Finally! Why the leavers voted leave and why no ones talking about it!

[Chris1234567890]

This is at least a week overdue, but at least Janet Daly at The Telegraph has grasped the nettle......

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/02/if-we-dont-talk-about-immigration-now-there-will-be-hell-to-pay/

That should say
Leaving the EU risks a further brain drain from the UK

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/revealed-the-most-eurosceptic-and-europhilic-areas-in-the-uk/

You are right about Boston but according to this Telegraph article Castle Point has only 3% immigration.

I live in Doncaster which was 69% leave. There is a perception that immigration is a problem but we have well below average immigration figures. The problem is we are a deprived town with a lot of social issues, some poor schools and a lack of jobs. None of these issues are down to immigration. Ironically in the run up to the referendum someone had stuck a vote leave over a board explaining an EU funded regeneration project that was happening. Sadly UKIP gets a lot of votes here. The Westminster government does not care about towns like Doncaster.

Percentage change is important to perception but that doesn't mean that immigration is really a problem for a town. 2x (200% sounds much more dramatic) not much is still not much. I can see why tensions have arisen in a place like Boston but I don't think they are completely representative.

Ooh maths fail - sorry a doubling (2x) is obviously a 100% rise with levels now 200% of what they were (I think that's right, I'm rather tired but can't sleep).

Remember, the leave campaign don't hold power and Remainers have as much of a say as leavers in that.

Unfortunately the Tory leadership candidates don't feel the same way...

The idea that worries about immigration are all about looking out for the poorer countries is disingenuous.

I lose interest in replies to anything generally when people trot out the word 'disingenuous'.

But in response no one is saying that this is the real concern for the average person in Britain. The point is that those who favour free movement put themselves forward as being more tolerant and morally superior than everyone else. When free movement has dark, damaging sides and actually exploits individuals and communities.

Valentine
marge
"So if we improved opportunity, schools, and/or transport so the spouses could commute, we would move to solving the prob"

Yeah fine. But is it not the job of UK government using our taxes?How was EU stopping UK government from doing it? Or is it those £350million again?

It is easiest for a government to use freely, to them, trained immigrants than to increase the number of trainees.
Likewise builders/ plumbers. It must be the lack of apprenticeships, or lack of acceptance of the low wages, length of training that we no longer have our own.
Red tape or higher wages may have contributed to the lack of apprenticeships - we used to train our own plumbers etc. The benefit system and red tape has scuppered this. But no reason why it shouldn't be encouraged to come back.
Society would be enhanced by our young people doing the jobs they used to. Gov should encourage/enforce this instead of copping out.

When free movement has dark, damaging sides and actually exploits individuals and communities

What I was pointing out in my post was that a highly skilled migrant programme may not be much better for these communities as we will still need doctors etc. Bright well trained people have always jumped whatever hoops are needed to move elsewhere.

As I see it, a large amount of leave voters were in places robbed of their industries by Thatcher leading to generations of unemployment and a loss of hope in these communities. They had been sold a view that it was immigrants taking jobs/claiming benefits and sending money to the EU which was causing this sitting, not the truth, which is years of under-investment by succesive governments and failed initiatives to help transform these areas. Instead of trying to help people, there is a trend towards building a nice shiny building, but providing no actual infrastructure to use that building for purpose i.e nice new school, no funding for more teachers.
The vote to leave in these areas is a response to these problems. It's a vote from those at rock bottom, who have been driven down further by recent benefits cits/scapegoating. They were given immigration and the EU as a scapegoat for their problems and seized it with both hands. Their vote says 'fuck it, it can't get any worst'

Sadly it can get worse. The number of projects run by the EU that won't be run by Westminster is frightening.

I think it will too smallfox

I find it interesting that people coming from Poland has declined.

From what I understand this is down to it being less financially beneficial to come here and because Poland is better off now as returning nationals have brought back wealth.

Part of me wonders if the same would have happened with other EU nations in time, and it was just a rebalancing of wealth between EU nations.

We are talking about the problem within the UK being about a gap between rich and poor, but I think perhaps in reality its a global thing to.

In which case, this has implications for how we can cope on a global level outside Europe too.

I think its an effect of globalisation, as much as the EU, and whilst the EU might have amplified the effect it may also have acted as a cushion in the long term.

To be honest though, I think it all now irrelevant as Brexit will mean a brain drain of our best.

Brexit was the wrong solution to an underinvestiment and writing off of our poorest sections of society.

But yes, keep blaming the immigrants for that, rather than blaming the government for not forcing business to invest in people which was entirely possible in the EU.

But yes, keep blaming the immigrants for that, rather than blaming the government for not forcing business to invest in people which was entirely possible in the EU

But we can vote out a UK politician which might result in change, we are hamstrung with the EU.

I'm not sure anyone is blaming the immigrants, I'm blaming the policies which allow too many to come here so there is a strain on resources. And as I've just stated we can vote out a gov whose policies we don't like (eg too many immigrants (or at least we can when there is a functioning opposition) ) but can do nothing if, as we are lead to believe, it is EU policy.

Here we go. Those promising EU immigration controls realising that they have to resign as it'll come at the cost of a free trade agreement and sink the economy.

MissMargie:

The strain on resources refrain is bollocks, in fact it such a load of bollocks that I can't be bothered to deal with it again in full.

Austerity has caused the strain on resources, 4% of the population have not impacted that largely on it. An ageing population has had more impact, but they are hard to use as scapegoats, immigrants are easy.

*One (probably the only) thing remainer's and leaver's both agree on is strain on services;

• Leavers blame Immigration
• Remainers blame cuts/ austerity*

This leaver doesn't. I believe it's down to underinvestment over decades too!

Good link which I've just read on another thread:

Explains the 'immigrants' thing very well.

medium.com/@oliverhumpage/i-want-to-stop-something-exploitative-divisive-and-dishonest-conversation-with-a-leaver-af77afb1773f#.4x9jklaid

*One (probably the only) thing remainer's and leaver's both agree on is strain on services;

• Leavers blame Immigration
• Remainers blame cuts/ austerity*

This leaver doesn't. I believe it's down to underinvestment over decades too!
It's both - I voted leave as well, and would vote the same again. Why didn't the EU make funding follow the immigrants? If areas with lots of immigrants had lost of new EU funded schools and hospitals I'm sure people would be happier about it.

I didnt give that much thought to the impact on the emmigrating nations........till now.

Anyone who has ever lived in a country that people emigrate from can testify to the financial benefit of emigrants sending money home. Ireland was propped up for at least a century by dollars from America and Australia, and £ from Britain. There are other less tangible benefits too. Emigrants can be a force for change in their home countries as they and their families compare life abroad with life at home. Experience of elements of life in the US such as separation of church and state could be of immense benefit to Britain, imo.

The idea that the UK is selfishly sucking the life out of eastern Europe is daft. If Poles (for instance) were not in Britain (and Ireland) they would be in the US. Chicago claims to be the second largest Polish city in the world after Warsaw.

From MangoMoon's link:
'All the EU directives (which are obligatory to member states) all point in one direction:- privatisation (“opening up public infrastructure to competition”, ie rendering cross-subsidy — and hence the concept of a “service” — impossible), reduction of union power, free movement of workers in a divide-and-rule way that facilitates undercutting etc etc, all designed to benefit business. It all hangs together, and chimes perfectly with the reduction of participatory democracy exemplified in the EU structure.'
That's an opinion, not a fact. And it is complete baloney.

EU directives come from the UK's elected representatives in Europe, for starters. They work alongside the representatives of all the rest of the EU.
It is up to the government of the UK (and Ireland, France, Poland, Netherlands, etc) how directives are implemented in their own countries.

So if you want the NHS, be careful who you vote for in each general election.

Apparently the British public wants the NHS privatised, unions hobbled, zero hour contracts, and free movement. How else to explain the figures from the last several general elections?