AIBU to wonder why approx 40% of Londoners voted for Brexit?

[fluffychicken]

Can any London Brexiters tell me why you voted for Brexit? I am really curious to know.

The reasoned I questioned if you had actually read the study is that you made reference, and asked a question to something clearly answered in it. Its not being aggressive to ask if you had actually read it.

To your question regarding more immigration? The reason no one is answering it is because in reality Brexit won't see any real meaningful fall in immigration. Non EU immigration, with all the applications etc, is already higher.

Many of us don't believe immigration to be a problem, and frankly the reasons given for it being so by you, are spurious and have been proved to be. This includes some people who voted to leave

As we know that immigration has no effect on the unemployment of British nationals, has a marginal effect on the pay of the very lowest paid, but causes increases to the pay of every other percentile, and that it doesn't cause excessive pressure on services. The question has to be, why are you so opposed to it?

I questioned if you had actually read the study
You didnt. You told me I hadnt read it which is not the same.

The reason no one is answering...
Do you think youve got a right to answer for others?
This is nothing more than speculation. I disagree that that is their reason for not answering. Depending on the outcome of Brexit we do not yet know if there will be a fall or not. Again just speculation.What we do know for certain is that with Remain there is no possibility it could fall, and a very strong possibility it could increase substantially.

"Many of us don't believe immigration to be a problem"
But many more of us do, as surveys show. Most want it reduced.
And this brings me back to my earlier questions.

You have just admitted you are happy with current high immigration levels

Would you be happy if they rise further?
Are you happy with the fact that we have no control, its not selective from the EU, anyone can rock up whether skilled or not , whether there are jobs aplenty or not, and settle anywhere in the UK they please?
Finally since ongoing immigration on this scale is clearly unsustainable at what point, either in numbers or quality of life, would you say 'enough'?

"frankly the reasons given for it being so by you, are spurious and have been proved to be."
This is a lie I am afraid SF. You have proven none of the issues associated with uncontrolled immigration to be "spurious" (I have already pointed to the truth bending of the Oxford study on A& waiting), but I will allow you that all the problems linked with population growth (mass immigration) do have other contributory factors and immigration is not the sole cause, but it is, in all the examples given, a major factor.

I still await your answers with interest; please don't feel the need to speak for others, a personal view is more engaging.

Smallfox speaks for me too on this issue if that helps, Marmaduchess, and I see a very very much more confrontational style coming from your side.

I would take the trouble to post further about the benefits of immigration, the reasons why those in the areas of lowest immigration have the biggest problem with it, and the danger of losing membership of single market, but as you don't seem like a persuadable type I suspect it would be waste of time. I'm not getting paid to post here after all. I believe all those jobs all went to the leavers.

The UK population grew last year, in a year of high net migration by 0.7%. Its not "unsustainable". Now as we know the Eu immigrants are net contributors, and that falls in immigration won't benefit services because the falls in funding aren't offset by falls in demand.

The pressures on the NHS are to do with austerity, and an ageing population, not immigration.

87% percent of primary school children get their first choice school, 80% of secondary school children do the same. This is roughly inline with pre 2004 levels. Suggesting that immigration is not an effect. Where there are shortages it is mostly to do with the fact that despite knowing that there would be extra demand for places since 2010/2011 enough extra spaces have not been added. Even in the case of the children of immigrants the vast majority of them are born here and are still local to the area that they were born in by the time they start school. Which in turn suggests that Government provision, where there is higher competition for school places, has not been adequate.

Your questions regarding immigration increasing? I don't have a problem, but as 2015 was the highest year for net migration on record, and far higher than most of the years between 2004 and 2015, I see no evidence that its going to go up!

Further more, you have no idea or evidence that there will be a significant fall in immigration once brexit occurs. The estimate from several different groups is that with total brexit, and no freedom of movement from the EU is that at best immigration would fall by 100,000 a year.

Would you be happy for this?

The UK population grew last year, in a year of high net migration by 0.7%. Its not "unsustainable".

Once again you are using the 'net' figure to push your agenda and conceal the true scale of gross immigration, but , hey ho, let's go with your 'net' figure, 330,000, last year , so that's a city the size of Birmingham in three and a half years, six cities the size of Sheffield or Bradford in a decade. Or perhaps you'd prefer to spread them out a bit? How do a dozen Milton Keynes sound? One about to be built next to you; welcome?

And that's not even allowing for so called 'natural growth' which will inevitably result from the rising birthrate that accompanies immigration of young adults and young families of childbearing age! It's not allowing for illegal immigration, or official 'fiddling' of the estimates to the lower possibility, or any increase in immigration as a result of family reunion and marriage. It's axiomatic that immigration always leads to more immigration, due to "chain immigration".

Do you really think Britain will be a better place for our children in twenty or thirty years if this population growth, and the inevitable vast scale of building which will have to occur (or else we will have shanty towns like Brazil), is allowed to continue? Would you like London to resemble Hong Kong?
assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/04/Architecture-of-Density-Michael-Wolf-lead.jpeg

So once again when should it stop? You're still shying away from nailing your flag to the mast! When does your greed for economic growth take second place to more nebulous non consumerist matters of quality of life?

It does not even need to 'go up' to be unsustainable, just continuing at current levels is a road to the destruction of Britain , or at least England and Wales, as we know, and some of us love.

And incidentally the trend is UP, you are in denial.
www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

Kaija
I'm not getting paid to post here after all. I believe all those jobs all went to the leavers.

LOL.
Why dont you take your tin foil hat off, put your feet up and have some ?

Bursting at the seams?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306842/Stunning-images-Hong-Kong-living-cubicles-look-just-like-Borg-cubes.html

London 2050?

"And that's not even allowing for so called 'natural growth' which will inevitably result from the rising birthrate that accompanies immigration of young adults and young families of childbearing age"

The 0.7% is all of that.

Love that you've used migration watch as a source, nowt like partisanship is there?

"Once again you are using the 'net' figure to push your agenda and conceal the true scale of gross immigration."

Which is far more accurate than the stat you keep mentioning which is gross immigration, but then there is no point in counting those in if you aren't going to count them out. It simply fits your agenda.

You further use total net immigration, not the EU figure, which is of course what is being debated, in fact your attempts to use statistics to your advantage are laughable, because you claim accuracy then misuse them.

Your Brazil and hong kong points are nothing more than slippery slope fallacies. For a start Brazil's shanty towns exist mainly because it is a fast developing country, one which is now considered developed but wasn't 20 years ago, to make a comparrison between the UK and Brazil ( and much of Brazil isn't built on) is a conflation of causes and effects. But again one which suits your further appeal to emotion which essentially is "won't someone think of the children", and again is an extensive flaw in your argument.

So to conclude, misuse of data, slippery slope and conflation fallacies combined with appeals to emotion, with very little based in fact.

D - must do better.

No tinfoil hat here Marmaduchess. Just a great deal of sadness at the way the atmosphere is being polluted by this steady stream of poisonous anti-immigrant nonsense.

smallfox speaks for me too on this, and most of the people I know who voted Remain.

Just skimming through this thread and saw that Marchmaduchess described the Scotsman as pro-SNP.

He/she clearly knows sweet FA nothing about Scottish politics. The Scotsman is about as unionist as you can get and hates the SNP.

data, slippery slope and conflation fallacies combined with appeals to emotion, with very little based in fact.

Equals jumped the shark.

By the way this is Hong Kong too, just to counteract yet another emotive stereotype

smallfox said
Love that you've used migration watch as a source, nowt like partisanship is there?
MW always use ONS figures so I fail to see that you have any basis for that objection?

there is no point in counting those in if you aren't going to count them out. It simply fits your agenda.

"Love that" you believe (or is it pretend to) that immigrants are being counted in and out!

There is no counting in and out. The 'net' figure is most certainly not the number of foreigners arriving minus the numbers leaving, as in 'clocking in' and 'clocking out' of a factory.

The gross immigration figure is simply the Governments 'estimate' of the numbers of people arriving who declare they intend to stay for a year or more, based on small voluntary samples at major entry points (just over 2000 entrants in 2014 across all the entry points included in the survey ).

It' s so meager that one can only wonder if the Government would prefer if substantial numbers are missed.

The gross emigration figure is similar except of course that it isn't just an estimate of the number of immigrants going home, about half are Britons, some of whom are going to work abroad on contracts which last more than twelve months, (which probably means their emigration is not actually permanent).

The ONS itself admitted that it's estimates of EU immigration between 2001 and 2011 were an underestimate:

"There is evidence that shows the IPS missed a substantial amount of immigration of EU8 citizens that occurred between 2004 and 2008, prior to IPS improvements from 2009. This is evident from comparisons of IPS data with a number of other data sources related to immigration"

It has improved its methods since but still acknowledges many weaknesses all of which lead to under not over counting. Bear in mind too it doesn't include the influx populations of EU migrants who come here for "short" periods, less than a year, many of whom return time and time again, kind of long distance commuters. Some of these are establishing bases here which eventually become permanent and even while temporary add to strain on our housing and infrastructure.

Kaija
No tinfoil hat here Marmaduchess.
It certainly is tin foil hat to suggest Brexiters are 'paid' to post on forums.
Give us a job!

It's also open border fascism to claim that opposition to uncontrolled immigration is anti immigrant and poisonous.

Is nobody allowed to complain about the EU's migration policies in your
totalitarian EU Utopia? That's any semblance of free speech down the plughole then.

smallfox speaks for me too on this, and most of the people I know who voted Remain

I wouldn't be too sure about that missmoon, it's emerging that there were many "shy Brexiters" which given the viciousness of the hardcore Bremain supporters on social media, and even here, is hardly surprising.

But its never a good idea to speak on behalf of others. It's known from surveys that most of the people who voted Remain did so only for economic reasons, they were scared, it's not that they love free movement.

Marmaduchess, I agree that it is possible to debate immigration policy in a rational, non-toxic way. It's just that you haven't done that here.

Of course the vast majority of Brexiters posting on here will be doing so for their own entertainment and to vent their spleen. A few others will be doing it as part of a more coordinated UKIP effort (who have openly praised the work of their trolls). And we might even be honoured with the occasional visit from a professional Russian troll house. It makes not a jot of difference which you are. The utterly dismal effect is just the same.

Viciousness

Seriously? The rise of racial abuse and hate crime is not coming from Remainers.

Do you hear Remainers threatening civil unrest and riots if they don't get their way?

Sadly what I see on here is poorly informed Leave voters coming acropper in rational argument with Remainers, and resorting to hysteria and victim-playing.

Yes I do its the Remain camp who signed petitions trying to get a democratic vote overthrown. Both sides are capable of behaving badly and have in fact done so. Neither side is a homogenous group and neither side is definitely, definable absolutely right. I think we can all agree to hate racism in all its forms.

its the Remain camp who signed petitions trying to get a democratic vote overthrown

They signed petitions for a re-vote given that the majority was so tiny. Which is a democratic process itself.

That's not bad behaviour.

Do you hear Remainers threatening civil unrest and riots if they don't get their way?

Plenty of them are bullying people online & even in the workplace. It's actually becoming quite scary & worrying.

Well we will have to disagree Gloria I th I k it's shockingly bad behaviour

You thought starting the petition for a 2nd vote was shocking behaviour?

I certainly don't think a second Referendum is a good idea, but I do think TM would be wise to hold a General Election (and win, of course!) when she has a rough idea of what sort of Brexit she wants or can reasonably expect to get. Because whatever is negotiated is going to cheese off a large sub group of people.

Yes Kaija I did

That petition was started by a leaver, before the result, when everyone thought remain would win.

Apparently he was furious when all the remainers signed it

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/petition-calling-for-second-eu-referendum-was-created-by-a-leave/