4 ms·

Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories

by bojan 2y ago

Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). The UK has more capital going around than her own people.

mattlondon 2y ago
Legal immigrants from the EU were not the only source of migrants to the UK. Many come from elsewhere, legally and otherwise. Guess what: we have Brexit but we still have immigrants - impossible?! </sarcasm> Plus it was never about immigration, it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it.
- EndShell 2y ago
  > Plus it was never about immigration, It was partly about immigration. According to these surveys 43% of people that voted leave think immigration should be reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... > it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it. Why do many people assume that if someone thinks differently about a particular political issue they must have fooled somehow? Considering there is data that partially contradicts your belief that it wasn't about immigration, maybe your assessment about their level of understanding of the issues involved is also incorrect.
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    > It was partly about immigration My view is it’s actually about people being racist
    - EndShell 2y ago
      Well there is no evidence to back that up. In fact there is plenty that indicates the opposite. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk... There is in the section entitled "Preferences for different types of migrant: origin, similarity, skill level". (There doesn't seem to be a way to directly reference it in a document). > Country of origin is not the only factor that people take into account when considering preferences on immigration. In the European Social Survey 2014, British respondents reported how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer). The results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high (Figure 5). Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution > The preference among the British public for highly skilled migrants aligns with previous research indicating that, when questioned about the criteria for incoming migrants, skills are considered more important than other factors such as race/ethnicity and religion. Direct link to the stats: https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=4&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:...
    - the_third_wave 2y ago
      My view is there needs to be a version of Godwin's law related to client of supposed 'racism', i.e. the one who claims ${issue} is caused by/related to 'racism' thereby loses the argument unless he comes with solid proof. I see no proof, spurious claims of 'racism' do not count as such so it actually was about immigration.
      - lurk2 2y ago
        It's disingenuous to pretend Brexit wasn't at least partially motivated by in-group preference. Almost as disingenuous as implying that there's anything wrong with having said preference. I don't open up my house to people I don't know regardless of their potential to contribute to it economically. Why is this treated as immoral when the same reasoning is applied to the immigration system?
  - dijksterhuis 2y ago
    > Why do many people assume that if someone thinks differently about a particular political issue they must have fooled somehow? politicians sometimes lie…? the £350 million a day bus springs to mind as one example. the amazing trade deals which will unleash our new economy were another. like, those things sound great. people wanted those promises to become real and believed the people who were saying those things could implement them. turns out implementation is sometimes a lot harder than waving your hands and making a bunch of promises. edit — especially when the advertised numbers are factually wrong, and people know they are wrong — i.e. they lied. > A study by King's College London and Ipsos MORI, published in October 2018 found that 42 percent of people who had heard of the £350 million claim still believed it was true, whereas 36 percent thought it was false and 22 per cent were unsure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_Leave_bus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_Leave_bus
    - EndShell 2y ago
      > politicians sometimes lie…? Most people are quite aware that politicians lie. It is a common trope in movies, tv and media generally. Politicians are quite disliked in the UK generally. So this idea that people blindly believe politicians is nonsense. > A study by King's College London and Ipsos MORI, published in October 2018 found that 42 percent of people who had heard of the £350 million claim still believed it was true, whereas 36 percent thought it was false and 22 per cent were unsure. So? People frequently cherry pick information to justify their decisions after they have already made them. I actually looked up the actual report (not the wikipedia summary). While much more people generally believe the 350 million figure voted Leave, there was a decent percentage of people that believed the figure and voted Remain. People seem to forget that a good portion of the Media and Parliament (including the Prime Minister at the time who won with a majority) were in favour of Remain. What is often ignored is that if you look at UKIP voter percentage before the referendum. It had risen from 3.1% to 12.6%. That was rising well before the bus campaign was a thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results The Leave Referendum was about many things. It was partly about immigration, it was partly about sticking it to an entitled political class, part of it was about sovereignty. Making it about a figure on the side of the bus is asinine. I also don't believe Dominic Cummings on how effective it was btw. But in any event this will probably be my last comment on anything political on here because you get downvoted for simply defending half the people in my country that voted a particular way.
EndShell 2y ago
> Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? We didn't leave the EHCR. So there is an argument that we don't have full control of our laws. IANAL and won't pretend to know the specifics. > Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). Not just Conservative voters. Almost 1 in 5 Labour and Lib Dem voters want to see it reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... Generally 52% of the UK want to see it immigration reduced in some capacity according to the migration observatory. This was roughly the Vote Leave percentage. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...
- bojan 2y ago
  > Not just Conservative voters. That's also not what I said nor implied. The parent comment discussed Conservatives, so I replied to that.
  - EndShell 2y ago
    I know. I felt like it needed to be pointed out that even on parties that are seen to be more centre-left/left that there is good portion of voters that are opposition to immigration. This is because I don't think it is as much of a right/left issue like it is frequently framed.
- pmyteh 2y ago
  The ECHR is an international agreement like many, many others. It has special status in UK law only because we chose to: that was the purpose of the Human Rights Act. You can also take complaints of breach to the European Court of Human Rights, but they have no enforcement powers (in particular, Russia often decided not to bother complying, and we've avoided enforcing their ruling on prisoner voting rights with their tacit consent). It used to be the case that we were also tied into the ECHR (and playing nice with the rulings of the ECtHR) because it's required by EU law even though it's not an EU instrument and the ECtHR isn't an EU court. But as we've left that's no longer an issue. Finally, I'd just say that there's little objectionable about the Convention, and for the most part it tracks very closely with existing British common law (not surprisingly, as it was a Churchill-supported project in the first place and intended to export what was great about the British tradition of liberty as much as to bind us into Europe). There are a few edge cases where politicians and certain newspapers get into enormous flaps about individual cases, but it's really not that constraining a convention: most of the clauses have get-outs for crime, morality and public order and the margin of appreciation is generally quite broad. It's not perfect any more than, say, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, but the complaints are mostly grandstanding.
mmooss 2y ago
> The UK has more capital going around than her own people. Wealth and income are not zero-sum. Generally, people produce more than they consume (or we'd all be living in caves). Reducing people reduces output, growth, and wealth.

by bojan 2y ago

mattlondon 2y ago

Legal immigrants from the EU were not the only source of migrants to the UK. Many come from elsewhere, legally and otherwise. Guess what: we have Brexit but we still have immigrants - impossible?! </sarcasm> Plus it was never about immigration, it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it.

EndShell 2y ago
> Plus it was never about immigration, It was partly about immigration. According to these surveys 43% of people that voted leave think immigration should be reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... > it was always - I think - a classic case of misinformation and greed from many places. Sadly many people fell for it. Why do many people assume that if someone thinks differently about a particular political issue they must have fooled somehow? Considering there is data that partially contradicts your belief that it wasn't about immigration, maybe your assessment about their level of understanding of the issues involved is also incorrect.
- youngtaff 2y ago
  > It was partly about immigration My view is it’s actually about people being racist
  - EndShell 2y ago
    Well there is no evidence to back that up. In fact there is plenty that indicates the opposite. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk... There is in the section entitled "Preferences for different types of migrant: origin, similarity, skill level". (There doesn't seem to be a way to directly reference it in a document). > Country of origin is not the only factor that people take into account when considering preferences on immigration. In the European Social Survey 2014, British respondents reported how many immigrants should be allowed based on a question that specified both the country of origin (Poland or India) and the skill level (professional or unskilled labourer). The results revealed that when migrants are professionals, opposition is low, and when migrants are unskilled, opposition is high (Figure 5). Research has shown that people’s general preference for high-skilled over low-skilled migrants is mainly driven by perceptions of their higher economic contribution > The preference among the British public for highly skilled migrants aligns with previous research indicating that, when questioned about the criteria for incoming migrants, skills are considered more important than other factors such as race/ethnicity and religion. Direct link to the stats: https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=4&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE5?:...
  - the_third_wave 2y ago
    My view is there needs to be a version of Godwin's law related to client of supposed 'racism', i.e. the one who claims ${issue} is caused by/related to 'racism' thereby loses the argument unless he comes with solid proof. I see no proof, spurious claims of 'racism' do not count as such so it actually was about immigration.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      It's disingenuous to pretend Brexit wasn't at least partially motivated by in-group preference. Almost as disingenuous as implying that there's anything wrong with having said preference. I don't open up my house to people I don't know regardless of their potential to contribute to it economically. Why is this treated as immoral when the same reasoning is applied to the immigration system?
- dijksterhuis 2y ago
  > Why do many people assume that if someone thinks differently about a particular political issue they must have fooled somehow? politicians sometimes lie…? the £350 million a day bus springs to mind as one example. the amazing trade deals which will unleash our new economy were another. like, those things sound great. people wanted those promises to become real and believed the people who were saying those things could implement them. turns out implementation is sometimes a lot harder than waving your hands and making a bunch of promises. edit — especially when the advertised numbers are factually wrong, and people know they are wrong — i.e. they lied. > A study by King's College London and Ipsos MORI, published in October 2018 found that 42 percent of people who had heard of the £350 million claim still believed it was true, whereas 36 percent thought it was false and 22 per cent were unsure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_Leave_bus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_Leave_bus
  - EndShell 2y ago
    > politicians sometimes lie…? Most people are quite aware that politicians lie. It is a common trope in movies, tv and media generally. Politicians are quite disliked in the UK generally. So this idea that people blindly believe politicians is nonsense. > A study by King's College London and Ipsos MORI, published in October 2018 found that 42 percent of people who had heard of the £350 million claim still believed it was true, whereas 36 percent thought it was false and 22 per cent were unsure. So? People frequently cherry pick information to justify their decisions after they have already made them. I actually looked up the actual report (not the wikipedia summary). While much more people generally believe the 350 million figure voted Leave, there was a decent percentage of people that believed the figure and voted Remain. People seem to forget that a good portion of the Media and Parliament (including the Prime Minister at the time who won with a majority) were in favour of Remain. What is often ignored is that if you look at UKIP voter percentage before the referendum. It had risen from 3.1% to 12.6%. That was rising well before the bus campaign was a thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results The Leave Referendum was about many things. It was partly about immigration, it was partly about sticking it to an entitled political class, part of it was about sovereignty. Making it about a figure on the side of the bus is asinine. I also don't believe Dominic Cummings on how effective it was btw. But in any event this will probably be my last comment on anything political on here because you get downvoted for simply defending half the people in my country that voted a particular way.

EndShell 2y ago

> Didn't they get more independence with Brexit? We didn't leave the EHCR. So there is an argument that we don't have full control of our laws. IANAL and won't pretend to know the specifics. > Regarding the immigration, sure, the Conservative voters maybe want less of it, but rich and influential Tories actually like immigration as it allows their businesses to thrive (even more). Not just Conservative voters. Almost 1 in 5 Labour and Lib Dem voters want to see it reduced. https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=8&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE9?:... Generally 52% of the UK want to see it immigration reduced in some capacity according to the migration observatory. This was roughly the Vote Leave percentage. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk...

bojan 2y ago
> Not just Conservative voters. That's also not what I said nor implied. The parent comment discussed Conservatives, so I replied to that.
- EndShell 2y ago
  I know. I felt like it needed to be pointed out that even on parties that are seen to be more centre-left/left that there is good portion of voters that are opposition to immigration. This is because I don't think it is as much of a right/left issue like it is frequently framed.
pmyteh 2y ago
The ECHR is an international agreement like many, many others. It has special status in UK law only because we chose to: that was the purpose of the Human Rights Act. You can also take complaints of breach to the European Court of Human Rights, but they have no enforcement powers (in particular, Russia often decided not to bother complying, and we've avoided enforcing their ruling on prisoner voting rights with their tacit consent). It used to be the case that we were also tied into the ECHR (and playing nice with the rulings of the ECtHR) because it's required by EU law even though it's not an EU instrument and the ECtHR isn't an EU court. But as we've left that's no longer an issue. Finally, I'd just say that there's little objectionable about the Convention, and for the most part it tracks very closely with existing British common law (not surprisingly, as it was a Churchill-supported project in the first place and intended to export what was great about the British tradition of liberty as much as to bind us into Europe). There are a few edge cases where politicians and certain newspapers get into enormous flaps about individual cases, but it's really not that constraining a convention: most of the clauses have get-outs for crime, morality and public order and the margin of appreciation is generally quite broad. It's not perfect any more than, say, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, but the complaints are mostly grandstanding.

mmooss 2y ago

> The UK has more capital going around than her own people. Wealth and income are not zero-sum. Generally, people produce more than they consume (or we'd all be living in caves). Reducing people reduces output, growth, and wealth.