• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
My constituency (Birmingham Hodge Hill) has had a Labour MP ever since it was created in 1983 and Liam Byrne won the last election with a majority of 81.1%. In fact 9 out of 10 Birmingham Constituencies have a Labour MP

However down the road in Solihull, they have a Conservative MP

How did these areas vote in the referendum?

My area Stoke has been Labour since time began, 70% voted for Brexit. I cant honestly see how they would be returned again in this area at the present time.

The irony is the Brexit vote is part caused by many decades of local mismanagement from the Labour party, even when they were in power for 13 years and couldn't blame the Tories for their incompetence; although they probably did try. The city actually possibly declined more under the Labour years with dimwit schemes like the Pathfinder project (to clear alleged slum housing) which basically ripped the heart out of communities in good well built terraced streets, replacing them with boarded up, arson attacked clearance zones they couldn't afford to knock down or replace, rife with crime. Previously there was the Garden Festival, Trentham Lake developments. The perceived uncontrolled immigration to already poor areas due to Blairs treaty give aways is also another reason. I can see why people did what they did.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Could you list out here the treaties and what giveaways Blair gave?

  • Lisbon Treaty and its pre form Reform Treaty (Signed by Brown negotiated by Blair who promised a referendum before signing)
  • Cut in Rebate
  • Rapid expansion of EU into Eastern Europe
  • Eastern European migrants unfettered access to Britain
  • Reduction in the power of the national veto
  • Signed up to fishing quota reductions

To name a few off the top of my head.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
  • Lisbon Treaty and its pre form Reform Treaty (Signed by Brown negotiated by Blair who promised a referendum before signing)
  • Cut in Rebate
  • Rapid expansion of EU into Eastern Europe
  • Eastern European migrants unfettered access to Britain
  • Reduction in the power of the national veto
  • Signed up to fishing quota reductions
To name a few off the top of my head.

Pure Daily Mail ( or more accurately Express) silliness. You really should try harder. How, for instance, is the evil Blair responsible for the "rapid expansion of EU into Eastern Europe"? There are a number of other inaccuracies in your statement but I doubt you are worried about accuracy.

Corbyn doesn't want an election because the public know he is a liar, he knows he would lose especially in Northern/Midlands areas.

Labour and Parliament are blocking and forcing Boris's hand. To be honest if he plays this right he will play the martyr, he could win a significant majority and do whatever he want to do if he promises to get it done but only if he has the majority in parliament to do so. Perhaps a dangerous game but it could work, he has shown he is not afraid of the dangerous game.

but that is simply wrong.

Labour have said they will agree to an election when De Piffle takes no deal off the table. The problem is that for once Corbyn was clever enough to spot a trap and side step it. Johnson expected him to jump in allowing a no deal. he didn't and not the Tories are trying to spin things to coiver up the fact they miscalculated.

Johnson needs Brexit to deliver him his election victory and remove the threat of the Brexit Company. That victory is all he is worried about. Brexit is just a game to deliver that.

The Yellowhammer documentation ( commissioned by the government) set out what damage that no deal brexit would do. No one voted for that damage. Even the leave principals were quite clear there would be a deal. The reason there is no deal is because of the brexit hardliners in the ERG and the rest of the Tory coalition voted against their leader.

Labour or any opposition parties aren't to blame for brexit not being delivered. Hard line Brexit lovers ( perhaps like you) are.
 
Last edited:

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Pure Daily Mail ( or more accurately Express) silliness. You really should try harder. How, for instance, is the evil Blair responsible for the "rapid expansion of EU into Eastern Europe"? There are a number of other inaccuracies in your statement but Idoubt you are worried about accuracy.

Pure Guardian response.....For info never read the Mail or Express in my life. I am very worried in about accuracy, obviously these are my own views evolved from my perceptions. These are actual events which happened under the Blair government.

As you have such a demand for the above accuracy perhaps you can illustrate how it is inaccurate?

Blair wasn't evil I've never said as much, he made mistakes yes. He was responsible because he ratified these changes with the EU when he was Prime Minister by signing documents.

I am not saying in particular I have any personal issue with any of the above, what I can understand though is why some people may have issues with it, particularly with how a referendum was promised, then brushed under the carpet. I can see why people may issues with some of the 'bigger' Europe ideas we were signed up to, and I can see why a sudden influx of cheap Eastern European Labour might upset some especially if their jobs/businesses are undercut.

Don't get me wrong the guy did a lot of good things and tried to modernise the Labour party (its now gone back in time with Corbo), but his EU dealings mainly set the course towards Brexit, I think many from all sides of the political spectrum can acknowledge that. To pretend otherwise is involving much burying of head in sand.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
The perceived uncontrolled immigration to already poor areas due to Blairs treaty give aways is also another reason. I can see why people did what they did.
Interesting that the 30 areas with the highest number of people identifying as English, they all voted to Leave
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ult-and-aftermath.132044/page-47#post-2613483

There are very few areas of high immigration that voted to Leave.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ult-and-aftermath.132044/page-36#post-2611823
 

Struner

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
767
Location
Ommelanden, EU
  • Lisbon Treaty and its pre form Reform Treaty (Signed by Brown negotiated by Blair who promised a referendum before signing)
  • Cut in Rebate
  • Rapid expansion of EU into Eastern Europe
  • Eastern European migrants unfettered access to Britain
  • Reduction in the power of the national veto
  • Signed up to fishing quota reductions
To name a few off the top of my head.
& why was “the rapid expansion” a giveaway?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I can see why a sudden influx of cheap Eastern European Labour might upset som

Sadly, though, the areas where people voted Leave aren't the areas where the "sudden influx" live and work.

I think we all know that the "valid reasons" people had were largely based on far-right lies and apocryphal stories rather than any real lived experience. Coming from Bradford, that's my experience; the people complaining about immigrants aren't the ones living and working with immigrants.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I don't care much for Brexit at all. However, like many I should think, I am sick of it now. We need to make a decision and get on with it! and deal with whatever consequences that causes. That side of Boris's rhetoric I can sympathise with.

Whatever we implement now we are likely to be in a situation where 50% of the population are no happy with the outcome.
Achieving Brexit won't be the end of it by a long chalk. There'll be years of negotiating agreements, including with an EU that has no reason to trust the UK, not to mention the blame game when it all starts going wrong.

Facing down the bullies and having another referendum which votes to remain won't fix anything quickly either, but it at least makes a start on damage limitation and most people would recognize that a more recent majority trumps an older one. Farage and co will still bang on but I would hope in that scenario they'd have lost enough credibility that they weren't in a position to re-open the issue.

If Johnson hadn't sacked his majority he'd be able to call an election off his own bat, like May did.
He lost his majority the before the sackings, when Phillip Lee crossed the floor of the house.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think we all know that the "valid reasons" people had were largely based on far-right lies and apocryphal stories rather than any real lived experience. Coming from Bradford, that's my experience; the people complaining about immigrants aren't the ones living and working with immigrants.

I had an issue with it initially, when a lot of people were brought over who did not speak English properly and put in customer facing roles (I couldn't give a monkey's what is spoken in the Amazon warehouse). I fundamentally strongly object to not being understood when speaking clear English in a business in England. (I don't care what other languages they speak or what they speak with their colleagues or friends, but I do care that everyone in a public facing role in England needs to speak English to the public unless they request another language that is also spoken).

However, as people were there for longer their English did improve and this is no longer an issue.

FWIW, one of my best friends (and former housemate, though he's got his own flat now) is Polish, and his English, while obviously accented, is no worse than mine. He also agrees with my point above, for what it's worth - if you want to work in country X in a public facing role, learn the language first.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I had an issue with it initially, when a lot of people were brought over who did not speak English properly and put in customer facing roles (I couldn't give a monkey's what is spoken in the Amazon warehouse). I fundamentally strongly object to not being understood when speaking clear English in a business in England. (I don't care what other languages they speak or what they speak with their colleagues or friends, but I do care that everyone in a public facing role in England needs to speak English to the public unless they request another language that is also spoken).

However, as people were there for longer their English did improve and this is no longer an issue.

FWIW, one of my best friends (and former housemate, though he's got his own flat now) is Polish, and his English, while obviously accented, is no worse than mine. He also agrees with my point above, for what it's worth - if you want to work in country X in a public facing role, learn the language first.

I agree, interacting with people within the workplace who can’t speak and/or understand English properly really gets up my nose, especially if one is attempting to communicate something safety-critical when it becomes not just irritating and disproductive but also potentially dangerous. Blood out of a stone and banging head up against brick wall springs to mind.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I had an issue with it initially, when a lot of people were brought over who did not speak English properly and put in customer facing roles (I couldn't give a monkey's what is spoken in the Amazon warehouse). I fundamentally strongly object to not being understood when speaking clear English in a business in England. (I don't care what other languages they speak or what they speak with their colleagues or friends, but I do care that everyone in a public facing role in England needs to speak English to the public unless they request another language that is also spoken).

However, as people were there for longer their English did improve and this is no longer an issue.

FWIW, one of my best friends (and former housemate, though he's got his own flat now) is Polish, and his English, while obviously accented, is no worse than mine. He also agrees with my point above, for what it's worth - if you want to work in country X in a public facing role, learn the language first.
In general, I would agree that public facing workers should be able to communicate effectively, and of course with adequate skills with the local language. But, the choice of who to do these jobs is with the employers, and if they place workers who clearly can't communicate with customers or suppliers, it is the employer's problem. If they ignore the problem, they will lose business - thereby removing any benefit from hiring cheaper non-English speaking staff.
 
Last edited:

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Interesting that the 30 areas with the highest number of people identifying as English, they all voted to Leave
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ult-and-aftermath.132044/page-47#post-2613483

There are very few areas of high immigration that voted to Leave.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ult-and-aftermath.132044/page-36#post-2611823

Sadly, though, the areas where people voted Leave aren't the areas where the "sudden influx" live and work.

I think we all know that the "valid reasons" people had were largely based on far-right lies and apocryphal stories rather than any real lived experience. Coming from Bradford, that's my experience; the people complaining about immigrants aren't the ones living and working with immigrants.

I think it is a little naïve to perceive it as a far right problem. I know many decent hard working people in Stoke who have not had it easy for many many years. They are not racist or far right, in fact quite the opposite they are hard core Labour union ex industry workers.

There may not be large numbers of immigrants in these areas but I think its fair to say the impact any influx of more deprived people on an already deprived area perhaps has a larger scale impact than it does in more affluent areas of the country, I can see why this might be perceived badly, it might also be perceived badly if for example some of them were funded to live in the area by London Councils. The problem is when you have an area already struggling for jobs, funding, services etc and you move any further people in you are compounding the problem. Despite many years of strong growth under Labour 97-2007, they never really fixed the North South (London centric) divide. Signing up to the free movement from countries with a significantly lower wage and standards of living than the UK when we had never solved our own problems isn't the brightest idea. The situation is far more complex than 'far right lies.'

& why was “the rapid expansion” a giveaway?

Because we were allowed the joining of a strong economically stable union (at the time) with countries with similar living standards and wages by a number of countries with much lower standards of living, wages and welfare. Its hardly surprising and who would blame them, that at the first opportunity there was mass economic migration, this put extra strain on already stretched public services. Labour allowed extra migration but never built sufficient infrastructure to cope.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Because we were allowed the joining of a strong economically stable union (at the time) with countries with similar living standards and wages by a number of countries with much lower standards of living, wages and welfare.

So why was the UK allowed to join in the 70s when it had a lower standard of living than most of the rest of the EEC? I have a school atlas from circa 1978 showing the UK to have a GDP per capita of around $3000 a year, when France, the Netherlands, Belgium and West Germany were all around $5000-$6000 a year. Ireland was even lower.

The new EU members have a faster growth rate than the mature economies in western Europe so there will eventually be convergence. Just like when the UK and Ireland largely caught up with the rest of western Europe by the 90s.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
I think the point @StaffsWCML makes is that the perception of immigration is that it has been unlimited and has flooded poorer, run down areas ( like the one i come from) meaning people perceive a threat to their livelihood and lifestyle. That perception is then fueled by stories that do the rounds about how evil forigns are given free houses and jobs and loads of benefit when decent white, English people aren't.

The problem is that perception and reality are often different.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I think the point @StaffsWCML makes is that the perception of immigration is that it has been unlimited and has flooded poorer, run down areas ( like the one i come from) meaning people perceive a threat to their livelihood and lifestyle. That perception is then fueled by stories that do the rounds about how evil forigns are given free houses and jobs and loads of benefit when decent white, English people aren't.

The problem is that perception and reality are often different.

They are, people are entitled to build their own views of the world. If enough people are perceiving it in a certain way perhaps they have a reason to.

There are problems in these areas already, the issue is compounded by any so called 'outsiders' coming in and being seen to take better housing, school places, jobs where they are already in short supply for those living there a lifetime. Its not difficult to see why they might be aggrieved particularly if they are not educated to a higher level and well travelled. It does happen and whatever the scales, it does affect people daily.

People blame Tory cuts and austerity for the fact public services are overcrowded and underfunded when in fact they have been that way for many many years, its been growing and growing the costs were unsustainable because no proper planning has been made.

The real issue is politicians and the apologists refuse to acknowledge the concerns of these people, they bat it off as 'racist little Englanders'. All it does is infuriate them, make them feel unheard, so they react by delivering a Brexit vote. Its obviously the wrong solution to a problem that isn't anything to do with the EU, its to do with our governments. It is not going to solve anything for them, if anything it will mean less jobs, less money than before - no idea where the blame will shift then. I would think most of the intelligent immigrants will leave the country before Brexit if they can.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think the point @StaffsWCML makes is that the perception of immigration is that it has been unlimited and has flooded poorer, run down areas ( like the one i come from) meaning people perceive a threat to their livelihood and lifestyle. That perception is then fueled by stories that do the rounds about how evil forigns are given free houses and jobs and loads of benefit when decent white, English people aren't.

The problem is that perception and reality are often different.

Well, quite. What is my observation is that Eastern Europeans have, after the initial issues, been moving into what you might term "sink estates" and have been, unlike many of the existing residents, complying with the law and looking after those places, making them a nicer place to live with reduced crime and a better community feel. Other than I suppose the presence of Polski Skleps changing the "feel", but most of these have opened in what were otherwise pretty much abandoned shop units (due to the low rents on offer) and thus provide something that wasn't there before.

If that is perceived as a threat to their livelihood and lifestyle, then I suspect that livelihood and lifestyle may not be one we wish as a country to encourage.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Its still a little odd, I am sure the date could have been made official by a bill if they really wanted too.
No, it could not. Not without passing new legislation that specifically removed the PM's prerogative power to set the date of an election.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I know many decent hard working people in Stoke who have not had it easy for many many years. They are not racist or far right, in fact quite the opposite they are hard core Labour union ex industry workers.

I was very careful to not say they were rscist or far right, but that their legitimate concerns about poverty have been exploited by the far right. Stoke, or my home town of Bradford, isn't dead on it's arse because of immigrants or the Polish or the EU, but it's been a long time since any major party has had the cajones to say this. Blaming immigrants was a cheap and easy vote winner, for both sides.

The problem is that genuinely legitimate concerns about poverty have been twisted into "legitimate concerns" which blame foreigners and/or Muslims for the failure of domestic politics.

Many of these concerns have now become "I'm poor, but The Sun tells me that foreigners get free houses/cars/BJs, and they're all fiddling with kids". That, quite frankly, is a far right lie. And it's the lie- designed to deflect away from the real culprits- that underpins the Leave vote in many areas.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
The real issue is politicians and the apologists refuse to acknowledge the concerns of these people, they bat it off as 'racist little Englanders'.

No, the real issue is politicians have been very quick to deflect on to immigration as it's a) an easy vote winner and b) diverts attention from the real culprits.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
No, the real issue is politicians have been very quick to deflect on to immigration as it's a) an easy vote winner and b) diverts attention from the real culprits.

I think you're right that there has been a tendency to blame lots of problems on immigration which in reality have other causes. And that's for the most part basically Tory and UKIP politicians plus some of the media. But in the context of a discussion about racism, it's probably also worth asking why so many people have apparently been so receptive to the message that everything is caused by immigrants.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
But in the context of a discussion about racism, it's probably also worth asking why so many people have apparently been so receptive to the message that everything is caused by immigrants.
Because it's innate human psychology when faced with a problem to accept the external rather then internal cause. If it's someone else's fault then I don't have to change. And, more importantly, I don't have to admit that I'm at fault.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
No, the real issue is politicians have been very quick to deflect on to immigration as it's a) an easy vote winner and b) diverts attention from the real culprits.


Its not quite as simple as that though. If before signing up to large scale immigration proper plans, even education had been put in place so any challenges could be overcome.

I think between 1997 and 2010 the population of the UK increased by around 3 million people, Enough infrastructure has not been put in place to cover that ever. Its requirements are a city the size of Birmingham. We are still building huge housing estates with no new schools, hospitals, leisure facilities or even roads.

Obviously there are many years worth of issues from successive governments but fact of the matter some people have been let down, whilst some factions maybe exaggerating the situation for political gain and to divide. There are some genuine concerns that have not been addressed on how as a nation we should properly accommodate population growth. No one has really been honest, they still are not. We all need to pay more tax if we want adequate infrastructure and public services. We can not expect services designed in times of much lower population to continue to deliver adequately without huge investment.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I think you're right that there has been a tendency to blame lots of problems on immigration which in reality have other causes. And that's for the most part basically Tory and UKIP politicians plus some of the media. But in the context of a discussion about racism, it's probably also worth asking why so many people have apparently been so receptive to the message that everything is caused by immigrants.

Because fact is they do have an impact on the nation, especially if their arrival is not adequately accounted for, which is the real problem here.

Back in early 2000s Stoke a deprived city, many Iraqi immigrants arrived in the Shelton area of the city. Before they arrived services were stretched, after they arrived services were more stretched. Before they arrived getting a job was hard, after they arrived it was even harder. Its not their fault but its a fairly basic failing of our authorities which has been seen in the wrong light by some, blame has been laid in the wrong place. However, its wrong to assume there are not problems caused by immigration especially if you just sign up to it without a plan.

Because it's innate human psychology when faced with a problem to accept the external rather then internal cause. If it's someone else's fault then I don't have to change. And, more importantly, I don't have to admit that I'm at fault.

Think that is too much of a simplistic view. There are issues with immigration when its not managed correctly, which arguably in some parts of the UK it hasn't. Its not really beneficial to have a go at these people without properly hearing their concerns some of which maybe valid, by doing that all we are doing is strengthening their resolve.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think a lot of the issue here is to do with low wages and lack of wage controls or enforcement.

If an area has high unemployment then it's unlikely immigrants will move in as there would be no jobs for them. The places with immigration are likely to be those with labour shortages, along with wage levels that are low in relation to the country in general (otherwise people would move in from elsewhere in the country) but look high to someone from a country with much lower wages and living costs. They may not appreciate how expensive it is to live here until they try it, so end up living in poor conditions and making the whole area look depressed. Meanwhile the native population is also unhappy at their situation and may end up blaming the immigrants.

One of the few things I credit George Osborne for is starting to raise the minimum wage above inflation, which eventually ought to improve this type of situation by creating prosperity for everyone - and the minimum wage doesn't seem to have increased unemployment. But it was too little too late, and didn't come into effect until after the referendum. Also tax credits may subsidise companies that pay poverty wages, though I suspect Osborne's attempt to eliminate these was more about cutting spending than social justice. In my view if a company can't or won't afford to pay a living wage then it shouldn't be doing business in the UK.

Illegal behaviours also have an impact. Companies are more likely to get away with paying below the minimum wage to immigrants who may be ignorant of UK laws, unaware of how to complain or afraid of falling foul of some immigration rule or other. There are also various people-smuggling operations that can exploit the poverty and ignorance of immigrants in their home country to bring them into near-slavery in the UK. The authorities need to act on both, but my impression is that the focus has been more on finding and expelling those who aren't supposed to be here (and sometimes the perception is more important than the reality).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Think that is too much of a simplistic view. There are issues with immigration when its not managed correctly, which arguably in some parts of the UK it hasn't. Its not really beneficial to have a go at these people without properly hearing their concerns some of which maybe valid, by doing that all we are doing is strengthening their resolve.
But you're making the same point that I am.

To use your example, it was easier for the good people of Stoke to blame immigrants for the lack of school places rather than blaming ourselves for not building more schools.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
But you're making the same point that I am.

To use your example, it was easier for the good people of Stoke to blame immigrants for the lack of school places rather than blaming ourselves for not building more schools.

Sorry I must have misunderstood.

Yes I agree there are many complex issues at play here. Most people are decent people just trying to live the best life they can with what they have, yes there are some nasty gits but they are still a minority.

My point being it all goes back to decisions made. If Blair hadn't signed treaties allowing for the immigration before we had a plan in place to correctly accommodate the immigration, we may not have had the subsequent feelings of injustice felt by some and as such the Brexit vote may not have happened.

Its easy to throw blame about but in most cases there are a whole host of causes. I think really we need to look at other failings as to why this happened.

Unfortunately Brexit is unlikely to solve any of the long term issues experienced, but I suppose these people felt let down by the 'establishment', the EU was seen as part of the establishment and 'more of the same' so they voted leave. Having spoke at length with a number of my good friends I get why they did what they did completely. This stuff goes back decades, possibly to the clean air act in the potteries and its gradual demise, there have been decades of constant failure from government and local authorities.

Strangely in recent years there has been a shift in employment in the city 3/4 successful pottery companies still producing locally, new road schemes, finally clearing the old 70s bus station, housing on sites derelict for years. That could be put at risk by Brexit.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
it's probably also worth asking why so many people have apparently been so receptive to the message that everything is caused by immigrants.

Human nature. It's natural to fear people you don't understand, be it people from different cultures, people with different sexual orientations, etc. And on top of that the people being blamed don't have a voice, don't have a right of reply, and so the lies go unchallenged.

If Blair hadn't signed treaties allowing for the immigration before we had a plan in place to correctly accommodate the immigration, we may not have had the subsequent feelings of injustice felt by some and as such the Brexit vote may not have happened.

Immigrants from A2 and A8 countries DIDN'T have the same rights here as other EU nationals; they had reduced rights to work, reduced rights to benefits, A8 nationals had to register before working and A2 nationals even had to get approval with the Home Office when they arrived in order to work. Even now, "right to reside" rules heavily restrict benefit entitlements for EU nationals.

Back in early 2000s Stoke a deprived city, many Iraqi immigrants arrived in the Shelton area of the city. Before they arrived services were stretched, after they arrived services were more stretched. Before they arrived getting a job was hard, after they arrived it was even harder.

Asylum seekers are not allowed to carry out paid employment. Asylum seekers also don't have any say in where they are placed. As a general rule the Border Agency places asylum seekers where accommodation is cheap and plentiful. If accommodation is cheap it's because the demand to live there is low, which affects the services that get provided.

It also proves my point: a lack of GPs, say, isn't because of immigration, it's a lack of funding, a deliberate decision made by government. A lack of jobs isn't because of asylum seekers who aren't legally allowed to work anyway. But blaming the foreigners is easier for politicians.

I rather think that you're proving my point that anti-immigrant "legitimate concerns" are usually based on outright lies from far-right media outlets.
 
Last edited:

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I rather think that you're proving my point that anti-immigrant "legitimate concerns" are usually based on outright lies from far-right media outlets.

Not at all. I think it proves there are issues caused by bad decisions in government. You can not deny that because there are more people; services will be under more pressure if they are not adequately provisioned, which they never have been because they weren't designed to cope with the numbers of people they now deal with.

Whether the so called 'far right press' exaggerate the issues is a different matter, but there are significant issues that were caused by Tony Blair and the Labour party allowing 3 million immigrants to enter the country during their power. I blame the Labour party but obviously others have different views. If you are going to allow the number of people in Birmingham into the country then you need to effectively build another Birmingham, they didn't do that. They just expected them to 'blend in' to the existing stretched services and infrastructure, they then threw money we didn't have at trying to fix it (with quangos and think tanks), then the banks lost the plot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top