Brexit

Nigel Farage Says 2016 Was Victory Over Globalists

Globalization and its benefits are under threat from globalists and populists like Farage.

|

Shawn Thew

Nigel Farage, the member of European Parliament and U.K.Independence Party co-founder who assisted Donald Trump in his presidential campaign, called 2016 "the beginning of a global political revolution" that was going to "roll out across the rest of the West" at his CPAC speech this afternoon.

Farage addressed Brexit, the British vote to leave the European Union, connecting it to President Trump's victory, saying the U.K. should "reach out and make our own deals with our real friends," which he described as countries that "speak English, have common law, and support us in crises."

He touched on President Obama's visit to United Kingdom before the Brexit vote, saying he would be "forever grateful" that Obama "interfered in the referendum" by telling "America's greatest friends and ally in the world" that "if we voted for our independence, we would go to the back of the line."

Farge dug into globalists, and said Brexit was a reaction to "unelected old men in Brussels," pointing to elections in Germany, France, the Netherlands, "even Italy," in 2017 as places where ideological fellow-travelers could win. While he admitted he didn't know yet whether this year's results would be "as dramatic as" 2016, he predicted they would "shift the center of gravity of the whole debate."

Farage called out Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing re-election in September, describing her decision in 2015 to increase the number of refugees the country would accept, as "absolute madness and idiocy."

"We are not against any religion or ethnicity, we're not against anybody," Farage insisted at the end of his remarks. "We're for ourselves, we're for our country, we're for our communities, we're for making us safe and with less risk from global terror. And we're winning!"

While Farage was introduced as "Mr. Brexit" and Trump, too, said he would be called "Mr. Brexit" when during the presidential campaign he visited Scotland the day after the Brexit vote, both Brexit and the broader backlash against unelected globalist bureaucrats is bigger than Farage or Trump. The two have a narrow, nationalistic response to the growth of government at a global level but it is not the only one. Globalization, while it has been maligned by populists and glommed onto by globalists, remains the most potent force in opposition to both globalism and populism. Liberalization and the freeing of markets lifted billions out of poverty, not the globalists who insist they must micromanage those forces, and who regularly malign these indisputably beneficial forces as the cause of problems actually created by government meddling, and certainly not populists.

The Economist Intelligence Unit's latest Democracy Index, noted that while populism seemed to be ascendenant in the West, such forces have already peaked in Latin America, with the electorates of several Latin American countries suffering from populist fatigue and returning to more sensible right-of-center free market politics. It's important to disentangle Trump and Farage and populism from the broader backlash against globalism, and to disentangle the positive forces of globalization and the net benefits of the freedom of movement of people, goods, capital, and labor, from the bureaucrats who would seek to take credit for the fruits of those globalizing forces their own policies also threaten. In this way, freedom has the best chance to emerge victorious in the battle between populism and globalism, two bankrupt ideologies of control that have little to nothing to do with globalization and the miracle free markets have delivered in the last half-century and more.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

53 responses to “Nigel Farage Says 2016 Was Victory Over Globalists

  1. He touched on President Obama’s visit to United Kingdom before the Brexit vote, saying he would be “forever grateful” that Obama “interfered in the referendum” by telling “America’s greatest friends and ally in the world” that “if we voted for our independence, we would go to the back of the line.”

    Surely you mean when Putin visited the UK – the Russians are the ones who interfere in elections and try to influence the vote, not the US. (Although it was pretty surreal to see an ad for the Daily Show with Trevor Noah – a guy from South Africa – making sarcastic comments about foreign influence on US policy. And this is the same show where John Oliver – a Brit who does the same thing – got his start.)

  2. I agree in theory the free market is better and globalization is good.

    However now the reality is a bunch of cronyism and protecting selves from competition.

    Free trade or globalization doesnt mean it is good since has words in the name.

    I am against protectionism but i can kind of see why some would want it since their own government is screwing them over by piling on regulations and taxes and mandating all these benefits making a place who has dirt cheap labor and no regs attractive

    1. It’s hard to correlate “globalism” and free markets when it’s also a drive towards supranational or even global government replete with bureaucracies, taxes, cronyism, income redistribution and economic controls.

      1. Yea well put and better than i. See the eu and ireland

    2. It’s a fair point that many “free trade agreements” aren’t really what they claim to be. But that in no way justifies any other actions restricting trade.

      Yeah, it’s understandable that people want trade protectionism. It’s also understandable that people want government to do all of the other horrible stuff that libertarians oppose.

  3. This is unnecessarily disparaging of Farage. The UK leaving the EU peacefully is actually a wonderful step in the right direction for liberty. Now, somebody in Wales needs to step up and get a referendum to leave the UK, and then somebody in the town of Ghkhtpjnge needs to set up a vote to ditch Wales, and so on until people realize that the logical conclusion of “EU regulations don’t supercede British laws” is “The individual is sovereign, and only by the act of violating another’s rights should he incur any action against him by a larger government body.” In short, the vote to leave the EU showed that the majority of UK voters are actually libertarian, if they would only realize it.

    1. the majority of UK voters are actually libertarian

      You really want to go with this narrative?

    2. Agree that ‘Brexit’ was actually a great leap for freedom. I don’t think this article disparages Farage, though.

  4. Go back to Europe, Frenchy!

  5. It depends how you define ‘globalization’. Fact is that supranational organizations are pretty much dying. Despite how hard rich white liberals talk down to people who don’t want laws made by unaccountable and faraway bureaucrats, the future is not on their side.

    If you mean ‘globalization’ in terms of ‘free trade’ and ‘freedom of movement’. I think that is the future, but so long as ‘free trade’ is actually just ‘managed trade’ that benefits one sector of the economy at the expense of another sector, ‘free trade’ will always be maligned as a tool of the wealthy to continue to impoverish workers (no matter how misguided this argument is).

  6. “Both Brexit and the broader backlash against unelected globalist bureaucrats is bigger than Farage or Trump. The two have a narrow, nationalistic response to the growth of government at a global level but it is not the only one.”

    I wish it were a backlash against the growth of a government.

    It’s about elitism and accountability.

    All over the world, average people are sick of being hated by the bureaucrats and politicians that are supposed to serve them. You can see that in the Brexit vote, and you can see it in the Trump coalition.

    Average people are also sick of being forced to make sacrifices for the benefit of other people. Doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Europeans who don’t want any more refugees or Americans sick of paying through the nose for the benefit of the Medicaid expansion.

    Everywhere I look in the developed world, I see average people sick of being forced to make sacrifices for the benefit of others and elitists who don’t understand why the plebeians won’t just do what they’re told.

  7. Yeah, I gotta admit I’m not really seeing the problem here. Global governance is not a libertarian proposition. Enemy of my enemy etc etc etc

  8. The two have a narrow, nationalistic response

    As opposed to a broad, globalist response? You can’t have it both ways. If you want globalism, then nationalism must be eradicated. But if you don’t want globalism, then nationalism is a requirement.

    1. But if you don’t want globalism, then nationalism is a requirement.

      Non Sequitur. You can have individualism. Or even Liberty.

      1. Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no.

        1. Tell that to the colonials in the 1770s…

          Or many, many Texans.

        2. Then why even bother? Isn’t the whole fucking point of libertarians even existing to remind people that that third option exists?

      2. We’re all nationalists now.

    2. False bifurcation. Those are not the only options.

  9. Cross-national organizations are dying as a result of their nature, not by any nefarious forces discrediting them. They’re failing on their own merits, on their attempts to micromanage across multiple societies with vastly different interests and goals. It’s typical, arrogant high modernism that will damage actual beneficial globalized policies if we continue to insist they are one and the same.

    If you’re actually interested in globalization, you have to realize that actual localism is required rather than a broadly-applied bureaucratic oversight. That means an end to at least the EU, and several major neoliberal (IR term, not the idiotic concept in progressive circles) institutions like the IMF.

  10. “Globalization and its benefits are under threat from globalists and populists like Farage.”

    Globalization and its costs are under scrutiny by those who bear the costs.

    1. This.

      Globalization just turns into a world government. Do we really want another to top the federal govt?

      1. I think you’re conflating globalization, which is an interconnected world, with globalism, which is global government.

        1. True but this is what they want. A bigger eu

            1. The un? Bureaucrats? Politicians

  11. So globalization drive is to a world governing body

    So now we have local, state, fed and global!

    Yay?

    1. Seems to me that globalization could just as well be letting people and companies trade with various partners around the world to maximize efficient use of resources. In fact, until right now, I thought that’s what it meant to most people.

      1. I agree but this isnt what they really want. They want more cronyism is central planning

      2. Seems to me that globalization could just as well be letting people and companies trade with various partners around the world to maximize efficient use of resources. In fact, until right now, I thought that’s what it meant to most people.

        Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think that’s because you didn’t or don’t think about it. Marco Polo isn’t seen as a great pioneer of modern globalism. Nixon isn’t heralded as a paragon of globalization for negotiating trade with China. It’s a bit of the ‘muh roads’ argument where wordlwide trade happened day in-day out well before anyone had any idea what globalization was.

        Also, I think a lot has to do with the speaker though, as well. When BP, GE, or Apple talk about globalization, that’s one thing. When Ban Ki Moon, Fed Chairmen, or representatives of the EU talk about globalization, IMO, is an almost literal expression of Orwell’s Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia, and ‘other’.

        1. No, I think the problem is that many are failing to make the distinction between globalization and globalism that someone makes above. If you aren’t going to make that distinction, what the hell is the point of even talking about free trade or individual liberty?
          If we are only allowed to talk about currently practical politics, then we should all just become Republicans or join a trade union or something.

          1. No, I think the problem is that many are failing to make the distinction between globalization and globalism that someone makes above.

            The concept of globalism now is most commonly used to refer to different ideologies advocating globalization.

            This is/was kinda my point in the first paragraph. We might be talking about a bit of defintion creep whereby you and I are discussing free trade in a ‘free as in beer vs. free as in speech’ while somebody like Obama is capturing or co-opting it to impose more regulations on the trade between the US and China.

      3. Same, because it was a popular term for the left to rail against multinational corporations and “neoliberal economics.” And then there were economists, usually also politically conservative, saying no, no, no, globalization is great, it’s expanding trade and lifting a couple billion out of poverty.

        But for the sovereigntist-right, it refers to global government and control, the UN and Rothschilds, the NAFTA Superhighway, totally-not-lizard-people, etc. Maybe that also has a long history, one that I wasn’t paying attention to, but it’s definitely a popular use of the word today.

        1. I don’t know that one precludes the other any more than our current notion of Federalism is both good and bad.

          I know the notion of ‘One Worldler’, in my psyche, is just as old as the notion of lefties railing against ‘global corporatism’/’American Corporate Imperialism’.

          1. Well, a lot of lefties do want global government in the way that righties rail against. And as I said, for a long time I’ve seen the term globalization embraced on the right by free market and business conservatives. But fair enough; the broad use of the term can have some inconsistency, as federalism does.

            1. Well, a lot of lefties do want global government in the way that righties rail against.

              Some of them have the best of intentions even!

  12. ,” which he described as countries that speak English”

    Samuel L. Jackson as ambassador to Cuba:
    “English motherfucker, do you speak it?”

    Castro: “Que”?

    Jackson: “Say ‘que’ again motherfucker, I dare you. I double dare you. Say ‘que’ one more goddamn time”

    Castro: “Que”?

    Blam, Blam, Blam.

  13. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest Democracy Index, noted that while populism seemed to be ascendenant in the West, such forces have already peaked in Latin America, with the electorates of several Latin American countries suffering from populist fatigue and returning to more sensible right-of-center free market politics.

    The Latest Democracy Index has some pretty Racist/Nationalist and/or Socialist States/Economies towards the top of their list. The fact that they fundamentally equate populism with ‘right of center’ or ‘too far right’ or whatever just shows that they’ve got their heads up their asses. One step shy of ranking inanimate objects on a/the political spectrum.

  14. So what Latin American countries are becoming more free market?

    1. Off the top of my head, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, potentially Brazil (where most of my experience is). I just read an interesting article about how Paraguay is becoming sort of a mini China in terms of manufacturing.

      Short-term hiccups may occur, but these countries are generally trending toward greater openness to the free market. Of course, given LatAm’s history, present performance is no guarantee that’s they’ll continue progressing.

      1. Thanks. Venezuela and cuba are obviously examples that are not

        1. In case you come back later and read this: go to google news and plug in “odebrecht.” Crony capitalism in South American is in the middle of taking a massive hit, which leaves the door open for freer markets, depending on what the citizenry does.

  15. You know how to spot a totalitarian?

    If they think that if you dont go with what they want then you are being a totalitarian

  16. Globalization and free markets really only work when the whole world is free. Or have similar laws.

    Otherwise things like environmental practices and labor laws and subsidies led to some countries having a huge advantage in the production of goods vs others. Yes, this leads to cheaper goods, but it also means displaced workers and large unemployment. In a truly free market, those unemployed would move to where the jobs are, but the reality is 1st world citizens are not moving to 3rd world countries for jobs.

    1. Or have similar laws.

      So, just like the equality laws we have here in the States, just on a global scale? [sarc]Perfect![/sarc]

      1. So in your mind, if iPhones and automobiles magically appeared out of thin air and for free we’d be… worse off? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making.

        1. Shit. That’s response was for JR.

  17. “We are not against any religion or ethnicity, we’re not against anybody,” Farage insisted at the end of his remarks. “We’re for ourselves, we’re for our country, we’re for our communities, we’re for making us safe and with less risk from global terror. And we’re winning!”

    Can you guys even believe how racist, sexist, and probably homophobic this Nigel character is? //sarc

    Love him or hate him, I do recommend watching his take-downs of the EU while addressing the EU in person.

  18. Not to spoil on anyone’s parade or anything, but I doubt that the growing backlash against “globalism” (which still needs a coherent definition, btw) will provide any fuel for a future libertarian movement. Most of the “populist” movements in the developed world still have a hard-on for social-democratic programs like socialized medicine, welfare, etc; they just want to prioritize “native” citizens over immigrants, refugees, etc. It’s less anti-government and more anti-immigrant; after all, a major selling point for UKIP is reducing immigrants’ burden on the NHS.

    1. Probably this. ^

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.