If this isn't what you voted for stand up and be counted!

[WidowWadman]

So all those Brexiteers and Lexiters who didn't vote on the basis of immigration controls, where are you? Will there be marches against May's interpretation of your vote?

You know, I actually believe that plenty of people didn't realise what their vote was going to unleash despite being warned frequently and emphatically. It's not too late to speak out and stand up against it. If you didn't mean it, don't hide behind that you haven't meant it. Do something about it.

Pro-tip: declaring xenophobic things to be not xenophobic, actually is not speaking out against it or distancing yourself from it. Declaring hurt at being lumped in with the xenophobes without outright condemnation of their rhetoric doesn't count as standing up to it. Much the opposite.

Fully agree with your last paragraph. The station is very toxic and means that no reasonable discussion can happen.

What I do disagree with is that there is no reason to be upset about a proposal such as the one of listing foreigners because it hasn't happened.
It reminds me if the £350 millions that were supposed to be used fir the NHS. It has been said many times that at the very least there isn't £350 millions etc...
But people remembered the huge amount. They don't remember the amount is wrong. They don't remember it would probably used for something else etc.
I feel that such statements from the PM is doing the same. Planting seeds into people minds. Strutting g conflicts. Telling oeople that yes it is ok to point your finger st immigrants etc and More precisely at eu citizens.
And that isnt acceptable.
That's why, IMO, even if these as only proposals and they aren't happening, we should be really loud and clear about how wrong it is and about the dangers coming from that sort if attitude.
Because already it's changing people's behaviour towards 'foreigners'. I know. I see it everyday.

Listing foreigners is still intended to happen as far as I can make out. It will just be kept secret rather than publicised, which is arguably worse, even if it is apparently 'in order to identify skills shortages'.

I don't think it's racist to want immigration controlled; I think it's just commonsense. At the end of the day we're an island and we have limited resources. Our services cannot keep up with the number of ppl already living here and until they've been brought up to standard I do think immigration in general should be limited/controlled.

I think the system that NZ and Australia have is a good one. Priority should be given to those that have the skills we need, regardless of where they come from. If someone from Asia is better qualified than someone from France, then they should have the right (the same rights as EU citizens) to come here.
Why should someone from the EU have priority in coming to the UK over someone from outside the EU?

I think we would actually have a fairer, less racist system if we based entry to the UK on skills rather than where the person lives.

My dh is from Europe and he would've voted Leave if he'd had a vote.

My main reasons for voting leave were to do with being able to set our own laws (ie getting our democracy and sovereignty back); but controlling immigration was part of it, as I've explained above.

We don't get to elect those in charge of the EU; and although we may not have great choices in this country, at least I can voice my opinion by voting for or against those in our government. I don't get the same rights with those in the EU. They aren't accountable to the voters, and I think that that's a bad thing.

Blanche, I didn't find that rambling, . It is a difficult issue to engage with, and I value your points. I know of a special needs assistant, works with a lovely Polish child, but voted leave on immigration, saying she hears Polish all the time round and about. She would be devastated if the little girl wasn't allowed to stay here though. I found her reasons contradictory at the time.

Hard to talk about, no way I want to give racists/xenophobes any ammunition my dh is a population statistician, I asked him about increase in population, he said Eastern European women have big families, of course that is only one reason, there are others, we are living longer. Not a bad thing in itself, those children will work hard at school and contribute to the economy.

Your families living in one room, what situation have they come from? Escaping from poverty, and living in one room is better I suppose.

For what it's worth, it seems our governments have never embraced the freedom of movement project properly, and failed to provide. At the same time wanting the economic benefits.

You've hit the nail on the head nobody's coming up with the millions needed.

Why should someone from the EU have priority in coming to the UK over someone from outside the EU?

Because that's the "membership fee", if you like, for being part of the EU and having access to the European single market. That has had huge economic benefits. If we want to restrict freedom of movement we lose those benefits. It's as simple as that. I am just amazed/aghast at how economically naive so many people seem to be. Put really crassly, though the racists and the xenophobia don't need to worry - it will end up as Britain for the British. Look at the current account deficit. Look at how little manufacturing we have. Putting it crudely, all we have is financial services. That'll go down the pan as international banks pull out of London (which is where the bulk of the money comes from). Investment will dry up (just listen to what Nissan have been saying). Look at the pound,which seems set to continue to crap out. Nobody will want to come here and work. We won't be able to afford to go anywhere else (even if we manage to get the visas to go!). Keep out the foreigners? We will be desperate for the tourist hordes attracted by the cheap pound. It'll be the only industry left.....

Successive governments have failed to sort out the chronic underfunding of our essential services, eg, housing, hospitals, doctor's surgeries (and other nhs services), roads, public transport, etc.

We can't support the population that we already have, and until this is dealt with I really think we have to limit immigration, and bring in other measures, in order to ease the burden on these services whilst the government increases funding and finds other ways (eg, restructuring, etc) to improve things for the good of everyone. I also think controlling/deciding our own laws,etc, will help in this.

But Hobbybaker - where is this money going to come from? Investment in the UK will slow on a best case, cease on a worst case. The goose that laid the golden egg (the City) will be slaughtered. Unemployment will rise. Inflation will rise. The world has devalued the UK. That is what the currency slide tells us.

I'm sorry for sounding blunt but in my opinion anyone who voted leave is an idiot (note I did not say racist).

We are going to lose tax revenue from the city if we brexit - this was 1/3 of ALL tax revenue collected last year.

Where do you think funding for government projects/poor people/NHS will come from after Brexit.

awaits flaming

"My main reasons for voting leave were to do with being able to set our own laws (ie getting our democracy and sovereignty back)"

How do you feel about this not occurring and the government just pushing things through without parliamentary votes?

See you can make this point over and over, but until we go through the sovereign parliament you have exchanged a fairly democratic system for executive tyranny.

"We don't get to elect those in charge of the EU"

Demonstrates massive ignorance of the way the EU works tbh. Sorry. WE elect our representative on the council, our government appoint the commissioners, we elect our MEPs, the commission is answerable to MEPs and to the council.

"Our services cannot keep up with the number of ppl already living here and until they've been brought up to standard I do think immigration in general should be limited/controlled."

Nope not to do with immigration, in fact immigrants are less likely to use the NHS, its called the healthy migrant effect. 87% of children in the UK get their first choice primary place, in Boston, Lincs, which is always named its 93%.

The services point is lazy and inaccurate, in fact a fall in immigration would cause lower funding to services without a corresponding fall in demand.

I'm sorry for sounding blunt but in my opinion anyone who voted leave is an idiot (note I did not say racist).

Well, Ruth Lea certainly isn't an idiot - she believes the long term benefits from being able to form independent global free trade deals will outweigh the short term downsides of the hit to the currency and possible withdrawal of investment. I don't agree with her - I think the short term pain will crucify this country - but it's a well reasoned and rational point of view.

BUT - and it's a big but - this is (at least in my experience) not the quality of debate I have been hearing from any of the Leave voters I know! So i can absolutely see where you are coming from Boosiehs!

Hobbybaker is correct. Certain areas have benefitted from the European Project, instead of sharing the wealth, it became ever-more concentrated (In London and the South East).

When the electorate were given their say, those that had benefitted seemed genuinely shocked and upset that the rest of the country weren't quite as sold on the whole project.

Had there been sufficient inward investment (in places like Boston for example) then the result may have been different.

No flaming from me Boosieh and I am incredulous at the stupidity of what we are planning to do to our country.
I do not think Leave voters can be blamed. Brexit was offered as an attractive option for those who wanted change. It was on the menu as a viable option. Future generations of government will know that if they are going to ask the people a question, they need to be prepared for them to answer either A or B.
I don't think it could be much clearer now that Brexit is bad for our economy, our diverse society, our higher education system etc etc. We all need to speak up.

We can't support the population that we already have, and until this is dealt with I really think we have to limit immigration,......

Some jobs require relative youth and fitness. Our indigenous population is aging, so how do you propose that we sort that out?

You see, I think a genuinely interesting question is how many of the 52% voted Leave on the basis of a global free trade agenda?

The simplistic question asked by the referendum is meaningless. You could ask someone "Do you want to sell your house?" Would you vote yes or no? Well - it's not a question that is suitable for a binary answer. Your answer would depend on many things, not least how much you will sell it for! Would I sell my house for £10 million? Absolutely. For £10,000? Not on your life. I think the Brexit vote was a lot like that....and we are going to be left selling the house for a knockdown price and be left without enough in the bank to buy anything else we like....

I'm getting a little bit at the charge that Leavers are somehow subverting democracy by supporting a position which does not allow parliament to ignore the result of the referendum.

Malice Because, as a matter of law, Parliament is sovereign and, legally speaking, a referendum can only be advisory rather than binding.

...plus - all this talk of "democracy" is pretty bloody simplistic. Hitler was democratically elected in 1938, don't forget. Read de Tocqueville and the tyranny of the majority. If all the men number 51% of the British population and they vote unanimously that all 49% of women be mandated to serve them - is that democracy in action?

I don't think it's Leavers who are subverting the course of democracy. It's one Theresa May, (who is in a Parliament which prided itself on inventing Parliamentary democracy), and now apparently wants to ride roughshod over that, by not letting the elected representatives have their say.

Peregrina Exactly. Note that then Conseravtive manifesto (on the basis of which, arguably, every Tory MP was elected) contains an explicit commitment to membership of the single market....

Hobbybaker - you said that we have limited resources for services. Do you appreciate that without single market access, resources are going to be much more limited?

There are very few areas of the UK which are net contributors to the public purse. Where are the funds going to come from to regenerate Boston?

Niamer I agree, leave voters were given an alternative and they took it, as difficult as it is we all have to take the economic damage. I have 2 children in a few years time will enter the job market.

"in places like Boston for example"

So lets talk about Boston.

Ok the bad things first, rents are higher than in other areas in Lincolnshire and wages are slightly lower on average.

However the average wage is £12.50 an hour.

Also two of these things are also down to changes in the way that the local farms operate. Production used to be seasonal so the workers that came in were transient, they came in and left during the day, or they stayed on the farms. Improvements in farming methods have meant that the farms now operate all year round, so the workers become permanent residents rather than transient which has put rents up. It also works to put the average local wage down as these workers tend to be lower paid.

Many of the changes in Boston would have happened with the changes in the way the farms operate anyway.

Positives. Boston's maternity ward, threatened with closure due to low demand has been kept open, 93% of primary school children get their first choice school ( 89, unemployment is well below national average, new businesses are opening in what were once boarded up shops, business rates and CT going to the council are going up helping to fund services, and other businesses in the town are also doing well.

The big problem in Boston is not that it is an abandoned town with immigrants blocking up the services, but that it is a small county town that is unused to change.

There is a big difference.

Thanks for reminding me. I believe that long term we will be better off outside of the EU. I do believe that the trade agreements we end up making will be just as lucrative, if not more so, than what we have with the EU. Again, that was part of my reasons for voting as I did.

I struggle to type without severe pain, so my thoughts get jumbled, and I forget things I wanted to say. I'm not against immigration, and I don't think it's racist to want controls on it; but I'd like those controls to be fair to everyone.

My dh is from Europe and contributes considerably to this country via taxes, etc, and has done ever since we moved back many years ago, so I didn't vote this way because I think EU nationals are a burden to the state. Far from it, all those I know have jobs and contribute.

My point is we need to improve things for those ppl (migrants or otherwise) already living here. Having an immigration policy which only allows those with the skills we need to improve this country is, in my opinion, how we help fix things and increase funding for our essential services.

When I lived abroad in my DH's country we had to prove that he had the means to support me so I wouldn't be a burden on the state and I had to prove that I had private medical insurance for the same reasons (although if I'd worked there for over 12 months continuously I would've qualified for state care). I don't see that as racist. I think it's sensible and was happy to comply.

Maybe they're sick of you aggressively demanding they explain themselves....over & over & over again.

This exactly.

Malice Because, as a matter of law, Parliament is sovereign and, legally speaking, a referendum can only be advisory rather than binding.

But to my mind, an 'advisory' referendum trumps (democratically at least) Parliament.