Brexit matters

[AlterEgo]

I have to admit I was unaware of Serbia supporting Russia, which does seem a strange decision given they are one of the EU candidate countries. I had the impression (from talking to some Serbians I've met, who didn't seem militant or overly-nationalist to me) that it had become a more moderate and reasonable country.

No, Serbia is quite beautifully mad I regret to say - Serbs who currently live abroad aren't representative of most Serbs back home. As @Cloud Strife says they have a similar victim complex to Russia. No time for Serbia, sorry, probably the most ideologically backward country in Europe other than Belarus and Russia.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course, these aren't downsides to anyone who isn't xenophobic.

It's not (in most cases) being xenophobic. If it was a case of, people generally not liking foreigners or not liking Eastern Europeans, and not wanting them in the UK because you don't like those nationalities, than I'd agree that would be xenophobic. And doubtless that is what motivates a tiny minority of people. But I'm pretty sure most people opposed to Freedom of Movement are motivated more by concern that you've seen large numbers of people move into areas of the UK for which there simply aren't enough houses, doctors, facilities, etc. to cope with that number of people, and that can make life more difficult for those who were already living in those places. That's not xenophobia - it's simply being practical about the consequences of Freedom of Movement.

 

[Cloud Strife]

No, Serbia is quite beautifully mad I regret to say - Serbs who currently live abroad aren't representative of most Serbs back home. As @Cloud Strife says they have a similar victim complex to Russia. No time for Serbia, sorry, probably the most ideologically backward country in Europe other than Belarus and Russia.

It's worse than Belarus, if you ask me. The Belarusians themselves are fairly reasonable and don't have huge amounts of historical baggage, unlike Serbs who are completely and totally obsessed with everyone being against them.

The thing is that we also are failing Serbia. Kosovo is a textbook example: we don't seem to understand just how hugely important Kosovo is for the Serbian mentality. The Serbs are taught from a very young age that the Battle of Kosovo Polje effectively finished Serbia for centuries and that it was a heroic loss (in fact, it was probably a draw, but let's not split hairs) for them. We also made the mistake of allowing Kosovan independence without placing conditions, such as perhaps considering joint rule over North Kosovo, or perhaps even allowing for North Kosovo to rejoin Serbia in exchange for other Serbian municipalities to be fully integrated within the Republic of Kosovo.

But I'm pretty sure most people opposed to Freedom of Movement are motivated more by concern that you've seen large numbers of people move into areas of the UK for which there simply aren't enough houses, doctors, facilities, etc. to cope with that number of people, and that can make life more difficult for those who were already living in those places.

One thing I'd point out: they are often culturally alienated too. I speak Polish, and some of the things written on groups/forums dedicated to Poles in the UK are quite shocking. Racism is rampant, including the use of some fairly shocking slurs like 'ćapati' (or czapati) towards Asians. They watch Polish TV, and they have a very hostile attitude towards the UK in general, along the lines of "the country is to give me because I deserve it". Then there's the constant insults about fat British kids (nevermind the fact that Polish kids aren't doing much better in this respect!) and insults about the educational system, and they also have the same problem as Serbs with believing things like "Polonophobia" because it's what they've read on far right Polish websites and Facebook groups.

So yes, I totally understand where the locals are coming from. I once told one scummy Polish family on the bus in London that a) I could understand them and b) they should show more respect towards their hosts, and they were shocked that a Brit could speak their language.

I think it's also worth pointing out that migrants disproportionately moved to poorer areas, where there are already serious issues with funding for public services, even before 2004.

One major issue with FoM is that it also led to the successful export of criminality. There are areas in Poland which were hotbeds of crime pre-2004 and now are very safe, because simply put: there's more to steal in Western Europe.

 

[alex397]

We've given up our right to emigrate to Daugavpils in exchange for being able to set our own laws on whatever we like (and not having our towns overrun with Europeans).

Or we could look at the exchange in a more mature way?

Firstly, I can’t imagine many in the UK will want to emigrate to Daugavpils. But there are plenty who would want to move to other places mostly in Western Europe, either for work or retirement. And not just Western Europe either, parts of Central/Eastern Europe have lots to offer too.

Secondly, I can’t believe you think it’s acceptable to use language like you have in bold. Using the word “overrun” is in my opinion dehumanising. Also, the UK is full of Europeans anyway, because we are, er, Europeans.

They watch Polish TV, and they have a very hostile attitude towards the UK in general, along the lines of "the country is to give me because I deserve it".

I’m not denying there are Polish people who have this attitude, along with racism and xenophobia. It’s perhaps unsurprising considering Poland isn’t multicultural and their societal values perhaps arn’t as advanced as the UK (in terms of sexism, racism etc) but I’m not sure it’s representative of all Polish people in the UK as a whole. There are Polish children who have grown up here and reject their parents views. Many have also married Brits both white and black.

Secondly, not that I think xenophobic views towards the Brits from Polish people is acceptable, but is it surprising when we have seen so much anti-Eastern European rubbish in the UK mainstream media over the years? And intolerance shown towards them by members of the public.
I honestly grew up scared of Eastern Europeans (or anyone a bit ‘foreign’) because I thought they were mostly criminals. Living in a Daily Mail household, all I really knew about them was the crimes they committed.
It can’t be a positive experience for some immigrants to live amongst that.

 

[nw1]

Firstly, I can’t imagine many in the UK will want to emigrate to Daugavpils. But there are plenty who would want to move to other places mostly in Western Europe, either for work or retirement. And not just Western Europe either, parts of Central/Eastern Europe have lots to offer too.

Secondly, I can’t believe you think it’s acceptable to use language like you have in bold. Using the word “overrun” is in my opinion dehumanising. Also, the UK is full of Europeans anyway, because we are, er, Europeans.

To clarify: I bolded that in reply, @RT4038 did not bold it in their original message.

 

[daodao]

What on earth makes you think that this is possible?

Many EU countries, and particularly Germany, are in dire straits regarding energy supplies, as outlined in this article on the BBC website at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62234188

Germany scrambles for energy with no faith in Russian gas​

Germany's leading energy expert says she's living in a nightmare. What's worse, she saw it coming.
For 15 years Claudia Kemfert says she tried to warn politicians and the public that the country was too reliant on Russian energy.
Until recently Germany bought more than half of its gas from Russia. She advised Berlin to find other sources and focus more on renewables. And she warned against the construction of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline through which Germany receives much of its gas.

The EU has a stranglehold over Norway, because it has a close relationship with the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement and several other bilateral agreements. The EU could warn Norway that these relationships and agreements are at risk if it doesn't divert all its gas exports to EU states at this critical time. The EU won't give a damn about the consequences for third countries such as the UK.

 

[RT4038]

Firstly, I can’t imagine many in the UK will want to emigrate to Daugavpils. But there are plenty who would want to move to other places mostly in Western Europe, either for work or retirement. And not just Western Europe either, parts of Central/Eastern Europe have lots to offer too.

There may well be 'plenty' but these plenty are still a small percentage of the population, most of which are unlikely to use FoM. Please read the thread to get the context of which this is being said - to explain why the FoM was not a priority for Brexit voters.

Secondly, I can’t believe you think it’s acceptable to use language like you have in bold. Using the word “overrun” is in my opinion dehumanising. Also, the UK is full of Europeans anyway, because we are, er, Europeans.

Attacking the person about the particular language that they use is a smoke screen for not actually addressing the issue that they raise. A large quantity of people from continental Europe (i.e. Europeans) coming to certain parts of this country seriously diluting the existing population and straining services to breaking point is 'overrun' in my book. If you want to play down the issue you can use other softer language if you choose, but a spade is a spade.

My comment was really directed towards the use of the word "overrun", which sounds provocative and perhaps, to some, xenophobic. There are other ways of saying the same thing e.g. "in my opinion there are too many continental Europeans resident in the UK and they are taking jobs from British people" (which I also disagree with, because under FoM, British people have a reciprocal right to go abroad; but it's a kinder and less inflammatory way of making the same point).

It may well sound provocative and, perhaps to some xenophobic, but we are talking about why UK people voted for Brexit, not what is 'acceptable' language to those who support FoM. British people may have the reciprocal right to go abroad, but the majority have no desire, and/or no practical application, of being able to use it. (The 30yr old plumber out of work because of a the large number of plumbers from continental Europe that have come to settle in his/her town, will perfectly accept the situation because they know they have the right to retire to Spain or Latvia [got to learn another language too] - it is just nonsense) Therefore they will have seen no need to try and preserve this right when considering voting in the Brexit referendum.

It's not (in most cases) being xenophobic. If it was a case of, people generally not liking foreigners or not liking Eastern Europeans, and not wanting them in the UK because you don't like those nationalities, than I'd agree that would be xenophobic. And doubtless that is what motivates a tiny minority of people. But I'm pretty sure most people opposed to Freedom of Movement are motivated more by concern that you've seen large numbers of people move into areas of the UK for which there simply aren't enough houses, doctors, facilities, etc. to cope with that number of people, and that can make life more difficult for those who were already living in those places. That's not xenophobia - it's simply being practical about the consequences of Freedom of Movement.

Quite.

 

[GusB]

Many EU countries, and particularly Germany, are in dire straits regarding energy supplies, as outlined in this article on the BBC website at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62234188


The EU has a stranglehold over Norway, because it has a close relationship with the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement and several other bilateral agreements. The EU could warn Norway that these relationships and agreements are at risk if it doesn't divert all its gas exports to EU states at this critical time. The EU won't give a damn about the consequences for third countries such as the UK.

You've posted a fair amount of rubbish on this forum, but this takes the biscuit.

 

[najaB]

Attacking the person about the particular language that they use is a smoke screen for not actually addressing the issue that they raise

I agree when someone is splitting hairs, but @nw1 is correct to say that that language is dehumanising and pejorative - exactly the kind of language that the likes of the EDL would use. If you don't mind being associated with such right-wing nutjobs that's your prerogative of course.

A large quantity of people from continental Europe (i.e. Europeans) coming to certain parts of this country seriously diluting the existing population and straining services to breaking point is 'overrun' in my book.

And a large number of people from, say, Norway, Canada or India won't?

The issue isn't and never was the number of people who were arriving, but the fact that the government has a dysfunctional housing policy.

 

[RT4038]

And a large number of people from, say, Norway, Canada or India won't?

A large quantity from anywhere I should think, but none of those places have FoM with us, so therefore had no bearing on the Brexit vote.

The issue isn't and never was the number of people who were arriving, but the fact that the government has a dysfunctional housing policy.

So our government had a dysfunctional housing policy in its accommodation of FoM immigrants? I must say that this is a real curved ball to me!

I agree when someone is splitting hairs, but @nw1 is correct to say that that language is dehumanising and pejorative - exactly the kind of language that the likes of the EDL would use. If you don't mind being associated with such right-wing nutjobs that's your prerogative of course.

.

Sorry you feel that way - it was not intended in that light.

 

[alex397]

There may well be 'plenty' but these plenty are still a small percentage of the population, most of which are unlikely to use FoM. Please read the thread to get the context of which this is being said - to explain why the FoM was not a priority for Brexit voters.

Thank you for your comment. Could you perhaps be a bit more patronising?

Attacking the person about the particular language that they use is a smoke screen for not actually addressing the issue that they raise. A large quantity of people from continental Europe (i.e. Europeans) coming to certain parts of this country seriously diluting the existing population and straining services to breaking point is 'overrun' in my book. If you want to play down the issue you can use other softer language if you choose, but a spade is a spade.

Again, you are using the sort of langauage used by the far right. ‘Diluting’, ‘overrun’, ‘straining’, ‘breaking point’. There are of course some issues with large numbers of migrants coming to a country, but in my opinion this has been hugely exaggerated by the right wing. This dehumanising language leads to people disliking others simply because of where they come from, which is unacceptable.

It may well sound provocative and, perhaps to some xenophobic, but we are talking about why UK people voted for Brexit, not what is 'acceptable' language to those who support FoM. British people may have the reciprocal right to go abroad, but the majority have no desire, and/or no practical application, of being able to use it. (The 30yr old plumber out of work because of a the large number of plumbers from continental Europe that have come to settle in his/her town, will perfectly accept the situation because they know they have the right to retire to Spain or Latvia [got to learn another language too] - it is just nonsense) Therefore they will have seen no need to try and preserve this right when considering voting in the Brexit referendum.

The opportunities of living and working abroad were not really advertised as much as they should. It is also a failure of the Remain campaign not to have highlighted all the benefits of remaining in the EU and the opportunities FoM can bring. Instead they mostly focused on the negatives of leaving, rather than then positives of remaining.

I’d also like to see hard evidence of how many people really were forced out of work due to Eastern European migrants. They were often used as a scapegoat for other societal failures.

 

[ainsworth74]

I’d also like to see hard evidence of how many people really were forced out of work due to Eastern European migrants. They were often used as a scapegoat for other societal failures.

Reminds me of Schrödinger's migrant. Both stealing our jobs and somehow being a huge drain on resources at the same time.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I’d also like to see hard evidence of how many people really were forced out of work due to Eastern European migrants. They were often used as a scapegoat for other societal failures.

Very few, I suspect. A friend's dad owned a fish processing factory, and before 2004, he couldn't get the staff.

And a large number of people from, say, Norway, Canada or India won't?

This is actually a point worth repeating: the Leave campaign (cleverly) targeted Asian voters in the UK, knowing that they were very receptive to a "no more European migration" message. A friend is a typical Brit of Pakistani origin, and he said straight out that most of his family voted for Brexit because they were sick and fed up of the "Eastern Europeans".

The EU has a stranglehold over Norway, because it has a close relationship with the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement and several other bilateral agreements. The EU could warn Norway that these relationships and agreements are at risk if it doesn't divert all its gas exports to EU states at this critical time.

Except it won't happen.

At the same time, surely the UK, that bastion of free marketeering, should be delighted that the EU is using their power on the free market to dictate terms? That's what the free market is, right?

 

[Enthusiast]

Those sneaky EU bureaucrats. Imagine the nerve of refusing to ratify an international agreement, just because we're threatening to break the previous international agreement.

But of course the "previous international agreement" (aka The Northern Ireland Protocol) has a specific clause within it (Article 16) which allows either side to suspend part or all of the agreement if it causes problems. The EU had no compunction in threatening to do so when it believed it would jeopardise its vaccine supply. There are far greater problems being created for the movement of goods between GB and NI and invoking A16 until those problems are addressed seems perfectly reasonable.

There are many more councillors than MEPs.

Indeed. And they warrant equal culling.

The only real solutions to the Irish Border, if the EU (somewhat understandably) insisted on retaining all its existing rules regarding the single market etc., were

- not to do Brexit at all
- do a 'Norway' and join EFTA or something like it, keeping freedom of movement and the single market
- break the Belfast agreement, common travel area etc. and have some checks of people and/or goods on the Irish Border.

As none of those were viewed as acceptable, the problem couldn't be solved, and Theresa May was brought down. Johnson's proposal to 'fix' the issue wasn't remotely a fix either, but enough people went along with it out of weariness in order to break the logjam, in the full knowledge it would have to be looked at again almost immediately.

There is one further solution: to treat goods from GB bound to remain in NI completely differently to those which will cross the border. Only 0.5% of goods entering the EU do so across the Irish border, yet 20% of all customs checks are undertaken on goods crossing the Irish Sea. It is not beyond the wit of man to develop a system to discriminate between the two and with goodwill the EU could sanction such a scheme. But they won't hear of it. This is for no pragmatic reason - the EU's Single Market could be readily protected from contamination by goods originating in the UK. It is simply in order to weaponise the Irish Border to their advantage.

The issue isn't and never was the number of people who were arriving, but the fact that the government has a dysfunctional housing policy.

So an already overcrowded UK should have developed a housing policy which could cater for unlimited numbers among 450m citizens of the 27 other EU nations, who may, on a whim, decide to live here? And you cannot understand why the majority of people who took part in the referendum voted to leave?

 

[najaB]

So our government had a dysfunctional housing policy in its accommodation of FoM immigrants? I must say that this is a real curved ball to me!

No, it has a dysfunctional housing policy for the last 30+ years. Hence why people are still struggling to pay their rents even without "All them immagrunts" around.

But of course the "previous international agreement" (aka The Northern Ireland Protocol) has a specific clause within it (Article 16) which allows either side to suspend part or all of the agreement if it causes problems.

Specifically, it says:

If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.

What, exactly, are the "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties" that the UK is facing, and how is the UK government's proposed action "restricted with regard to scope and duration"?

 

[GusB]

Very few, I suspect. A friend's dad owned a fish processing factory, and before 2004, he couldn't get the staff.

There is a well-known shortbread factory not too far from where I live, and they'd be rather stuck without migrant labour; the seasonal nature of the work means that the locals are less interested.

 

[RT4038]

I would if I believe it would have any effect. The trouble is, it seems our whole system is set up to keep the Tories in power (thanks to the marked bias in the printed media) and thus the retention of FPTP, that I am becoming increasingly despondent that things will never change in the UK within my lifetime.

I don't think you should be too despondent - politics can change very quickly. After all, there will have been people who despaired that there would never be a chance within their lifetime to vote to leave the EU and end FoM, even less that the vote would go their way and the result actually carried out. But it happened. Keep campaigning for what you want, even change the Tory party from within....?

Again, you are using the sort of langauage used by the far right. ‘Diluting’, ‘overrun’, ‘straining’, ‘breaking point’. There are of course some issues with large numbers of migrants coming to a country, but in my opinion this has been hugely exaggerated by the right wing. This dehumanising language leads to people disliking others simply because of where they come from, which is unacceptable.

Left wing language is just as unacceptable as right wing language. Feels like particular viewpoints are trying to be shut down. Are you suggesting that Right Wing language was not an influence in the Brexit vote, just as Left Wing language was an influence to those who voted remain? I do not think that there is particularly a disliking of others simply because of where they come from - I think there is simply a disliking of the quantity of people arriving in this country through FoM , their concentration, and the effect of this on the lives and services of those already here. There would be similar strains if there were similar population moves within the country, but as this has not happened (recently at least) this is not a factor at the moment.

The opportunities of living and working abroad were not really advertised as much as they should. It is also a failure of the Remain campaign not to have highlighted all the benefits of remaining in the EU and the opportunities FoM can bring. Instead they mostly focused on the negatives of leaving, rather than then positives of remaining.

The problem is that the opportunities are simply not equal - working people affected by influx of FoM (driving down wages, reducing job opportunities) , but no work opportunities for them in FoM lands (partly through no work available and partly due to language barrier and dislocation). Professional jobs available in FoM land, and living opportunities for those in IT type jobs or well off retirees. No practical opportunities for train drivers, postmen, factory workers, etc etc).
You are right that the Remain campaign was feeble, there has been some discussion upthread about the difficulties that they had.

 

[najaB]

I think there is simply a disliking of the quantity of people arriving in this country through FoM , their concentration, and the effect of this on the lives and services of those already here.

And why do immigrants concentrate in certain areas? Because that's where the jobs are. And was the geographic distribution of UK industry in the EU's remit or the UK government's?

 

[class ep-09]

So an already overcrowded UK should have developed a housing policy which could cater for unlimited numbers among 450m citizens of the 27 other EU nations, who may, on a whim, decide to live here? And you cannot understand why the majority of people who took part in the referendum voted to leave?

UK’s government has no housing policy for its own citizens in the first place .

As for overcrowded UK - give me a break…

Since brexit - there are more immigrants coming to the UK than before, from everywhere .

And quite rightly so, as we need people to fill vacancies and bring some variety of genes to the population .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And why do immigrants concentrate in certain areas? Because that's where the jobs are.

To some extent, but a much bigger factor is going to be that they concentrate in places where other immigrants from their own country/religion/culture already are, because those are the places they will have heard about and where they can easily access support networks. If you're living in - say - Poland, and you're being encouraged by friends who already live in the UK to come and join them/take advantage of the opportunities here, you're hardly going to move straight to the other end of the country from your friends, are you!

And was the geographic distribution of UK industry in the EU's remit or the UK government's?

To a large extent, neither, for the simple reason that the UK is a democracy and is not a command-based economy. The geographic distribution of industry is largely under the control of the market. The Government tries to influence it of course, to try to balance opportunities across the country or for all sorts of political reasons, but usually has only partial success.

 

[TwoYellas]

To a large extent, neither, for the simple reason that the UK is a democracy and is not a command-based economy.

'Idiocracy' is a term that describes it best.

 

[RT4038]

To some extent, but a much bigger factor is going to be that they concentrate in places where other immigrants from their own country/religion/culture already are, because those are the places they will have heard about and where they can easily access support networks. If you're living in - say - Poland, and you're being encouraged by friends who already live in the UK to come and join them/take advantage of the opportunities here, you're hardly going to move straight to the other end of the country from your friends, are you!



To a large extent, neither, for the simple reason that the UK is a democracy and is not a command-based economy. The geographic distribution of industry is largely under the control of the market. The Government tries to influence it of course, to try to balance opportunities across the country or for all sorts of political reasons, but usually has only partial success.

I suppose the UK Government could move all the Midlands based Distribution hubs to Camborne, Barrow in Furness, Omagh, Peterhead, Bangor etc , and the food processing likewise, but it does seem to be more economically sensible to have these industries in more efficient locations?

 

[edwin_m]

There is one further solution: to treat goods from GB bound to remain in NI completely differently to those which will cross the border. Only 0.5% of goods entering the EU do so across the Irish border, yet 20% of all customs checks are undertaken on goods crossing the Irish Sea. It is not beyond the wit of man to develop a system to discriminate between the two and with goodwill the EU could sanction such a scheme. But they won't hear of it. This is for no pragmatic reason - the EU's Single Market could be readily protected from contamination by goods originating in the UK. It is simply in order to weaponise the Irish Border to their advantage.

Threatening to unilaterally terminate the existing agreement is hardly a way of building that goodwill. And if the existing agreement is so unworkable, why did the UK government sign up to it?

 

[RT4038]

Threatening to unilaterally terminate the existing agreement is hardly a way of building that goodwill. And if the existing agreement is so unworkable, why did the UK government sign up to it?

It was the only way to use the short window of opportunity to leave the EU Single Market / Customs Union. Any delay to find another solution (which likely would have taken years and years and years, as the EU had no incentive to find one) would have missed this opportunity. Politics.

If you support Hard Brexit - if was a masterstroke. If you wanted to stay in the EU - it is duplicitous, and underhanded (and the sort of thing that got Britain an empire covering a quarter of the globe!)

 

[Lost property]

Thankfully, the EU will always be available as a convenient and default scapegoat when required...

Dover traffic: Eurotunnel rejects French explanation for Dover delays

Eurotunnel rejects French explanation after Port declares "critical incident".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[alex397]

Left wing language is just as unacceptable as right wing language. Feels like particular viewpoints are trying to be shut down. Are you suggesting that Right Wing language was not an influence in the Brexit vote, just as Left Wing language was an influence to those who voted remain? I do not think that there is particularly a disliking of others simply because of where they come from - I think there is simply a disliking of the quantity of people arriving in this country through FoM , their concentration, and the effect of this on the lives and services of those already here. There would be similar strains if there were similar population moves within the country, but as this has not happened (recently at least) this is not a factor at the moment.

Which left wing language has been unacceptable? A genuine question. I’m not someone who thinks everything the left wing says and does is perfect, some left wing voices are irritating and extreme.
I would say some of the language I quoted is closer to what I see from the far-right.

I’m sure some are just worried about the level of migration, rather than where they come from, but I have seen and heard plenty of xenophobic comments over the years about Polish people and anyone a bit ‘foreign’ over the years. And it still seems these comments I see and hear are still tolerated, even amongst people I wouldn’t expect it from.
Funnily enough, when I have confronted some people about these views, they have absolutely no idea about the many Polish (and other nationalities) who helped us during WW2 and fought with us in the RAF. It shows what the media and intolerance feeds them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I do not think that there is particularly a disliking of others simply because of where they come from

How else do you explain the fact the right seem to be fine with Ukrainian refugees coming here but not Syrian or Afghan etc refugees?
Or as alex397 above has said, the comments that Polish, Romanian etc immigrants seem to get compared to say French or German.

 

[RT4038]

How else do you explain the fact the right seem to be fine with Ukrainian refugees coming here but not Syrian or Afghan etc refugees?
Or as alex397 above has said, the comments that Polish, Romanian etc immigrants seem to get compared to say French or German.

My comment is in relation to the Brexit theme of this thread, and particularly the reasons for the Brexit vote. I do not think Ukrainian, Syrian or Afghan refugees had any bearing on the Brexit referendum vote.
If French or German FoMers had come to this country in the quantity and concentration that those from the Eastern European countries did, then I daresay a very similar reaction would have happened. But they didn't, so the situation has not arisen.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Or as alex397 above has said, the comments that Polish, Romanian etc immigrants seem to get compared to say French or German.

I think there is an element of behaviour involved here. For instance, take a typical Polish behaviour in small towns and villages: drinking outside the local shop. I do it sometimes, the locals are great fun, there are benches and the place has a community centre air about it. But this is and was very antisocial in the UK, and it's very understandable why locals can be uncomfortable with it.

Firstly, I can’t imagine many in the UK will want to emigrate to Daugavpils. But there are plenty who would want to move to other places mostly in Western Europe, either for work or retirement. And not just Western Europe either, parts of Central/Eastern Europe have lots to offer too.

Mind you, until Brexit, there were more and more Brits moving to places like Eastern Poland because of what it could offer them for the same money. I know a bloke who has just bought a huge manor house (or 'palace' in local speak) for peanuts. Lower Silesia in particular is full of ruined palaces that can be bought for the price of a 1 bedroom ex-council flat in the South East. For example: https://www.morizon.pl/oferta/sprzedaz-dom-zlotoryjski-wojcieszow-1290m2-mzn2040684271 - yours for 155k GBP.

There are caveats, and I would never recommend it to anyone (selling a large house in Eastern Poland or a palace in Western Poland is nearly impossible), but it shows that there's demand in even the most unlikely of places.

Secondly, I can’t believe you think it’s acceptable to use language like you have in bold. Using the word “overrun” is in my opinion dehumanising. Also, the UK is full of Europeans anyway, because we are, er, Europeans.

Overrun is definitely the wrong word here. You can perfectly well talk about the strain on public services and inability of councils to cope, but the idea of 'overrunning' anything is nonsense.

I’m not denying there are Polish people who have this attitude, along with racism and xenophobia. It’s perhaps unsurprising considering Poland isn’t multicultural and their societal values perhaps arn’t as advanced as the UK (in terms of sexism, racism etc) but I’m not sure it’s representative of all Polish people in the UK as a whole. There are Polish children who have grown up here and reject their parents views. Many have also married Brits both white and black.

There is an interesting social dynamic at play. What I'm observing anecdotally is that a lot depends on the parents. If they came from a small town in Poland, the children tend to adopt their values too. Those values often collide with locals, and they are the ones using terrible language online. The children often return to Poland as adults, because they never really adjust to the UK or other host country. These are the ones watching Polish TV, eating Polish food and living in a kind of bubble. You can spot them a mile away in the UK, because their behaviour is so completely out of place. I've had countless experiences where I've seen someone waiting to get on a bus/train, and I said straight away "they're Polish", and they were.

These are the ones that come to mind when people say "Eastern European immigrants".

On the other hand, if the parents are educated, the children are often indistinguishable from locals in the UK. I have some friends in SE England, and it's really difficult to tell the difference between them and locals. They are much more integrated into society, and if it wasn't for the names, you'd think they were the same as any other local. But again, they are professionals, and they were very quick to integrate. I suspect the average Brexiteer wouldn't even know they were from Poland if it wasn't for the names.

Secondly, not that I think xenophobic views towards the Brits from Polish people is acceptable, but is it surprising when we have seen so much anti-Eastern European rubbish in the UK mainstream media over the years? And intolerance shown towards them by members of the public.
I honestly grew up scared of Eastern Europeans (or anyone a bit ‘foreign’) because I thought they were mostly criminals. Living in a Daily Mail household, all I really knew about them was the crimes they committed.
It can’t be a positive experience for some immigrants to live amongst that.

I think it's a really difficult question and I'm not sure that the UK has resolved it. There were issues with crimes, and it's not a big secret that one of Poland's most successful exports was to export the criminality abroad. At the same time, the attitude of the Daily Mail and others was absolutely disgusting and unacceptable.

I think, IMO, one major issue with FoM is that they still don't know how to integrate people properly. The EU wants to make it mandatory for people seeking permanent residence to have at least a B1 level of the local language(s) before they get a permanent residence permit, which I think is a positive step. Speaking as a migrant myself, it's very clear that those without language skills are linguistically and culturally alienated from their new country. You can see it a lot in PL, where people whine that public services aren't available in English.

At the same time, we shouldn't forget that the UK threw the doors open in 2004 while others imposed restrictions. Had we followed the German lead, perhaps it would have been more manageable from a public services point of view.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think, IMO, one major issue with FoM is that they still don't know how to integrate people properly. The EU wants to make it mandatory for people seeking permanent residence to have at least a B1 level of the local language(s) before they get a permanent residence permit, which I think is a positive step. Speaking as a migrant myself, it's very clear that those without language skills are linguistically and culturally alienated from their new country. You can see it a lot in PL, where people whine that public services aren't available in English.

Yes, I think that is a key issue with EU Freedom of Movement. It does sound positive if the EU is thinking about a language requirement.

I think the problem with FoM as set up by the EU was that it became all about rights, with no sense of corresponding responsibilities. To my mind, if I chose to emigrate to another country, it seems obvious that should come with a responsibility on my part to learn the local language, and to familiarize myself with that country's law, customs, way of life, etc. as a minimum so that I don't for example end up acting in ways that would be normal in the UK, but would come across as offensive or threatening to most people in that country. To me it therefore seems perfectly reasonable that any country should be able to impose requirements on would-be immigrants to do likewise, but EU FoM rules - as far as I can make out - prevented that.

I think I'd also feel some responsibility to attempt to integrate with the local communities and to seek to contribute to life there - and not end up forming part of a 'British' ghetto in that country. That kind of thing is much harder to regulate because it's very much in the realm of, personal lifestyle choices; but even so, it does seem to me concerning that EU FoM rules make no acknowledgement of that as an important part of migration.

And it seems obvious to me that any country should be able to prevent people from entering for nefarious purposes (such as, coming in in order to commit crimes), and deport people found to have done that, and that any country should be able to determine what immigration level they can reasonably accommodate, and impose restrictions if immigration levels become too high. Once again, something that historically hasn't been recognised in FoM rules.