If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mrginge wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what we'd expect to be the case?

Perhaps so.

Except Dave is only partially correct anyway.
Because the highest "out"-voting area by percentage in the UK was Boston, Lincolnshire closely followed by neighbouring South Holland.
Where Boston's vote for Brexit was 75.6% and South Holland 73.6%, one in eight residents were born outside the UK.

According to the link below from The Independent in January last year, the least-integrated towns in the UK were:
1/ Boston (see above, voted over 75% for Brexit) 2/ Wisbech (Fenland, over 70% for Brexit) 3/ Oldham (61% for Brexit) 4/ Spalding (South Holland, see above) and 5/ Bradford (over 54% for Brexit).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boston-how-a-lincolnshire-town-became-the-most-divided-place-in-england-a6838041.html

mrginge

davomcdave wrote: »

Why..................?

Oh do you mean because immigrants wouldn't vote for Brexit? Actually there's a venerable tradition of immigrants wanting to pull the ladder up after them. Don't assume that because someone is an immigrant they're in favour of immigration.

No. I assume that people would have a propensity to vote according to their normalised circumstances.

If people have lived long term in a high immigration area, then most of them will naturally be more accepting of it and will see little impact of relatively small changes in the numbers.

If people have lived long term in low immigration areas, then most of them will naturally be less accepting of it as they will see bigger impacts of smaller changes.

In both scenarios I'd expect people to vote more towards maintaining their own particular status quo (or rather voting against changing it).

cogito

Jason74 wrote: »

Agree with all of this. Much as the EU rhetoric says otherwise, I am sure that there was (and possibly still is) a deal to be done whereby we stayed in the single market and accepted FoM, but with the proviso that EU migrants would have no recourse to public funds apart from the NHS and Schools (and even those only after X period of contributions).

Under that scenario, the EU can say that FoM continues, we can satisfy the need to be seen not to have people coming in and taking from the system (lets leave aside for the moment whether that is true or not). The economic disruption is also minimal, and we disentagle ourselves from the political side of "the European project". It might even be the basis of a new framework for a number of countries to participate in the single market without the political ties, leaving those who want "ever closer union" to get on with it without being held back by those wanting purely an economic relationship.

That sort of arrangement would I suspect have kept most people on either side of the remain / leave divide relatively happy, been ultimately (albeit reluctantly) palatable to the EU, and been in both the UK and wider European interest.

Instead we have shouty rhetoric on both sides, and are careering to an outcome that probably benefits nobody . . . . . .and politicians wonder why they are held in such low esteem.

The single market means being subject to laws handed down by the European Commission and the ECJ. That means remaining in the EU in effect.

lisyloo

Why..................?

Oh do you mean because immigrants wouldn't vote for Brexit?

No, because those of us who live in a melting pot are likely to have greater experience of the contribution immigrants make to our environment at all levels (from cleaners to hospital consultants).


I do believe my views have been changed since moving to London.


I guess it depends a bit on whether you're a glass half full or glass half empty perhaps (or perhaps you don't even have a glass) but for me it's been mainly a positive contribution.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Anyone that voted UKIP in the last election.

People of the right of the Conservative party.

A good proportion of older people.

Those who think the country is full.

Then you have to remember that being left wing doesn't preclude such views (stealing our jobs etc).

Some potential for double-counting there but I'd suggest there are millions of people who wouldn't be unhappy if immigration was zero.

Even in France immigration is an issue for many. With the far left and far right candidates are polling around 40% between them. France has more space too.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

No, because those of us who live in a melting pot are likely to have greater experience of the contribution immigrants make to our environment at all levels (from cleaners to hospital consultants).


I do believe my views have been changed since moving to London.


I guess it depends a bit on whether you're a glass half full or glass half empty perhaps (or perhaps you don't even have a glass) but for me it's been mainly a positive contribution.

London & Boston.

2 places with high levels of net inwards migration.

2 completely different voting patterns in the EU ref.

Can we really say that one place is much more racist/xenophobic than another?

Or....is there more to this.

If you have a high level of infrastructure spend in London (which you clearly do), then your capacity to cope with change increases. If you are playing catch up, as with Boston, then you're going to struggle.

I really don't see why we expect the impact of migration to be equal across the country.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Even in France immigration is an issue for many. With the far left and far right candidates are polling around 40% between them. France has more space too.

Yes, probably millions of people in France wouldn't be too upset if they never saw an immigrant again either.

The politics of division are in the ascendancy.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

...
Perhaps we have got it wrong in encouraging so many people to go to university rather than ensuring employers and government work together to train a workforce with the skills we are likely to need.

Why should employers train people when they can poach people from across the 500m+ EU labour pool?

Perhaps we should cut back on our Universities here, and use the money to send many more of our talented young to Universities across Europe?

Many would then choose to remain there, and FoM might actually become genuinely 2 way.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, probably millions of people in France wouldn't be too upset if they never saw an immigrant again either.

The politics of division are in the ascendancy.

You're still not accepting that it is MORE migration that is not wanted then?

A more appropriate turn of phrase might be this:

The lunatics have run the asylum for too long.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, probably millions of people in France wouldn't be too upset if they never saw an immigrant again either.

The politics of division are in the ascendancy.

Of course this is true.

Hey, even good old Corbs is on an anti-Establishment rant now. What does he want? People to rise up against Starbucks?

If you are worried about populism, don't play the populist card Jeremy !