4 ms·

The whole reason the British government pushed Brexit was so Britain could control its immigration. That's how Brexit was presented to the population, that's wh

by spwa4 4mo ago

The whole reason the British government pushed Brexit was so Britain could control its immigration. That's how Brexit was presented to the population, that's why people voted for it. Then the government got Brexit, and then Boris Johnson more than tripled immigration, chasing away EU immigration and getting all the immigrants from the (very coincidentally very low-wage Pakistan, I mean there aren't very many countries anywhere that have lower average wages than Greece) https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/12/30/how-the-take-back-control-crowd-boosted-immigration-to-britain https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/12/30/how-the-take-ba... ( https://archive.ph/krvMU https://archive.ph/krvMU ) Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on. And the central UK government forced small towns, cities and the like into bankruptcy. Now, in the UK, things like social support are financed by municipalities EXCEPT when it comes to immigrants. So, effectively, the government massively increased immigration, reduced social support and raised taxes on everybody except immigrants. Then the government blamed very large youth services scandals, like the Rotherham scandal, on immigrants. This, despite the fact that these children had been taken from their homes by youth services and were under their custody AND despite the fact that youth services AND the police have been credibly accused of taking payoffs. Those people were definitely not immigrants, but they did not feature in the court proceedings "for some reason". So government causes, to varying extents, large social problems. It ostensibly saves immigrants from these problems, and then the government itself blames immigrants for problems the government caused. The problem here is not Twitter. I mean, they're not helping. But they're not the problem.

monooso 4mo ago
Regardless of whether you're correct, that wasn't the subject of the article.
- Jiro 4mo ago
  It's implied by the article that there wouldn't be much opposition to immigration without big tech. That isn't true if there is widespread opposition to immigration anyway and the government broke its promise about dealing with it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
    The article specifically disclaims that. "To identify Musk as the cause of the riots is to airbrush the messy reality. Comforting, but ultimately deluding."
  - kakistocrats 4mo ago
    The project was started by wealth offshoring groups on the Isle of Man that were afraid their loopholes would finally be closed, so if it could deliver on anything it claimed in order to get adequate votes then that would be coincidental. (The structure of EU and Schengen law also meant that leaving was the most likely way to raise the percentage of illegal immigrants making it to the UK.)
    - 4dregress 4mo ago
      Again, interesting to see a new account being used to make this comment.
      - kakistocrats 4mo ago
        I also find your account interesting as a choice. If were not going to swap that account, I would at least update the "about" to reflect the risks from a Musk worth over a trillion.
adamauckland 4mo ago
37% of the voting population voted for Brexit, it wasn't anywhere near a majority.
- graemep 4mo ago
  its a higher percentage than voted for the current government. Its also, obviously, a higher proportion than voted to remain. Its been at least a 100 years since a government was voted in by the majority of the electorate, and only once in that time has a government even got the majority of votes cast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_elections_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
fzeroracer 4mo ago
>The whole reason the British government pushed Brexit was so Britain could control its immigration. That's how Brexit was presented to the population, that's why people voted for it. >Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on. These two things might be connected. It's almost like Brexit caused a series of large social problems.
- dingdingdang 4mo ago
  Brexit promised a solution just like loads of solutions had been promised within the EU framework prior to it - all these "solutions" were akin in that they were all promised (from left and right within the political establishment) and all not delivered. This is also why people seek to go outside the regular voting pattern with Reform, it's not cause they suddenly love something completely different but because the former voting pattern did not deliver improvements as expected.
  - spwa4 4mo ago
    What do you mean "not delivered"? The solution to too much immigration was that Boris Johnson and the conservatives tripled immigration (and >10x'ed Pakistani immigration) because they got power through Brexit. That's not what any reasonable person would call "not delivered". Here is the direct source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-points-based-immigration-system-policy-statement/the-uks-points-based-immigration-system-policy-statement https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-points-ba... (note: this was not loose enough for Johnson and with support from Rishi Sunak he loosened immigration policy even further. This was just the first shot)
dijksterhuis 4mo ago
you are right, although i would point out that when you use the word “government” you’re mostly referring to a series of conservative party governments. at the same time. two things can be true. everything you mentioned plays a large part in why we’re in a bit of a mess as a country. this is being exacerbated by big tech firms, especially social media ones. the fact that a lie from some tech bro with a large soapbox can travel all the way around the world in less than a second makes it very hard to have a reasoned discussion or debate about the problem.
- dredmorbius 4mo ago
  "The government" in British politics (as with most parliamentary systems) is a term of art which in a policy context refers specifically to present executive authority as embodied in the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet. "The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. It, and Cameron, pushed for a vote, but with the expectation that the referendum would be defeated.
  - dijksterhuis 4mo ago
    > "The government" in British politics (as with most parliamentary systems) is a term of art which in a policy context refers specifically to present executive authority as embodied in the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet. Fair. Although that particular term of art obfuscates some specific nuance. Namely that there were like 10 different conservative "the governments" that were referred to throughout spwa4's comment (i can't remember exactly how many different govts there were now and i cba to remember). > "The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. Yes, although elements of the conservative party, some of which were part of David Cameron's government, were pushing for a referendum.
    - dredmorbius 4mo ago
      Regards your final 'graph, as I've also pointed out: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48613291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48613291>.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
graemep 4mo ago
Which government pushed for Brexit? The government at the time of Brexit campaigned to remain. People voted for Brexit for a lot of reasons. The leaders of both Vote Leave and Leave.EU said they wanted more skilled immigration. > raised taxes on everybody except immigrants. immigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else plus extra taxes such as the NHS surcharge and huge visa renewal fees.
- dredmorbius 4mo ago
  Right. "The government" didn't push for Brexit. Then-prime minister David Cameron pushed for a Brexit vote largely because he thought that the measure would be defeated. Quoting Wikipedia, "Supporters of the Remain campaign included then-prime minister David Cameron, the future prime ministers Theresa May, Liz Truss, and Sir Keir Starmer, and the ex–prime ministers John Major, Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit>. Retrospective analyses and Cameron's own account make clear that he saw advantage in calling for the referrendum with the expectation that it would be defeated. Example: Cameron chose to commit to a vote, not because the country’s population was clamouring for one but because a significant minority of his own MPs ... were demanding that he do so... Naturally, Cameron was aware he was running a risk – after all, his best friend in politics, Chancellor George Osborne, told him so again and again. But he thought he would win the vote.... <https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-referendum/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-refe...>

by spwa4 4mo ago

monooso 4mo ago

Regardless of whether you're correct, that wasn't the subject of the article.

Jiro 4mo ago
It's implied by the article that there wouldn't be much opposition to immigration without big tech. That isn't true if there is widespread opposition to immigration anyway and the government broke its promise about dealing with it.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  The article specifically disclaims that. "To identify Musk as the cause of the riots is to airbrush the messy reality. Comforting, but ultimately deluding."
- kakistocrats 4mo ago
  The project was started by wealth offshoring groups on the Isle of Man that were afraid their loopholes would finally be closed, so if it could deliver on anything it claimed in order to get adequate votes then that would be coincidental. (The structure of EU and Schengen law also meant that leaving was the most likely way to raise the percentage of illegal immigrants making it to the UK.)
  - 4dregress 4mo ago
    Again, interesting to see a new account being used to make this comment.
    - kakistocrats 4mo ago
      I also find your account interesting as a choice. If were not going to swap that account, I would at least update the "about" to reflect the risks from a Musk worth over a trillion.

adamauckland 4mo ago

37% of the voting population voted for Brexit, it wasn't anywhere near a majority.

graemep 4mo ago
its a higher percentage than voted for the current government. Its also, obviously, a higher proportion than voted to remain. Its been at least a 100 years since a government was voted in by the majority of the electorate, and only once in that time has a government even got the majority of votes cast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_elections_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...

fzeroracer 4mo ago

>The whole reason the British government pushed Brexit was so Britain could control its immigration. That's how Brexit was presented to the population, that's why people voted for it. >Meanwhile the government did not fix the housing issue, the cost of living disaster in London, the unemployment problem, ... and so on. These two things might be connected. It's almost like Brexit caused a series of large social problems.

dingdingdang 4mo ago
Brexit promised a solution just like loads of solutions had been promised within the EU framework prior to it - all these "solutions" were akin in that they were all promised (from left and right within the political establishment) and all not delivered. This is also why people seek to go outside the regular voting pattern with Reform, it's not cause they suddenly love something completely different but because the former voting pattern did not deliver improvements as expected.
- spwa4 4mo ago
  What do you mean "not delivered"? The solution to too much immigration was that Boris Johnson and the conservatives tripled immigration (and >10x'ed Pakistani immigration) because they got power through Brexit. That's not what any reasonable person would call "not delivered". Here is the direct source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-points-based-immigration-system-policy-statement/the-uks-points-based-immigration-system-policy-statement https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-points-ba... (note: this was not loose enough for Johnson and with support from Rishi Sunak he loosened immigration policy even further. This was just the first shot)

dijksterhuis 4mo ago

you are right, although i would point out that when you use the word “government” you’re mostly referring to a series of conservative party governments. at the same time. two things can be true. everything you mentioned plays a large part in why we’re in a bit of a mess as a country. this is being exacerbated by big tech firms, especially social media ones. the fact that a lie from some tech bro with a large soapbox can travel all the way around the world in less than a second makes it very hard to have a reasoned discussion or debate about the problem.

dredmorbius 4mo ago
"The government" in British politics (as with most parliamentary systems) is a term of art which in a policy context refers specifically to present executive authority as embodied in the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet. "The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. It, and Cameron, pushed for a vote, but with the expectation that the referendum would be defeated.
- dijksterhuis 4mo ago
  > "The government" in British politics (as with most parliamentary systems) is a term of art which in a policy context refers specifically to present executive authority as embodied in the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet. Fair. Although that particular term of art obfuscates some specific nuance. Namely that there were like 10 different conservative "the governments" that were referred to throughout spwa4's comment (i can't remember exactly how many different govts there were now and i cba to remember). > "The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. Yes, although elements of the conservative party, some of which were part of David Cameron's government, were pushing for a referendum.
  - dredmorbius 4mo ago
    Regards your final 'graph, as I've also pointed out: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48613291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48613291>.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

graemep 4mo ago

Which government pushed for Brexit? The government at the time of Brexit campaigned to remain. People voted for Brexit for a lot of reasons. The leaders of both Vote Leave and Leave.EU said they wanted more skilled immigration. > raised taxes on everybody except immigrants. immigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else plus extra taxes such as the NHS surcharge and huge visa renewal fees.

dredmorbius 4mo ago
Right. "The government" didn't push for Brexit. Then-prime minister David Cameron pushed for a Brexit vote largely because he thought that the measure would be defeated. Quoting Wikipedia, "Supporters of the Remain campaign included then-prime minister David Cameron, the future prime ministers Theresa May, Liz Truss, and Sir Keir Starmer, and the ex–prime ministers John Major, Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit>. Retrospective analyses and Cameron's own account make clear that he saw advantage in calling for the referrendum with the expectation that it would be defeated. Example: Cameron chose to commit to a vote, not because the country’s population was clamouring for one but because a significant minority of his own MPs ... were demanding that he do so... Naturally, Cameron was aware he was running a risk – after all, his best friend in politics, Chancellor George Osborne, told him so again and again. But he thought he would win the vote.... <https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-referendum/ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-refe...>