Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

What happens to UKIP if "Leave" wins? Will they disband/join the Tories again?

Knowing Farage, probably not; he needs a vehicle and he's not someone who's content playing second fiddle. While I don't subscribe to the "he's scum" rhetoric of far to many people on the pro-European side (or on the left of British politics) he's certainly not a Cincinnatus who'll go home when the crisis is past.

The Lib-Dems tried to be a third force in the centre - he'll try to be a third force wherever he can find a base.

If Brexit happens the next logical step for UKIP is to pile on East Euro immigrants still in the country, or as a much more risky move, Muslims.

[Martinus]

Tyr, to play a bit of a Devil's Advocate (since I am anti-Brexit), I think a simple equation of Brits living in EU countries vs. EU immigrants living in the UK ignores a fairly important class component - namely that Brit expats living abroad are usually well educated upper middle class managerial/professional types, whereas most of the immigrants coming into the UK from the EU countries compete with the locals for lower middle class/working class jobs.

In any case, I think EU membership is beneficial for the UK overall, but free movement of workers is the price the UK pays for the gravy of free movement of capital, establishment and services - namely the unrestricted access to EU financial centres and secondary/growing markets for British capital, financial services and associated legal/consultancy services. This suits the UK well, because its economy is highly based on London-based banks, insurers, law firms and consultancies - but there is a clear class imbalance here, since the benefits go to the City elite, while the price is paid mainly by the lower classes (the City elite gets the extra benefit of cheaper menial services). Back then, during the London riots, I have been saying this imbalance will eventually come and bite the UK elites in the ass - and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Josquius]

Note that for most years this fraction is still above the amount Labour thought this net migration would be. Numbers count.

There were publicly released estimates by the Labour government before the Eastern European countries joined the EU concerning what they felt the effect would be on net migration. These were used by government ministries and local authorities. The fact that they were so completely wrong doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Nobody ever said that estimate didn't exist.
So the British government made a stupid error in their estimates 15 years ago.... I fail to see its relevance to the referendum. There's been ample time for them to revise their estimates to more realistic numbers and do something about it. That they haven't is the British government's failure, not the EU.

I would have thought my comments concerning local authority social housing construction and the percentages I used should have rendered this part of your post mostly redundant. Being a supporter of controlled immigration does not make one a supporter of no immigration.

Also, the latest UN figures say 1.2 million spread out across every country in Europe; that's a bit different to 3 million in one of the most densely populated countries in the EU.

Thats the official number. I think it can be agreed that the real number is probably at least somewhat higher than that. An awful lot of the Brits in Spain are famously not registered with their local commune and remain officially UK residents (because free NHS, woo).  At a guess I'd go with 1.5 million or so pretty much full time in Europe and another 500,000 half time Britain/Europe (and many more who are only 1/3 or 1/4 of their time in Europe). Can't find any detailed up to date estimates starting from the UN figures sadly.

(2) The nature of the taxpayers in question - the majority of the European immigrant taxpayers will be standard rate taxpayers who will probably take as much out by using the NHS as they're paying for in their taxes, certainly in the medium term. Compared to higher rate taxpayers who are likely to put more into the NHS kitty than they take out (even with all their derided tax breaks etc.)

This is an issue due to the fact that even with immigration we still have an increasing number of the aged who need care - the legacy of previous "baby booms" and better lifetime healthcare; the NHS has to expand just to stand still at the moment.

As I said they're generally young people who have just come to Britain to work for a few years before going home. True, some of them end up staying on, but many are planning it to be temporary and do eventually return.
It is calculated that they actually pay more into the system than they cost:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29910497

Given the crap that the remain side has thrown around about employment law etc. I hardly think UKIP can be singled out on the "want to stop bad things" instead of providing substance argument.

Corbyn's/Labour's rattling on and on about the four weeks holiday bit at the moment, isn't he? No mention of how Labour fucked up the drafting of that law and ended up being told so when they took an employer to court, is there? Or that it was the Coalition that actually fixed this after Labour had ignored it for ten years.

Then there's the "food prices could rise" bit; food prices rose when we joined due to the different nature of CAP to the preceding British subsidy system, and I don't believe they've gone down all the way to the world prices as was the case pre-1973 even with the CAP reforms. So they went up when we joined and they'll go up when we leave? Now that really is scaremongering.

The sheer crap being broadcast by both sides that they're not being called on is sickening.

True, remain is saying a lot of daft stuff too. Sometimes it seems Cameron is secretly for leave.
But considering leave are the ones advocating for a change whilst remain are advocating to protect what we have, we really have to put more scrutiny on those who want the change.

[Martinus]

I think the amusing thing about that is that if I recall correctly I was claiming, arrogantly and with a degree of absence of forethought, to be smarter than Martinus; back then I might have agreed with 10% of his opinions, at most. Now it's somewhere between 30 and 40%. 

His turnabout on certain issues has been so swift as to make me suspect him of trolling.

Let's say I am exploring new ideas.

[Josquius]

Tyr, to play a bit of a Devil's Advocate (since I am anti-Brexit), I think a simple equation of Brits living in EU countries vs. EU immigrants living in the UK ignores a fairly important class component - namely that Brit expats living abroad are usually well educated upper middle class managerial/professional types, whereas most of the immigrants coming into the UK from the EU countries compete with the locals for lower middle class/working class jobs.

Yes and no.
The core of your point is true, there tends to be more Europeans working low level work in Britain than vice versa. A huge chunk of British exports are retired people.
But I massively disagree with the "They took our jobs" rhetoric. This map puts that one into perspective a little. It's a mistake to purely look at Europe on the national level:


Note that London is number 1 in Europe.
Whereas my home county is on a par with Transylvania. My county also quite oddly is one of the most overwhelmingly white British parts of the country

A Polish girl in Brighton isn't taking the job of of a Brit in Dundee.
The Europeans we are getting are the mobile portion of the population, the mobile portion of the British population is doing pretty well too. Its those who won't or can't move for any reason (both in Britain and back in the east) that are suffering.

[Tamas]

Yeah, you get a bit of dirt in with the immigration wave as with anything else but if you think about it just a bit, it is the people who have the drive to better their life and seek better opportunities that are entering the country. Even IF there are short term disadvantages (which are hard to find, apart from them helping pay the welfare bills of the useless part of the native population), the influx of such people must be a huge boost to any country.

I mean, take a look at the countries in Europe which have no immigration so the native population should be just soaked up to the new job opportunities and operate with very low unemployment and decent standards of living right? Wrong. They are in even worse shape, and with an ageing population, it will be just getting worse.

What is happening to (most of) England in the EU is what has happened to London and the South East within the UK: it is offering the best opportunities, so people who (feel) able to take those opportunities and live up to them are flocking there, leaving their native areas stripped of skilled and motivated labour.

the UK, and London in particular is the one of the strongest richest parts of the EU and as a result has a free picking of the best the continent has to offer in terms of workforce and citizens (plus they have me as ballast). It is an opportunity all other countries would pay a fortune to get.

But due to silly populism there is a very real risk for the country to throw that away. It is hard to wrap my mind around it.

[Agelastus]

@Agelastus: Timelag is not really an excuse. It has been ten years since the Eastern Europeans started coming. Your government could and should have reacted by now. Leaving Europe because your government mishandled policy is a really poor reason. Do you expect any effect on government competence whatsoever?

In a controlled immigration situation they shouldn't have had to react, and that's what the country needs (not no immigration but predictable immigration.)

But no, I'm not offering it as an excuse, simply as an answer as to why in an unpredictable situation service provision lags beyond need. There's a degree of that anyway even without the European immigration situation. The question is not whether the British government has had time to react but whether you think the value added by the immigrants is worth the cost of the reaction.

I'm not convinced it is - Tyr is quite correct that studies show that immigrants are net providers to the economy. I contend that divided among the immigrants the amount of net benefit per immigrant is pathetic.

Disturbingly, however, I'd probably be forced to say the same about Commonwealth immigration which suggests the whole system needs to be looked at.

Paying average taxes should be sufficient to finance a scaling of the services or am I not getting something here?

In a "steady state" (I think that's an appropriate term) system, yes. The British population is not in a "steady state" situation, though - average lifespan goes up year on year.

Not that that wasn't a problem that was going occur anyway, with or without Europe. It is why we could do with more higher rate taxpayers, though, rather than more and more standard rate taxpayers.

I doubt that your political landscape will restabilize. The various separatist parties, especially SNP, are there to stay. The LibDems will bounce back a bit and there might be enough disgruntled English to keep UKIP around, at least strong enough to hurt the Tories.

I'll admit that I misspoke; I was referring to the political landscape of England and Wales.

If we vote leave, UKIP will lose its raison d'etre, Farage (for all his ambitions) is not popular enough to form his own "Third Force" absent a cause (which so-called "English Nationalism" is not), and the LibDems have a long way to go to recover given our first past the post system. They lost about 30 years of progress in the south-west at the last election, for example.

So yes, I do believe a "leave" vote would de-fracture English (and to an extent Welsh given the latest Assembly results) politics.

[Agelastus]

If Brexit happens the next logical step for UKIP is to pile on East Euro immigrants still in the country, or as a much more risky move, Muslims.

Well, if we've voted leave and Farage is trying to give UKIP a second lease of life he couldn't do anything more stupid than to do that.

UKIP's been successful in positioning itself as "not the successor to the BNP"; doing that would throw it all away, and the BNP and its predecessors have been an irrelevance (barring one freaky Euro Election) in British politics since their beginnings.

So no, it's not the next logical step.

Even IF there are short term disadvantages (which are hard to find, apart from them helping pay the welfare bills of the useless part of the native population), the influx of such people must be a huge boost to any country.

Except the figures don't suggest its been a "huge boost"; not per capita and not really in absolute terms either. When it should have been.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Incidentally, we should never underestimate the extent to which UKIP support comes from former left-voting people.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/election-2015-where-the-votes-switched-and-why


"The Ukip electoral coalition is familiar from opinion polls over the last few years. Ukip's advance was strongest in seats with the largest concentrations of white voters, working-class voters, voters with no educational qualifications, and where opposition to immigration and the EU was highest. The strongest Ukip advances came in the seats along the east coast and in declining northern towns, where such factors came together. The party won shares of 25% or more in places such as Grimsby, Hartlepool, Thurrock and Boston and Skegness. Ukip's performance also confounded those who argued that the party would primarily hurt the Conservatives – Ukip's advance was slightly larger in Labour-held seats and Labour did four points worse in the areas where Ukip advanced most, compared to a 2-point Tory drop."

[Richard Hakluyt]

This piece from the BBC is one of the best I've seen for showing that some British natives have lost out from immigration from the EU :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

TLDR?

Boston has masses of relatively poorly-paid jobs that are well worth doing from the point of view of unskilled Eastern European workers. The town's average wage is way below both national and regional levels, however the cost of renting is far higher than the regional average. The NHS and education services are also under pressure from the sudden influx of extra people.

[Maladict]

Mentos is a brand of prepackaged scotch mints sold in stores and vending machines. First produced in the Netherlands in 1948, it is currently sold in more than 130 countries worldwide by the Perfetti Van Melle corporation.[1]

Didn't know that. 
Agree that the freshmaker would be a good example of Dunglish.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

  "The Freshmaker" is just such a Madison Avenuesque, American-sounding catchphrase (not to mention the series of very memorable TV ads for Mentos), I was mislead.

old New York was once New Amsterdam

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Incidentally, we should never underestimate the extent to which UKIP support comes from former left-voting people.

that goes for most of the 'far right' parties of (at least) Western Europe. As socialist parties gentrified their old voter-core chose new champions.

[Tamas]

This piece from the BBC is one of the best I've seen for showing that some British natives have lost out from immigration from the EU :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

TLDR?

Boston has masses of relatively poorly-paid jobs that are well worth doing from the point of view of unskilled Eastern European workers. The town's average wage is way below both national and regional levels, however the cost of renting is far higher than the regional average. The NHS and education services are also under pressure from the sudden influx of extra people.

If immigrants are causing wages to stay low and unemployment to remain static or rise, then countries with no immigrants and especially those facing emigration should see wages rise and unemployment decrease, neither of which is true.

[citizen k]

... then countries with no immigrants and especially those facing emigration should see wages rise and unemployment decrease, neither of which is true.

Maybe there are other factors that suppress those tendencies?