Not entirely true. I live in an area with very high Eastern European immigration and it voted strongly for Leave. IMO it’s people living in areas with historically low immigration (rural and small towns) that object so strongly to it, even if the actual number of immigrants is lower.
There were also a lot of rumours and fake news saying the UK would be forced to allow in the Syrian and other migrants we had recently watched pour into Germany, which contributed to the vote.
Because it renders the law pointless. If there is no good reason to stop citizens buying foods with E104 in them, then you should repeal the law and allow them to chose. If instead you allow EU imports that contain the additive, all you do is put your own manufacturers at a disadvantage, for no benefit.
If you freely allow imports from the EU, that essentially means you have given up the power to make your own laws, because you can never choose to ban any product the EU allows. And having the power to make our own laws was one of the main benefits touted by Brexiters.
When Poland and seven other countries joined the EU in 2004, the UK experienced some very high immigration in some locations and this came as quite a shock to the local population. Suddenly they felt quite swamped and the local public services came under a lot of strain.
The reason why this happened was because the UK government followed a policy of allowing fairly unrestricted immigration from the newly joined EU countries rather than exercising its rights to impose time limited restrictions. There were lots of good reasons for this, the economy got a boost by having a ready supply of workers who would go wherever they were needed. It solved the labour problem for many businesses.
However the government was quite slow to respond to the concerns where there was a hotspot and a strain on housing, schools and healthcare. Those areas see only the downsides of uncontrolled immigration and they voted Leave in large numbers. But those are actually quite small places where there is a high demand for workers in agriculture. Places like Peterborough and Boston in the vegetable growing belt of East Anglia suddenly had to make room to large numbers of people coming to the UK for work. Put a large number of foreign workers anywhere quite suddenly and there are going to be issues.
This documentary described the situation quite well and is actually quite funny.
The Polish are Coming!
UK cities that are well used to immigration from previous waves dating back to the post war labour shortages of the 1960s when the UK turned to its commonwealth links to recruit workers from the Caribbean, Africa, India and Pakistan were much more relaxed about it as you might expect after three generations.However, generally, it is true that there were many places unaffected by immigration that voted Leave because of the ‘immigration’ issue because they assumed it to be a problem elsewhere. They were misinformed.
London, with as mixed a population as you are likely to find anywhere in the world, voted 70% Remain. Many appreciate the diversity for all the positive things immigration brings and understand that people are pretty much the same.
UK governments have never been very good at immigration policy. They don’t plan anything and if there is any problem they usually respond by some knee jerk reaction policy change to grab the headlines.
Theresa May had a long period in the Home Office doing precisely that. She is a politician who pursues policies that are populist and emotional, playing on basic fears. It is all about controlling borders, immigration, fending off the hordes of refugees and prosecuting asylum seekers who are made to jump through endless hoops to prove their stories. Most of her policies addressed problems that were significant only in terms of garnering votes and little to do with the interests of the nation as a whole. If anything she is worse now because the only votes she is interested in are those of her own party and any others she can bribe or otherwise induce to support her minority government.
There is a rational discussion to be had bout immigration, the whole issue of refugees and asylum seekers and, yes, people coming over to the UK to work for a few months during the harvest or on a building site. Sadly the UK has not had that conversation. Quite separate issues are totally confused.
The only way in which people were able to express their concerns was to vote to leave the EU, which became a catch all for every sort of dissatisfaction and protest.
It points to a lack of engagement by the political class with the electorate on important issues. No surprise then, that many pent up frustrations on many issues were projected onto the EU Referendum by an ill informed electorate. The political process has been in need of attention for some time and the current Brexit fiasco with its huge constitutional and economic implications is a consequence of that neglect. :smack:
Seen in the FT but the Guardian I think is more accessible it is in a way sadly amusing to see the English government (I think it must be called that since it is giving almost no care to the rest of the UK), there is surprise that the other countries in the world are not signing up to the Brexiters simplistic idea of just having everyone agree to EU or better terms:
But no worries my english friends, you have lined up the Faroe Islands!
sorry it is not nice to make fun… but it is still amusing in a way like watching the videos of some horrible but stupid accident to see a major government announcing breathlessly they had agreed with the Faroe Islands…
The DUP might disagree with you there.
Well there’s some sign of serious readiness at last. Heathrow Airport is stockpiling rubber gloves for its security staff. So that’s all good.
I think no given the multiple times they have had to menace the government May to withdraw support in order to get attention to their priorities.
Hey, but you made me laugh out loud. No mean feat in these benighted times.
j
Still it is a surprise that Parliament paid a lot more attention to this issue than others.
For example there is a lot more support for spending more money on the NHS than the 52% to 48% Brexit vote:
Why does the “People’s Choice” matter for Brexit but not NHS?
That reminds me of how Bush and Rummy joyfully announced that they had got the Duchy of Grand Fenwick as an ally for Gulf War II, minor powers such as France telling them to jump in the loch.
Anyone stockpiling?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
:eek: The FT? I say again (twice, in fact): :eek::eek:
Ohhhhhh, the Financial times.
Gotta admit, you had me worried there, for a minute…
Part of me wants to applaud you for the Wibberly shout-out, while most of the rest of me wants to know if they really did.
Also, I think France would have issued an invitation to jump in the Lac…
So Japanese trade negotiators are confident that they can get more concessions from the U.K. in a stand-alone trade treaty, than would be the case if Britain were in the EU.
I guess that’s one of the advantages for Britain the Leavers were speaking about. :rolleyes:
Yeah, a bit of food. That was rather spurred by the Beast from the East* though - it was very noticeable how dependent the local shops are on very just-in-time supply chains. So, y’know.
In a thread about events occurring in the UK, one should not be surprised to see The Financial Times mentioned, nor for the “FT” abbreviation be used to refer to it.
Given the almost supernatural nature of this particular ongoing clusterfuck, my first thought was certainly the Fortean Times; the Financial Times was my only second thought.
I’ve got British friends who are, and who are even blogging about this (with the intention of helping others make their own preparations).
True - but in this case I think the French wanted them to get eaten by Nessie.
I must admit I have bought a big 2Kg sack of porridge oats rather then the usual 500g and few tins of this and that despite the narrowed eyes of disapproval from my healthy eating co-vivant.
I am confident that this Brexit issue will by kicked downfield before the end of March.