Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

For sure, but I think that was ultimately the core issue. Not necessarily to reduce numbers but to feel that those numbers were under democratic control and not a right. It's why the slogan worked and why freedom of movement is a redline for Labour in how close the relationship with Europe can be as well as the Tories.

And obviously there are always short-term migration patterns, but many migrants stay in the UK. Estimates are that over half of migrants from outside the EU (so on visas of one form or another) become UK citizens. So most acquire citizenship rights either by staying for 5+ years or the common pattern of getting a boyfriend/girlfriend and then family.

Edit: And I'd just add employment law does not depend on citizenship - and the issue here is really one of very lax enforcement and investigation of employers. The main differences are around 'recourse to public funds' which is a huge problem for a lot of migrants in the UK. There are exemptions but they're quite narrow and it can cause real hardship and issues even if someone is entitled to remain (and find new work for example) but is not able to access benefits.

[Tamas]

"Under democratic control" is such a nice way of saying "people didn't want any more immigrants". 

[Sheilbh]

"Under democratic control" is such a nice way of saying "people didn't want any more immigrants". 

In the polling there is more support for immigration in the polls than there has been since the mid-90s and people think it's about the right level. But as I say in reality the numbers are unchanged so far and the reforms that have happened have liberalised the system.

So far they've ditched the fixed immigration numbers target of the Cameron-May era, they've reduced the wage you need to be offered to get a visa (this mainly affects visas for people from India, the Philippines, Pakistan, the US and Nigeria) , obviously the Hong Kong route as well as other specific reforms like making it easier for Turks and there's been vague intentions establish some form of amnesty route to citizenship for people who've been here for a while illegally (I imagine this will end up being quite weak - but would be good). It's not a particularly anti-immigration agenda and in reality the net migration numbers haven't changed it's just shifted so fewer from the EU, more from outside the EU. There's a big gap in the policies so far I think for asylum and family visas.

But as the numbers haven't moved, I think partly that reflects that people feel it is under their control and their votes decide policy, even as the government is liberalising the immigration rules. If it was just about not wanting any more immigrants or immigration at this level I think there'd be far more opposition to the current levels of immigration, but there isn't.

I think democratic control means exactly that - you get to vote to decide policies democratically. I think people were, clearly, not actually that bothered by the numbers but by the sense that there's nothing they can do about it because it's a right that clearly a significant chunk of people didn't support.

[Tamas]

We keep having this conversation. All I know, is that I haven't heard from a Leave voter, either directly, or indirectly (their family members) who did not vote Leave because of thinking there were too many immigrants.

[Sheilbh]

We keep having this conversation. All I know, is that I haven't heard from a Leave voter, either directly, or indirectly (their family members) who did not vote Leave because of thinking there were too many immigrants.

Yeah I think that's true - but that's not how the politics and policy has subsequently developed and no-one seems too angry about it.

If 2016 was just or primarily about reducing immigration numbers then there would have been some reaction because that hasn't happened. There isn't and that's despite Farage being out there perfectly able and willing to take advantage. It might happen again but at this point, instead, positive views of immigration are at a record high and there general support that it's about the right level now. To me that suggests that what mattered wasn't actually numbers but the sense that it was 'out of control'.

[viper37]

We keep having this conversation. All I know, is that I haven't heard from a Leave voter, either directly, or indirectly (their family members) who did not vote Leave because of thinking there were too many immigrants.

and by this point in the conversation, do they realize you were not born in the UK?

[Tamas]

We keep having this conversation. All I know, is that I haven't heard from a Leave voter, either directly, or indirectly (their family members) who did not vote Leave because of thinking there were too many immigrants.

and by this point in the conversation, do they realize you were not born in the UK?

I only have to open my mouth for that to be clear. My favourites have been the Asian (possibly Pakistani?) Uber driver who couldn't stomach all the free stuff Eastern Europeans were getting while he never got anything since arriving so he voted Leave. Or my co-worker from India, he and his wife really didn't like all the beggars in their town so they voted Leave. Then the bog standard white middle class native whose family made second income from renting properties and buying more from the income and having a holiday home in Spain, also voting Leave because of all them immigrants flowing in.

[Zanza]

British politics seems mainly performative, not about substance. As long as Priti Patel publishes some harebrained, evil scheme against refugees once a month or so, the right wing media has enough fodder to keep people thinking that the government is reducing immigration. The actual evidence does not seem to matter.

[Jacob]

I only have to open my mouth for that to be clear. My favourites have been the Asian (possibly Pakistani?) Uber driver who couldn't stomach all the free stuff Eastern Europeans were getting while he never got anything since arriving so he voted Leave. Or my co-worker from India, he and his wife really didn't like all the beggars in their town so they voted Leave. Then the bog standard white middle class native whose family made second income from renting properties and buying more from the income and having a holiday home in Spain, also voting Leave because of all them immigrants flowing in.

These people... do they tell you these things because you express an interest in their opinion? Or is it that they just have to share their view of immigrants with you whether your want to hear it or not?

[Sheilbh]

That could be it. I think the alternative is that when people voted to 'take back control', they wanted control and now they have it so they're broadly happy (though there is still a group that want far more cuts in numbers - there's a broad middle that didn't exist before 2016). Similarly I think they were very aware there'd be an economic cost to 'control' or 'sovereignty' but thought it's worth bearing. That would be my take - I generally think that voters are cleverer and more sophisticated in getting what they want and know how to use whatever electoral system is in place than people often give them credit for.

Edit: Or to put it another way - I think enough people knew what they were voting for, knew the downside and are broadly okay with the results.

[Tamas]

I only have to open my mouth for that to be clear. My favourites have been the Asian (possibly Pakistani?) Uber driver who couldn't stomach all the free stuff Eastern Europeans were getting while he never got anything since arriving so he voted Leave. Or my co-worker from India, he and his wife really didn't like all the beggars in their town so they voted Leave. Then the bog standard white middle class native whose family made second income from renting properties and buying more from the income and having a holiday home in Spain, also voting Leave because of all them immigrants flowing in.

These people... do they tell you these things because you express an interest in their opinion? Or is it that they just have to share their view of immigrants with you whether your want to hear it or not?

The middle class person/family was a discussion with a co-worker I can't recall who brought up Brexit first there although I have made a point all these years not to initiate that as a topic. It is a deeply unpleasant topic for me, because the Leave campaign, Farage especially, were openly racist against Eastern Europeans (i.e. me) and it was totally fine by the public.  The other two examples, it was brought up by the other persons.

I don't want to equal racism against East Europeans to those experienced by other ethnicities because at least my skin colour hides me from most of it, but it is still unpleasant hearing it.

[Zanza]

@Sheilbh: That's not either or. The English nationalists won the referendum, implemented their policy. So now they have in fact more control. However, the nationalist government they elected is also more authoritarian than before, using parliament as a mere rubber stamp and fighting the judiciary and devolved administrations. It distracts from that with performative acts that have little substance, like tunnels to Ireland, royal yachts, anti-refugee stunts or the occasional EU quarrel. So the gained control is an illusion as it just replaced a fairly benign, but distanced and un-British EU with a homegrown elite that however also seems very distanced from the daily matters of Britons. 

[Sheilbh]

@Sheilbh: That's not either or. The English nationalists won the referendum, implemented their policy. So now they have in fact more control. However, the nationalist government they elected is also more authoritarian than before, using parliament as a mere rubber stamp and fighting the judiciary and devolved administrations.

I don't agree that any of this is partiulcarly new or more authoritarian than before - except for the devolved administrations bit (because they're new and this is the first time we've had 'cohabitation). I said before but I think a lot of people formed opinions on what was normal in politics between 2010 and 2020 - but it was a very unusual time. I think it's mistaking weak government for the norm. I'd also add Wales and 40% of Scotland - because even the most Remainy areas had lots of Leavers and vice-versa.

The entire structure of British politics is designed to produce a strong, single party majority government - and for a decade we had coalition, minority government and weak majority. That uniquely empowers other political actors like backbenchers, the speaker, the courts etc but it is not the norm. I've mentioned before but former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, described the British system as elected dictatorship. There's almost nothing this government has done or has tried to do that I can't think of something similar from the very strong Blair/Brown majorities (I imainge it's similar for older people with the Thatcher government). A lot of stuff that gets people panicking online is absolutely normal for a goverment with a strong majority. I remember David Blunkett trying to stop the courts from hearing any appeals after the Home Office made a decision on immigration status or attacking 'lefty human rights lawyers who cared more about the rights of terrorists than the general public'.

On parliament in particular the trend has been to more assertive backbench committees and more rebellions - the evidence is that trend is continuing. Parliament is far more independent, far more likely to vote against the party whip and use backbench committees to criticise the government than it was in the romanticised golden age of the 50s and 60s or whenever. In those days anything less than 95% support of party whip would be a substantial rebellion - that's now pretty good. It all started changing in the 90s and 2000s and is still going. In part I think it's it's because MPs think if they're rebellious and independent they'll be more likely to keep their seat even if their party does badly, sadly there's no evidence that it actually makes any difference at all.

I think there's a huge amount of panic that's basically about what majority government looks like. There's a reason Tories hated Blair and Labour hated Thatcher so much - because a majority can do whatever it wants and there's nothing you can do to stop them until you can beat them.

It distracts from that with performative acts that have little substance, like tunnels to Ireland, royal yachts, anti-refugee stunts or the occasional EU quarrel.

Yeah - they play to their base. But most people aren't the Daily Express front page. People are pretty realistic about the government's performance and can see through that nonsense - remember they won 44% of the vote so I think they've kept that on a few issues. The problem is people don't trust the opposition enough yet.


I mean that broadly seems like a pretty fair assessment to me. I don't think people are fooled or distracted - I just think in a two party system where each party's floor is about 30%, the opposition needs to convince.

So the gained control is an illusion as it just replaced a fairly benign, but distanced and un-British EU with a homegrown elite that however also seems very distanced from the daily matters of Britons.

How is it an illusion though? If people don't like the goverment then they can vote and change it. If they want more or less immigration - then campaign and vote.

I don't think the 'control' or 'sovereignty' is an illusion. But I think there is a cost both economic and in other ways - I didn't think it was worth it because I thought it would be bad for Northern Ireland and the union. But I think enough people were willing to take the cost and are happy with the result which delivers what they wanted (and I don't think it's likely it'll be unwound at some future point).

[Zanza]

I guess we just have different perception and there is no objective truth. We can both keep our view and will not convince each other.

PS: 49% think that the government manages the economy well?  I would hate to see what they consider a poorly managed economy.

[Sheilbh]

PS: 49% think that the government manages the economy well?  I would hate to see what they consider a poorly managed economy.

I know! But I think that one and keeping unemployment down has a huge covid angle - they are perceived (fairly) as having done a pretty good job on economic support etc during covid. It's a bit in the air what will happen once we're out of furlough and crisis, and back into normal economic politics.

In direct Tory v Labour comparisons it's a bit more normal - about 30-35% prefer the Tories, under 30% prefer Labour (who haven't been above 30% since the crash).