....

I recently became a UK citizen. As soon as that became official, I registered to vote, so I was able participate in the Brexit referendum. Since registering, I've been working to figure out my opinion. And because a few people asked about my opinion, I decided to sketch out my decision and thinking here... too late to actually influence anyone else, as the vote is now closed and results are coming in.

Short answer: Remain.

Slightly longer answer: I think the best possible result would be to leave the EU and do it well, i.e. negotiating an agreement that would maintain most of the benefits of membership while getting rid of most of the burdens. I just think it's incredibly unlikely that it would happen that way. Not only is the uncertainty of leaving huge, I think the downside is more likely than the upside.

So let's get into a few specifics. To the extent the EU is a force for free trade in goods and services and for free movement of people, I think it's generally a good thing. There are some theoretical reasons why limited free-trade areas might be less efficient that a consistent set of tariffs on all trade (basically, you might divert trade from a lower-cost external producer to a higher-cost external producer within the free-trade area), but I don't think this is a significant practical issue. Partial free-trade is more of a stepping stone toward wider free trade.

There are, however, a lot of burdensome regulations that come from the EU. One famous example is regulations on the curvature of bananas/ While often exaggerated in the popular Eurosceptic imagination, the fact they exist at all is ridiculous enough. In one televised debate, an audience member credited EU regulation with ensuring minimum room size in rented accommodation. I don't know the details, but let's assume she's right. This just makes it harder for lower-paid people to afford housing. There are more regulations on working hours and conditions. EU banking regulation can sometimes be a poor fit for the UK market. Each of these examples is individually small, and it's hard to point to clearly identifiable negative impact from each, but they accumulate and reduce the efficiency of the economy. However, at the end of the day, I think the UK is all too capable of imposing burdensome regulation all on its own, so it's not at all clear to me how much there would be to be gained by leaving the EU.

Perhaps the biggest disaster of the European experiment is the euro. Fortunately, the UK has remained out of the single currency and there is no indication that we would ever join, so that's a non-issue here.

A lot of the most heated debate is around immigration. Nobody seems to worried about immigration from Western Europe. Illegal immigration from, say, Northern Africa is illegal anyway. The UK isn't part of the Schengen area, so it does check everyone coming in, who whatever issues there are with lax border control in some parts of the continent giving illegal immigrants access to other countries, it doesn't really impact things here. The biggest real question is around newer EU members, specifically those in Eastern Europe, plus the potential for Turkey. I'm not at all concerned about immigrants "coming here and taking our jobs". In many cases these immigrants are great workers. The Polish bricklayer or the Spanish waiter are stereotypes but also reality, and we're lucky to have them. Do some immigrants come here for more generous benefits? Maybe. But they seem to me to be substantially outnumbered by workers. And there are proposals to require a period of residency before someone is eligible for benefits, which addresses the issue much more directly. Finally, there is some concern over refugees, being welcomed warmly by some countries who are then looking to force others to do the same. This is a complex one for me. I'd like to see a decent alternative for those, e.g., fleeing the war in Syria. But at the same time, I think people are right to be worried about large numbers of refugees coming in,  becoming ghettoized (perhaps through self-segregation, perhaps through normal-segregation), not integrating into society, and becoming a disaffected permanent underclass. I don't have a good answer for this, but I'm not sure that leaving the EU provides that missing answer.

Finally, I think the anti-foreigner sentiment provides so much of the animating energy of the Leave campaign, that I like a Remain vote for its anti-anti-foreigner symbolism. I don't want to paint too broadly here. There are many sensible arguments for leaving, and many sensible people I know making them. But they are nearly drowned out by the objectionably ones. A lot of the Remain arguments are also bad. I actually find most of the arguments I hear from both sides to be pretty awful. But while the Leave side has most of the best arguments, it also has the worst. And the worst are much louder. And that counts for something.

Anyway, soon we'll know. Something.

Ezra Klein might be right on this one

Interesting analysis of a recent Pew report on political polarisation. And by "interesting", I mean "supportive of a number of my pre-existing views, with a slightly new take and actual data".

I like the distinction between extreme views and polarised views, especially as someone who holds a few extreme views but in what I like to think is an eclectic mix (legalise drugs and free markets, expand immigration but crack down on those who've already violated immigration law, libertarian(ish) domestically but neo-conservative(ish) in foreign policy....).

I also like the fairly symmetric view of the world here. Polarisation is happening on both left and right. Democrats, Republicans, and their partisans spend a lot of time painting the other side as extreme where I see a fair amount of moderation of positions (albeit not in all areas) but both sides digging in more.

A unified theory of politics

I think I might have figured it out.

1. Most Democratic voters are seriously uninformed, haven't thought very deeply about the issues, and are voting mainly on tribal loyalty.
2. But a lot of them are well informed, have thought deeply about the issues, and are voting based on values and some good thought about how the world works.
3. Points 1 and 2 apply equally to Republican voters.

I could probably extend point 3 to Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, PRI, SDP, and any other large party anywhere. (You're probably less likely to support a minor party, be it Libertarians or Greens, without having thought about it a lot.)

What are the implications? Well, first, it should show that it's not that impressive to point out stupid things said by supporters of the opposition; supporters of your side are saying lots of stupid things too. You want to get somewhere, try to engage with the better arguments from the opposition.

And that leads nicely into my second point, which is that the opposition generally has some good arguments for their position. Not all people who disagree with you are uninformed. Often it comes down to a difference in values. Sometimes it's differing predictions about the effect of a policy. It's almost always subjective differences, not objective ones.

This is why I rarely try to changes peoples opinions about policy. Instead, I just try to change their opinions of my opinions. If I can convince someone that you don't have to be an idiot to support, say, market-based health care reforms, I'll call that a success, even if I can't convince them that those reforms are the best policy.

Imperfect polices

The left says we need tighter gun laws. The right answers that criminals don't follow the law in the first place. The left replies that making it harder to get a gun will stop some criminals, even if not all of them.

The right says we need tighter border enforcement. The left answers, "Show me a ten-foot fence, I'll show you an eleven-foot ladder." The right replies that making it harder to sneak into the country will stop some illegal immigration, even if not all of it.

I simplify a bit by saying left and right, but this is probably a pretty good segmentation of society. Obviously, everyone is able to realize that an imperfect policy might still be desirable. If the choice is between accomplishing none of your objectives and some of them, you might as well take the partial win. Yet somehow, people still act as if, "Your suggested policy is imperfect" is a convincing argument.

There are other arguments to be made for these policies. Tighter gun laws may or may not reduce crime. Illegal immigration may or may not be beneficial for citizens. Let's engage at that level.

Burden of proof

 “I don't think the burden should be on me,” he said. “The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes.” -- Harry Reid on his anonymously sourced claims about Mitt Romney's taxes.

I don't disagree that's the standard that's taken hold in politics -- sling mud, see if it sticks, guilty until proven innocent. I'm just surprised to see the Senate Majority Leader acknowledging it so explicitly.

This claim is as baseless and about as implausible as were claims about Obama's Kenyan birth. And in both cases the subject of the rumors could have put them to rest by releasing some documents but chose not to. Of course, there are some differences:

• Obama would be legally ineligible for office if the rumors were true. Romney has disclosed everything legally required.
• I suspect Romney does have 'something to hide'. My guess is that in 2008, possibly 2009 as well, massive capital losses as the market took a dive led to minimal, maybe even zero, tax paid. Legal, but not something most people would understand. By contrast, I could never figure out why Obama refused for so long to release all his birth records. He was probably just annoyed at the stupidity of it all. (This might also be a factor in Romney's decision.)
• The birther claims were believed by a substantial minority of Republican voters (23% per Wikipedia) and several prominent commentators but no senior elected Republicans. (There was some innuendo from some fairly senior figures, e.g. Bachmann, Palin, and a few quotes attributed but denied.) The tax claims are being made by the Senate Majority Leader. (So far, the White House hasn't officially joined in, but they too have piled on the innuendo.)

Of course, the other difference is the degree to which one set of implausible claims was treated as proof of the intellectual degeneracy of the right while the other is treated as just smart politics.

(Just to be clear, I think both situations are evidence of bipartisan degeneracy.)