I come from an island where many of us like to believe there's been a lot of continuity over the last thousand years. We tend to have historically impod change on others but done much less of it ourlves.
So it came as an immen shock to me when I woke up on the morning of June 24 to discover that my country had voted to leave the European Union, my Prime Minister had resigned, and Scotland was considering a referendum that could bring to an end the very existence of the United Kingdom. So that was an immen shock for me, and it was an immen shock for many people, but it was also something that, over the following veral days, created a complete political meltdown in my country. There were calls for a cond referendum, almost as if, following a sports match, we could ask the opposition for a replay. Everybody was blaming everybody el. People blamed the Prime Minister for calling the referendum in the first place. They blamed the leader of the opposition for not fighting it hard enough. The young accud the old. The educated blamed the less well-educated. That complete meltdown was made even wor by the most tragic element of it:levels of xenophobia and racist abu in the streets of Britain at a level that I have never en before in my lifetime. People are now talking about whether my country is becoming a Little England, or, as one of my colleagues put it, whether we're about to become a 1950s nostalgia theme park floating in the Atlantic Ocean.
But my question is really, should we have the degree of shock that we've experienced since? Was it something that took place overnight? Or are there deeper structural
factors that have led us to where we are today? So I want to take a step back and ask two very basic questions. First, what does Brexit reprent, not just for my country, but for all of us around the world? And cond, what can we do about it? How should we all respond?
So first, what does Brexit reprent? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Brexit teaches us many things about our society and about societies around the world. It highlights in ways that we em embarrassingly unaware of how divided our societies are. The vote split along lines of age, education, class and geography. Young people didn't turn out to vote in great numbers, but tho that did wanted to remain. Older people really wanted to leave the European Union. Geographically, it was London and Scotland that most strongly committedto being part of the European Union, while in other parts of the country there was very strong ambivalence. Tho divisions are things we really need to recognize and take riously. But more profoundly, the vote teaches us something about the nature of politics today. Contemporary politics is no longer just about right and left. It's no longer just about tax and spend. It's about globalization. The fault line of contemporary politics is between tho that embrace globalization and tho that fear globalization.leaf的复数形式
If we look at why tho who wanted to leave -- we call them "Leavers," as oppod to "Remainers" -- we e two factors in the opinion polls that really mattered. The first was immigration, and the cond sovereignty, and the reprent a desire for people to take back control of their own lives and the feeling that they are unreprented by
politicians.But tho ideas are ones that signify fear and alienation. They reprent a retreat back towards nationalism and borders in ways that many of us would reject. What I want to suggest is the picture is more complicated than that, that liberal internationalists, like mylf, and I firmly include mylf in that picture, need to write ourlves back into the picture in order to understand how we've got to where we are today. When we look at the voting patterns across the United Kingdom, we can visibly e the divisions. The blue areas show Remain and the red areas Leave. When I looked at this, what personally struck me was the very little time in my life I've actually spent in many of the red areas. I suddenly realized that, looking at the top 50 areas in the UK that have the strongest Leave vote, I've spent a combined total of four days of my life in tho areas. In some of tho places, I didn't even know the names of the voting districts. It was a real shock to me, and it suggested that people like me who think of ourlves as inclusive, open and tolerant,perhaps don't know our own countries and societies nearly as well as we like to believe.
lrcp
And the challenge that comes from that is we need to find a new way to narrate globalization to tho people, to recognize that for tho people who have not necessarily been to university, who haven't necessarily grown up with the Internet, that don't get opportunities to travel, they may be unpersuaded by the narrative that we find persuasive in our often liberal bubbles.
It means that we need to reach out more broadly and understand. In the Leave vote, a minority have peddled the politics of fear and hatred, creating lies and mistrust around,そばにいるね
for instance, the idea that the vote on Europe could reduce the number of refugees and asylum-ekers coming to Europe, when the vote on leaving had nothing to do with immigration from outside the European Union. But for a significant majority of the Leave voters the concern was disillusionment with the political establishment. This was a protest vote for many, a n that nobody reprented them, that they couldn't find a political party that spoke for them, and so they rejected that political establishment.
This replicates around Europe and much of the liberal democratic world. We e it with the ri in popularity of Donald Trump in the United States, with the growing nationalism of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, with the increa in popularity of Marine Le Pen in France. The specter of Brexit is in all of our societies.
mustnot>tired的意思
So the question I think we need to ask is my cond question, which is how should we collectively respond? For all of us who care about creating liberal, open, tolerant societies,we urgently need a new vision, a vision of a more tolerant, inclusive globalization, one that brings people with us rather than leaving them behind.
自我介绍演讲稿That vision of globalization is one that has to start by a recognition of the positive benefits of globalization. The connsus amongst economists is that free trade, the movement of capital, the movement of people across borders benefit everyone on aggregate. The connsus amongst international relations scholars is that globalization brings interdependence, which brings cooperation and peace. But globalization also has redistributive effects. It creates winners and lors. To take the example of
waste是什么意思
migration, we know that immigration is a net positive for the economy as a whole under almost all circumstances. But we also have to be very aware that there are redistributive conquences, that importantly, low-skilled immigration can lead to a reduction in wages for the most impoverished in our societies and also put pressure on hou prices. That doesn't detract from the fact that it's positive, but it means more people have to share in tho benefits and recognize them.
北京新东方英语培训
In 2002, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, gave a speech at Yale University, and that speech was on the topic of inclusive globalization. That was the speech in which he coined that term. And he said, and I paraphra, "The glass hou of globalization has to be open to all if it is to remain cure. Bigotry and ignorance are the ugly face of exclusionary and antagonistic globalization."
That idea of inclusive globalization was briefly revived in 2008 in a conference on progressive governance involving many of the leaders of European countries. But amid austerity and the financial crisis of 2008, the concept disappeared almost without a trace.Globalization has been taken to support a neoliberal agenda. It's perceived to be part of an elite agenda rather than something that benefits all. And it needs to be reclaimed on a far more inclusive basis than it is today.
pubmed homeSo the question is, how can we achieve that goal? How can we balance on the one hand addressing fear and alienation while on the other hand refusing vehemently to
>服饰吊牌
