I am British.
Ja sam Britanac.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Never before has the phrase "I am British" elicited so much pity.
Nikad prije fraza "Ja sam Britanac" nije izvlačila toliko sažaljenja.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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 imposed change on others but done much less of it ourselves.
Dolazim s otoka na kojemu mnogi od nas vole vjerovati da postoji kontinuitet u posljednjih nekoliko tisuća godina. U povijesti smo nametali promjene drugima, ali malo smo ih učinili za sebe.
So it came as an immense 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 immense shock for me, and it was an immense shock for many people, but it was also something that, over the following several days, created a complete political meltdown in my country. There were calls for a second referendum, almost as if, following a sports match, we could ask the opposition for a replay. Everybody was blaming everybody else. 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 accused the old. The educated blamed the less well-educated. That complete meltdown was made even worse by the most tragic element of it: levels of xenophobia and racist abuse in the streets of Britain at a level that I have never seen 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.
Zbog toga sam doživio golem šok kad sam se probudio 24. lipnja i otkrio da je moja zemlja izglasala izlazak iz Europske unije, premijer je dao ostavku, a Škotska je razmišljala o referendumu koji bi mogao dovesti do samog kraja postojanja Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva. Dakle, to je bio veliki šok za mene i veliki šok za mnoge ljude, ali i ono što je, u proteklih nekoliko dana, stvorilo potpuno političko stapanje u mojoj zemlji. Javila se želja za drugim referendumom, kao da pratimo sportsku utakmicu i možemo protivničku ekipu zamoliti za ponovno odigravanje. Svi su krivili svakoga. Ljudi su krivili premijera za pozivanje na referendum. Krivili su predvodnika opozicije jer se nije dovoljno usprotivio. Mladi su optuživali stare. Obrazovani su okrivljavali manje obrazovane. To potpuno stapanje sve je učinilo još gorim najtragičnijim elementom: nivo ksenofobije i rasističkog zlostavljanja na ulicama Britanije koji nikad prije nisam doživio u svom životu. Ljudi razgovaraju o tome hoće li moja zemlja postati Little England ili, kako je to sročio jedan od mojih kolega, hoćemo li postati nostalgični tematski park iz 1950-ih koji pluta u Atlantskom oceanu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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 represent, not just for my country, but for all of us around the world? And second, what can we do about it? How should we all respond?
No moje je pravo pitanje je li stupanj šoka koji smo iskusili zapravo opravdan? Je li ovo nešto što se dogodilo preko noći? Ili su nas dublji strukturalni faktori doveli do ovoga gdje smo danas? Zato se želim vratiti jedan korak unazad i zapitati se 2 ključna pitanja. Prvo, što Brexit predstavlja, ne samo za moju zemlju, već za sve nas u svijetu? I drugo, što možemo učiniti? Kako bismo svi trebali odgovoriti?
So first, what does Brexit represent? 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 seem 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 those that did wanted to remain. Older people really wanted to leave the European Union. Geographically, it was London and Scotland that most strongly committed to being part of the European Union, while in other parts of the country there was very strong ambivalence. Those divisions are things we really need to recognize and take seriously. 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 those that embrace globalization and those that fear globalization.
Dakle, prvo. Što Brexit predstavlja? Prekasno uviđanje predivna je stvar. Brexit nas uči mnogim stvarima o našem društvu i o društvima u svijetu. Na neobične načine naglašava, ono čega smo sramotno nesvjesni, koliko su podijeljena naša društva. Podjela po glasovanju duž godina, obrazovanja, klase i geografije. Mladi nisu glasali u velikim brojevima, ali oni koji jesu, htjeli su ostati. Stariji su ljudi zbilja htjeli napustiti Europsku uniju. Geografski, London i Škotska najstrože su se obvezali ostati dijelom Europske unije, dok je u ostalim dijelovima zemlje postojala snažna ambivalencija. Takve podjele ono su što moramo prepoznati i shvatiti ozbiljno. I još dublje, glasanje nas poučava o prirodi politike u današnjici. Suvremena politika nije više o podjeli na ljevicu i desnicu. Nije više o porezima i troškovima. Već o globalizaciji. Linija kvara u suvremenoj politici je između onih koji zagovaraju globalizaciju i onih koji se globalizacije boje.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
If we look at why those who wanted to leave -- we call them "Leavers," as opposed to "Remainers" -- we see two factors in the opinion polls that really mattered. The first was immigration, and the second sovereignty, and these represent a desire for people to take back control of their own lives and the feeling that they are unrepresented by politicians. But those ideas are ones that signify fear and alienation. They represent 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 myself, and I firmly include myself in that picture, need to write ourselves 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 see 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 those areas. In some of those 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 ourselves as inclusive, open and tolerant, perhaps don't know our own countries and societies nearly as well as we like to believe.
Ako pogledamo zašto oni koji su htjeli otići -- zovemo ih "odlazitelji", nasuprot onih koji žele ostati -- vidimo dva faktora u istraživanju javnog mnijenja koji su uistinu značajni. Prvi je imigracija, a drugi suverenost, oni predstavljaju želju ljudi da vrate kontrolu nad svojim životima i osjećaj da ih političari ne predstavljaju uistinu. Te ideje predstavljaju strah i otuđenje. Predstavljaju povlačenje prema nacionalizmu i granicama na način koji mnogi od nas odbijaju. Ono što želim predložiti jest puno kompliciranija slika, kako liberalni internacionalisti poput mene, a čvrsto se ubrajam u tu sliku, moraju sebe ponovno staviti u sliku kako bismo razumjeli kako smo stigli tu gdje jesmo danas. Kada pogledamo uzorke glasača diljem Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, lako uočavamo podjele. Plava područja označavaju ostanak, a crvena izlazak. Kad sam ovo pogledao, ono što me osobno pogodilo jest mala količina vremena u životu koju sam zbilja proveo u crvenim područjima. Iznenada sam shvatio, gledajući top 50 područja u UK koja imaju najviše glasova za izlazak, ukupno sam proveo 4 dana svog života u tim područjima. U nekim tim mjestima nisam čak znao ni imena glasačkih okruga. Bio je to pravi šok za mene, a značilo je da ljudi poput mene koji se smatraju inkluzivnima, otvorenima i tolerantnima, možda ni ne poznaju vlastitu zemlju i društvo onoliko koliko volimo vjerovati da je tako.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
And the challenge that comes from that is we need to find a new way to narrate globalization to those people, to recognize that for those 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.
Izazov koji nam se javlja jest u pronalasku novog načina prenošenja globalizacije tim ljudima, prepoznavanju da ti ljudi koji nisu nužno pohađali sveučilište, koji nisu nužno odrasli uz internet, koji nemaju mnogo prilika za putovanja, njih možda nije uvjerilo ono što mi smatramo uvjerljivim u našim često liberalnim mjehurićima.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
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, for instance, the idea that the vote on Europe could reduce the number of refugees and asylum-seekers 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 sense that nobody represented them, that they couldn't find a political party that spoke for them, and so they rejected that political establishment.
To samo znači da moramo dohvatiti šire područje i razumjeti. U glasovima za izlazak, manjina je prčkala s politikom straha i mržnje stvarajući laži i nepovjerenje poput ideje da bi glas za Europu mogao smanjiti broj izbjeglica i tražitelja skloništa u Europi dok glas za izlazak nije imao ništa sa samom imigracijom izvan Europske unije. No, za značajnu većinu glasača za izlazak iz EU najveća je briga bilo razočaranje političkog kadra. To je bio glas protesta za mnoge, osjećaj da ih nitko ne predstavlja, da ne mogu pronaći političku stranku koja će govoriti u njihovo ime, zbog toga su i odbili taj politički kadar.
This replicates around Europe and much of the liberal democratic world. We see it with the rise in popularity of Donald Trump in the United States, with the growing nationalism of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, with the increase in popularity of Marine Le Pen in France. The specter of Brexit is in all of our societies.
Ovo se javlja diljem Europe, pa i u liberalnom demokratskom svijetu. Vidimo to u rastu popularnosti Donalda Trumpa u SAD-u, u rastućem nacionalizmu Viktora Orbána u Mađarskoj, u porastu popularnosti Marine Le Pen u Francuskoj. Spektar Brexita je u svim našim društvima.
So the question I think we need to ask is my second 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.
Pitanje koje moramo postaviti je sljedeće, kako kolektivno odgovoriti na to? Za sve nas koji želimo stvoriti liberalna, otvorena i tolerantna društva, hitno trebamo novu viziju, viziju tolerantnije i inkluzivnije globalizacije koja zbližava ljude s nama, umjesto da ih ostavlja.
That vision of globalization is one that has to start by a recognition of the positive benefits of globalization. The consensus amongst economists is that free trade, the movement of capital, the movement of people across borders benefit everyone on aggregate. The consensus amongst international relations scholars is that globalization brings interdependence, which brings cooperation and peace. But globalization also has redistributive effects. It creates winners and losers. To take the example of 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 consequences, that importantly, low-skilled immigration can lead to a reduction in wages for the most impoverished in our societies and also put pressure on house prices. That doesn't detract from the fact that it's positive, but it means more people have to share in those benefits and recognize them.
Takva vizija globalizacije je ona koja mora započeti prepoznavanjem pozitivnih značajki globalizacije. Dogovor između ekonomista jest da slobodna razmjena, kretanje kapitala, kretanje ljudi preko granica, doprinosi svima. Slaganje međunarodnih stipendista jest da globalizacija donosi međuovisnost koja dovodi do suradnje i mira. Ali globalizacija ima i redistributivne efekte. Stvara pobjednike i gubitnike. Na primjeru migracije, znamo da je imigracija neto pozitivna za ekonomiju u cjelinu u skoro svim okolnostima. Ali također moramo biti svjesni da postoje redistributivne posljedice, da najvažnije, loše izvedena imigracija može dovesti do smanjenja plaća za najviše osiromašene u našem društvu te dovesti do pritiska na cijenama kuća. To ne umanjuje činjenicu da je ona pozitivna, ali znači da više ljudi mora dijeliti koristi te ih ujedno prepoznavati.
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 paraphrase, "The glass house of globalization has to be open to all if it is to remain secure. Bigotry and ignorance are the ugly face of exclusionary and antagonistic globalization."
U 2002. godini, prijašnji glavni tajnik Ujedinjenih Naroda, Kofi Annan, održao je govor na Sveučilištu Yale i taj je govor bio o inkluzivnoj globalizaciji. U tom je govoru i skovao taj termin. Rekao je, parafraziram, "Staklena kuća globalizacije mora biti otvorena za sve ako želi ostati sigurna. Netrpeljivost i neznanje ružno su lice ekskluzivne i antagonističke globalizacije."
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.
Ideja inkluzivne globalizacije sažeto je revidirana 2008. godine na konferenciji o naprednoj vladavini uključujući mnoge čelnike europskih zemalja. Međutim, zbog štednje i financijske krize u 2008. g. cijeli je koncept nestao gotovo bez traga. Globalizacija sada podržava neoliberalni dnevni red. Percipira se kao dio elitnoga, a ne kao nešto što doprinosi svima. Potrebno ju je povratiti na puno inkluzivnijoj osnovi od one na kojoj je danas.
So 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 give in to xenophobia and nationalism? That is the question for all of us. And I think, as a social scientist, that social science offers some places to start. Our transformation has to be about both ideas and about material change, and I want to give you four ideas as a starting point.
Dakle, pitanje je kako možemo postići taj cilj. Kako možemo uravnotežiti s jedne strane strah i otuđenje, a s druge ljuto odbijanje ksenofobije i nacionalizma? To je pitanje za sve nas. A ja, kao sociolog, mislim da je sociologija mjesto za dobar početak. Naša promjena mora obuhvatiti ideje, ali i materijalne promjene, a želim vam dati 4 ideje kao početnu točku.
The first relates to the idea of civic education. What stands out from Brexit is the gap between public perception and empirical reality. It's been suggested that we've moved to a postfactual society, where evidence and truth no longer matter, and lies have equal status to the clarity of evidence. So how can we --
Prva je vezana za ideju građanskog obrazovanja. Ono što nastaje od Brexita jest praznina između javnog mnijenja i empirijske stvarnosti. Spominje se da smo napredovali do posliječinjeničnog društva, gdje iznenada dokazi i istina nisu važni, a laži imaju jednak status kao i jasnoća dokaza. Dakle, kako možemo --
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
How can we rebuild respect for truth and evidence into our liberal democracies? It has to begin with education, but it has to start with the recognition that there are huge gaps.
Kako možemo izgraditi poštivanje istine i dokaza u liberalnoj demokraciji? Moramo započeti s obrazovanjem, s prepoznavanjem da postoje velike praznine.
In 2014, the pollster Ipsos MORI published a survey on attitudes to immigration, and it showed that as numbers of immigrants increase, so public concern with immigration also increases, although it obviously didn't unpack causality, because this could equally be to do not so much with numbers but the political and media narrative around it. But the same survey also revealed huge public misinformation and misunderstanding about the nature of immigration. For example, in these attitudes in the United Kingdom, the public believed that levels of asylum were a greater proportion of immigration than they were, but they also believed the levels of educational migration were far lower as a proportion of overall migration than they actually are. So we have to address this misinformation, the gap between perception and reality on key aspects of globalization. And that can't just be something that's left to our schools, although that's important to begin at an early age. It has to be about lifelong civic participation and public engagement that we all encourage as societies.
U 2014. pollster Ipsos MORI objavio je pregled mišljenja o imigraciji te pokazao da s rastućim brojem imigranata raste i interes javnosti za imigraciju, iako to očito ne dokazuje uzročnost, jer ovo nema toliko veze sa samim brojevima, već s političkom i medijskom pričom. Međutim, isti je pregled otkrio veliko dezinformiranje javnosti i nerazumijevanje prirode imigracije. Na primjer, u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, javnost je vjerovala da je broj utočišta veći od broja imigranata, a vjerovali su i da je broj migracija povezanih s obrazovanjem puno niži u cjelokupnoj migraciji nego što je to uistinu. Dakle, moramo otkriti dezinformacije, prazninu između percepcije i stvarnosti kao ključni aspekt globalizacije. I to ne može biti nešto što će se odnositi samo na škole, iako je važno započeti s tim u ranoj dobi. Naglasak treba biti na životnom građanskom sudjelovanju i javnom uključivanju koje svi potičemo u našem društvu.
The second thing that I think is an opportunity is the idea to encourage more interaction across diverse communities.
Sljedeća stvar za koju vjerujem da je prilika za nas jest ideja ohrabrivanja interakcije između raznih zajednica.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
One of the things that stands out for me very strikingly, looking at immigration attitudes in the United Kingdom, is that ironically, the regions of my country that are the most tolerant of immigrants have the highest numbers of immigrants. So for instance, London and the Southeast have the highest numbers of immigrants, and they are also by far the most tolerant areas. It's those areas of the country that have the lowest levels of immigration that actually are the most exclusionary and intolerant towards migrants.
Jedna od stvari koja je veoma upadljiva, promatrajući stvavove o imigraciji u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, jest, ironično, da regije u mojoj zemlji koje su najtolerantnije prema imigrantima imaju najveći broj imigranata. Na primjer, London i Jugoistok imaju najveći broj imigranata, a ujedno su i najtolerantnija područja. Ona područja u zemlji koja imaju najniže nivoe imigracije zapravo su najviše isključujuća i netolerantna prema migrantima.
So we need to encourage exchange programs. We need to ensure that older generations who maybe can't travel get access to the Internet. We need to encourage, even on a local and national level, more movement, more participation, more interaction with people who we don't know and whose views we might not necessarily agree with.
Dakle, treba poticati programe razmjene. Potrebno je starijim generacijama koje možda ne mogu putovati osigurati pristup internetu. Potrebno je osigurati, barem na lokalnom i nacionalnom nivou, više kretanja, više uključivanja, više interakcije s ljudima koje ne poznajemo i s čijim se pogledima možda nećemo nužno slagati.
The third thing that I think is crucial, though, and this is really fundamental, is we have to ensure that everybody shares in the benefits of globalization. This illustration from the Financial Times post-Brexit is really striking. It shows tragically that those people who voted to leave the European Union were those who actually benefited the most materially from trade with the European Union. But the problem is that those people in those areas didn't perceive themselves to be beneficiaries. They didn't believe that they were actually getting access to material benefits of increased trade and increased mobility around the world.
Treća je stvar presudna, i najtemeljitija, potrebno je osigurati svima mogućnost da dijele koristi globalizacije. Ilustracije iz Financial Timesa o post-Brexitu su veoma upadljive. Pokazuju da su oni koji su glasali za izlazak iz EU, tragično oni koji su najviše profitirali materijalno iz razmjene s Europskom unijom. Problem je u tome što ljudi u tim područjima sebe ne percipiraju kao one koji imaju koristi. Nisu vjerovali da su imali pristup materijalnoj koristi i povećanoj razmjeni te povećanoj mobilnosti diljem svijeta.
I work on questions predominantly to do with refugees, and one of the ideas I spent a lot of my time preaching, mainly to developing countries around the world, is that in order to encourage the integration of refugees, we can't just benefit the refugee populations, we also have to address the concerns of the host communities in local areas. But in looking at that, one of the policy prescriptions is that we have to provide disproportionately better education facilities, health facilities, access to social services in those regions of high immigration to address the concerns of those local populations. But while we encourage that around the developing world, we don't take those lessons home and incorporate them in our own societies.
Uglavnom se bavim pitanjima vezanim uz izbjeglice i jedna od ideja o kojoj sam mnogo govorio, uglavnom diljem svijeta u zemljama u razvoju, jest da, kako bismo ohrabrili integraciju izbjeglica, ne možemo doprinositi samo populaciji izbjeglica, već imati na umu i brige domaćih zajednica u lokalnim područjima. Gledajući na to, jedan od političkih recepata jest osigurati disproporcionalno bolje obrazovne ustanove, zdravstvene ustanove, pristup socijalnim službama, u regijama imigracije kako bismo imenovali probleme lokalne populacije. Međutim, dok to potičemo u razvijenim zemljama, ne preuzimamo te lekcije doma i ne uključujemo ih u svoje društvo.
Furthermore, if we're going to really take seriously the need to ensure people share in the economic benefits, our businesses and corporations need a model of globalization that recognizes that they, too, have to take people with them.
Nadalje, ako ćemo uzeti za ozbiljno potrebu osiguravanja ljudima dijeljenje ekonomskih dobara, naše tvrtke i korporacije trebaju model globalizacije koji prepoznaje da i oni moraju uključiti ljude.
The fourth and final idea I want to put forward is an idea that we need more responsible politics. There's very little social science evidence that compares attitudes on globalization. But from the surveys that do exist, what we can see is there's huge variation across different countries and time periods in those countries for attitudes and tolerance of questions like migration and mobility on the one hand and free trade on the other. But one hypothesis that I think emerges from a cursory look at that data is the idea that polarized societies are far less tolerant of globalization. It's the societies like Sweden in the past, like Canada today, where there is a centrist politics, where right and left work together, that we encourage supportive attitudes towards globalization. And what we see around the world today is a tragic polarization, a failure to have dialogue between the extremes in politics, and a gap in terms of that liberal center ground that can encourage communication and a shared understanding. We might not achieve that today, but at the very least we have to call upon our politicians and our media to drop a language of fear and be far more tolerant of one another.
Četvrta i posljednja ideja koju želim istaknuti jest ideja da nam je potrebna odgovorna politika. Malo je socioloških dokaza koji uspoređuju stavove o globalizaciji. Ali iz istraživanja koja postoje, možemo uočiti veliku razliku između različitih zemalja i vremenskih perioda u tim zemljama za stavove i toleranciju o pitanju migracije i mobilnosti s jedne strane te slobodne razmjene s druge. Ali jedna hipoteza koja proizlazi iz pogleda na te podatke jest ideja da su polarizirana društva manje tolerantna prema globalizaciji. Društva poput Švedske u prošlosti, poput Kanade danas, u kojima postoji centralistička politika, u kojima desnica i ljevica surađuju, potiču se i stavovi potpore prema globalizaciji. Ono što danas vidimo diljem svijeta jest tragična polarizacija, neuspjeh u uspostavljanju dijaloga između ekstrema u politici, i praznina u pojmovima liberalnog centra koji može potaknuti komunikaciju i međusobno razumijevanje. Možda to nećemo postići danas, međutim, moramo pozvati sve političare i medije da otpuste jezik straha i budu tolerantniji jedni prema drugima.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
These ideas are very tentative, and that's in part because this needs to be an inclusive and shared project.
Ove su ideje privremene, zato što ovo dijelom mora biti inkluzivni projekt.
I am still British. I am still European. I am still a global citizen. For those of us who believe that our identities are not mutually exclusive, we have to all work together to ensure that globalization takes everyone with us and doesn't leave people behind. Only then will we truly reconcile democracy and globalization.
Još sam uvijek Britanac. Još sam uvijek Europljanin. Još sam uvijek globalni građanin. Za one od nas koji vjeruju da naši identiteti nisu međusobno isključivi, moramo raditi svi zajedno da bismo osigurali da nas globalizacije sve povede i ne ostavi nikoga od nas. Samo ćemo tada moći pomiriti demokraciju i globalizaciju.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)