3 ms·

> 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 r

> 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?
    - EndShell 2y ago
      I am not pretending anything. I've showed some actual evidence to back to back up my view point. Moreover, time after time the British public are surveyed about their views on immigration and ethnic background is not something that is important to a large portion of the people taking part. Are there some people that do care? Sure there are, but they are very small minority typically.
      - lurk2 2y ago
        > Sure there are, but they are very small minority typically. From your own data, 25% of respondents agreed with the statement: Allow none/only a few immigrants of a different race/ethnicity to come and live in [the UK]. This isn't a small minority and I can guarantee you the distribution of these attitudes isn't equal between leavers and remainers.
        EndShell 2y ago
        You have to read the analysis below as well as look at the charts. From the articles I linked > As a further way of characterising countries, we include a second measure based on the percentage of people saying that immigration ‘makes the country a worse place to live’ On this measure, the UK maintains a similar rank position as one of the more positive countries in the sample, and similar to Switzerland at 18%. > These two measures can be thought of as capturing opinions on future migration flows and current population stocks. In most of these 13 countries, it appears that people are more negative towards the idea of continuing flows than about the immigrants already present. Finland, for example, is a country where 42% of the public would prefer few/no immigrants of another race coming to live there, whilst, at the same time, just 19% think immigrants make the country a worse place to live. It is still much better than many other countries in Europe. > This isn't a small minority and I can guarantee you the distribution of these attitudes isn't equal between leavers and remainers. Ok sure. I probably shouldn't have said minority. Yeah of course the distribution isn't going to be equal. However people pretend it was all about racism when it clearly wasn't.
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.

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?
  - EndShell 2y ago
    I am not pretending anything. I've showed some actual evidence to back to back up my view point. Moreover, time after time the British public are surveyed about their views on immigration and ethnic background is not something that is important to a large portion of the people taking part. Are there some people that do care? Sure there are, but they are very small minority typically.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      > Sure there are, but they are very small minority typically. From your own data, 25% of respondents agreed with the statement: Allow none/only a few immigrants of a different race/ethnicity to come and live in [the UK]. This isn't a small minority and I can guarantee you the distribution of these attitudes isn't equal between leavers and remainers.
      - EndShell 2y ago
        You have to read the analysis below as well as look at the charts. From the articles I linked > As a further way of characterising countries, we include a second measure based on the percentage of people saying that immigration ‘makes the country a worse place to live’ On this measure, the UK maintains a similar rank position as one of the more positive countries in the sample, and similar to Switzerland at 18%. > These two measures can be thought of as capturing opinions on future migration flows and current population stocks. In most of these 13 countries, it appears that people are more negative towards the idea of continuing flows than about the immigrants already present. Finland, for example, is a country where 42% of the public would prefer few/no immigrants of another race coming to live there, whilst, at the same time, just 19% think immigrants make the country a worse place to live. It is still much better than many other countries in Europe. > This isn't a small minority and I can guarantee you the distribution of these attitudes isn't equal between leavers and remainers. Ok sure. I probably shouldn't have said minority. Yeah of course the distribution isn't going to be equal. However people pretend it was all about racism when it clearly wasn't.

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.