Equally a Leave vote. The vote wasn't about immigration it was about EU membership. It took place under an administration that was taking a hardline on immigration. Due to Leave that hardline may be directed at EU migrants. If it had been Remain it would have been directed at non-EU migrants. Yet only one side of the argument should be blamed for the conseqeunces of the vote. This can only be arrived at by an implicit understanding that everyone who voted Leave was a racist who has to take responsibility for what the government does next. And everyone who voted Remain is an anti-racist, and any racist consequences of that would therefore not have been their fault.
Remainers: When are you taking to the streets?
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
Equally a Leave vote. The vote wasn't about immigration it was about EU membership. It took place under an administration that was taking a hardline on immigration. Due to Leave that hardline may be directed at EU migrants. If it had been Remain it would have been directed at non-EU migrants. Yet only one side of the argument should be blamed for the conseqeunces of the vote. This can only be arrived at by an implicit understanding that everyone who voted Leave was a racist who has to take responsibility for what the government does next. And everyone who voted Remain is an anti-racist, and any racist consequences of that would therefore not have been their fault.
I keep fucking doing that
No, thats not the reality, highly unlikely in fact for those currently here, possibly for new migrants.
This is worrying though, Simon Jenkins has never been right about anything in his llife.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He's anti-nuclear weapons, fwiw.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
The referendum question wasn't about immigration, but the referendum was. It's pretty obvious that it is as a direct consequence of the referendum that a large number of people is now facing an uncertain future in the country. But there's no obvious reason to suppose that a remain vote would have made any difference. Clearly not everyone who voted leave is a racist, but it is especially those who are not who ought to reflect on the consequences of the vote as they roll in.
wheelie_bin
Well-Known Member
It was a bit weirder than that. Christian were most likely to vote exit, then Sikhs and Jewish (bang on final country wide %), then atheist. Hindu and Muslim however brought up the rear with only about 30%.
So, our most representative community are Sikhs and Jewish people. The far lower % of Muslims and Hindus suggest there could be something in it, but I don't know how much of that was to do with the areas they live in and London common view that leave was more of a racist vote. Or, it's just coincidence and religion largely had little to do with it.
and this post sums up everything I've just said.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
is he? sure he's against the renewal of trident, but does that really translate into an opposition to all nuclear weapons?
Then I guarantee that if the UK pursues unilateral diarmament then Moscow will invade.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
can you link to any article or blog or whatnot where he says that? or is this a littlebabyjesus fact?
gosub
~#
I do hope that's sarcasm.
not sarcasm, an explanation of how the Remain vote have framed the debate, both in public and in their own heads
gosub
~#
It a mentality that will be part of the problem rather than part of any solution.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
The religion data is not all that useful, because the very small sample sizes mean very wide confidence intervals. To put it another way, yes it looks like Sikhs are fairly evenly split between leave and remain, but only 20 of them were polled. Even with Jews, where there were 98, I think this would translate to roughly a 10% margin either way for 95% confidence (i.e. 53% actually means anything inbetween 43% and 63%).
If you stick to the stuff that's more reliable, leave voters are markedly more likely to be older, white, Christian, hold generally right-wing views and not be Scottish. That looks to me more like the fingerprint of a nationalist vote than an anarco-syndicalist one.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Not really.
Your straw man: Everyone who voted leave is a racist who should take responsibility for their the way they voted.
My actual position: Not everyone who voted leave is a racist, but everyone should take responsibility for the way they voted.
I can't see what's controversial about my position.
gosub
~#
I don't think most leavers voted out because of immigration (certainly not on this site) AND of those who did :immigration concerns need not be racist. If you're trying to bring up a family with 2.4 kids in the UK and the fella competing for your job will kip in a portakabin with 20 others so he can send back 100EUros thats enough for his family to live on elsewhere in EUrope (or where ever) that's not a racist concern that's economic.
But yes there were racially motivated leave voters.
For balance here's some of the stuff that is coming for EU migrants:
All of these things could have been done under EU law, and as such will probably be implemented before the final Brexit. Most had already been introduced. The four year ban on in-work benefits for migrants that was also proposed will now not go ahead until at least after Brexit as it required the EU to change their rules and they have said they won't. There's a good summary of the legalities here. A key pont is this:
Economically self-sufficient means a threshold can be set. That threshold is set at £153 per week. That means anyone who earns, or has recently earned less than that, is not defined as a 'worker' for the purposes of in-work and out of work benefits. They are not deported, they just won't get the dole if they lose their job. It is not a stretch to suggest this could also be used as a threshold for the second policy above - that those not earning at that threshold for a period of six months could face deportation. This could probably have been implemented within the current EU rules, and if not history shows it would certainly be up for negotiation, as no doubt would the level the threshold was set at. The EU are quite happy to throw poor migrants under a bus when it suits them.
In summary, EU migrants who are poor were fucked, Leave or Remain. So what everyone's arguing about now is the more financially secure migrants. Any attempt at deporting this group would not only destroy the economy, but would turn the UK into an international pariah with very real consequences - what other country in recent history has embarked on ethnic cleansing of working, possibly property owning minorities on this scale? It would also require a massive and very violent state infrastructure that just isn't there. In fact this scenario is no more realistic then a scenario in which the UK remained in the EU but decided to deport all EU migrants anyway.
I feel really shit that people are worried, and understand that a threat like this is likely to gnaw away at you no matter how many re-assurances are offered. It is a bleak time to be poor and a bleak time to be a migrant. But that would have been the case whatever the result and the position of EU migrants is little changed. Scare-mongering without any analysis of the the actual situation is really not very helpful and I wish people would stop.
All of these things could have been done under EU law, and as such will probably be implemented before the final Brexit. Most had already been introduced. The four year ban on in-work benefits for migrants that was also proposed will now not go ahead until at least after Brexit as it required the EU to change their rules and they have said they won't. There's a good summary of the legalities here. A key pont is this:
Economically self-sufficient means a threshold can be set. That threshold is set at £153 per week. That means anyone who earns, or has recently earned less than that, is not defined as a 'worker' for the purposes of in-work and out of work benefits. They are not deported, they just won't get the dole if they lose their job. It is not a stretch to suggest this could also be used as a threshold for the second policy above - that those not earning at that threshold for a period of six months could face deportation. This could probably have been implemented within the current EU rules, and if not history shows it would certainly be up for negotiation, as no doubt would the level the threshold was set at. The EU are quite happy to throw poor migrants under a bus when it suits them.
In summary, EU migrants who are poor were fucked, Leave or Remain. So what everyone's arguing about now is the more financially secure migrants. Any attempt at deporting this group would not only destroy the economy, but would turn the UK into an international pariah with very real consequences - what other country in recent history has embarked on ethnic cleansing of working, possibly property owning minorities on this scale? It would also require a massive and very violent state infrastructure that just isn't there. In fact this scenario is no more realistic then a scenario in which the UK remained in the EU but decided to deport all EU migrants anyway.
I feel really shit that people are worried, and understand that a threat like this is likely to gnaw away at you no matter how many re-assurances are offered. It is a bleak time to be poor and a bleak time to be a migrant. But that would have been the case whatever the result and the position of EU migrants is little changed. Scare-mongering without any analysis of the the actual situation is really not very helpful and I wish people would stop.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Is it still racism if your sense of fear is genuine? Maybe that could be made conundrum of the week.
In all seriousness, though, I'd be less concerned about that and more concerned about whether this guy with 2.4 kids has voted in his own interests or not (naturally, I'm less concerned about the guy kipping in the portakabin, and he probably didn't get a vote anyway).
gosub
~#
If he voted leave for the reason given, then his issues won't get addressed for the short to mid term, and that has got to be managed carefully.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Short to mid term is all that counts. Further down the line it becomes impossible to predict.
gosub
~#
The people you is sneering at will be clever enough to have worked stuff out by Xmas and it would be 3 years before immigration can become priority.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
I'm not sneering at anyone. Plus, he's fictional. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comment, but if you're saying long-term is three years once we can start refusing entry to EU nationals, then I think you're missing the point. That's the point at which he starts to get what he voted for, not the point where it becomes clear that he is better off.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown”
H.P. Lovecraft
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
...who was of course a massive racist.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes. But while raheem's hypothetical sense of fear may be real, I'm not sure, as per lovecraft, that it can have a basis in fact as the auldest and strongest fears are if course of what we do not know and have not experienced in our quotidian lives.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
One of the grossest things I have seen said online, and it's more than a few people saying it, is that the country was really going places prior to the Brexit vote. We had a good thing, and great prospects, then we fucked it. Not unlike the people who constantly bang on about how great the Lib Dems were as a 'moderating influence' on the Tories.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
...thereby invalidating any philosophical commentary or life observation that he made, about anything at all.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Well that's an odd position to take.
Similar threads
- Poll
