I had no idea tbh. Didn't even think New Zealanders were averse to immigration. What I find funny is that this country has had the same wave of immigration for centuries... and the same xenophobic reaction to it. The massive French influx in the 17th century was met with the same abuse. The Jewish wave of immigrants in the 19th century once again were feared by us Brits. Then the infamous "no Irish, no blacks, no dogs" policy in the 1950's. The Asian migration of the 1960's and 70's. The funny thing is, over any hundred year period it's the foreigners that become assimilated into British culture (while adding some degree of their own ofcourse) and then the next wave is considered to be "the threat to our way of life" until they're assimilated and the next lot arrive. It's simply the Pole's turn now. I won't say everything is perfect, there are problems (especially with the disconnect between certain communities) but I honestly believe the net worth is far more positive than it is negative. I work in the public sector and I see it every day.
The "foreigners" has always been the easiest scapegoat. Easy to point to as a one dimensional issue rather than a multitude of complex, usually economic issues. I'm not so sure about the assimilation as you put it at least in later migrations. Paradoxically earlier influx came at times where even the establishment was openly hostile...foreigners didn't have rights so were forced to more quickly adopt the indigenous language, customs etc attempt to hide their "difference" as much as possible. Their imported culture was not respected and met with hostility...integration was forced upon them. Also Immigration during the 17th and 19th centuries came at a time when huge amounts of workers were needed due to different stages of industrialisation. Even in the 1950's after WW2, workers were needed to rebuild. Since then two things have happened...1) our society has introduced equality legislation that ensures a respect for incoming immigrants cultures and identity. 2) the traditional areas that immigrants head to, inner cities no longer offer the high levels of employment that previous migrations allowed. So you now have the situation where minorities become the majority in certain areas...are not forced to change their identity much, language etc. Then add second and third generations that have no job prospects in deprived areas with the associated poor housing, poor health, poor education and cultures within cultures occurs where they are bitter about their prospects, fearful of the hostility shown because they have become the scapegoats and feel like they are not part of the state they live in. This can be seen when migrants from the 60's 70's are among the loudest to ask for restrictions now. Now clearly I'm not going to suggest we should go back to a removal of rights for immigrants to force integration lol.. I'm also not anti immigration. I like you love cultural diversity as it adds to our country- a country built from layer on layer of migration for a thousand years but how do we encourage a mutual respect? If there are areas where second or third generation immigrants are in the highest unemployment bracket is it wise to be bringing more in from yet more cultures when we haven't figured out how to assimilate previous waves? Rather than focusing on ensuring we look after what are now being 2nd and third generation UK citizens? If we are failing to provide good housing, education and employment to previous immigrants or their children? As you can see, I haven't discussed poor "white" populations that live side by sidemail with previous arrivals. This was deliberate as it is too wast to look like the old "poor white man's jobs been robbed by the foreigners "...I think it's more that they live in the same areas with the lack of job opportunities, poor housing etc...it's a shared problem rather than one or the others fault. So what do we do? Do we only let in specialists? Highly educated? People who will create jobs as well as fill them? How do we say to the jobless already here there is a job but it's not well paid probably menial but better than nothing without it seeming like we are saying this is all you are worth? How do we encourage inner state migration...i.e. you are unemployed in Birmingham there's a job in Manchester ...move we will help you to move. If a Pole is prepared to change countries to get a job how do we create a culture where people move to other parts of the country? I haven't a clue.
Lots in there I agree with. Immigration needs to be looked at in a serious non hysterical manner. Of course unlimited immigration will cause chaos at least in the short term. But one thing that no one (among our politicians) seems to have touched on is that zero immigration in the last 100 years will have given us a poorer society than the current one. Poorer economically, culturally and socially. A decaying white society, getting older, with fewer ideas. The reality is that immigrants have contributed more than just taxes. They have contributed to literature, entertainment sports food cuisine etc. A people always needs new blood. The question is about integration and assimilation and at a sustainable and acceptable pace.
Immigration is only an issue in 3 areas IMO 1. Isolation imposed by self or by state. France is a basket case. they have all the african decent in virtual gettos in paris. 2. Jobs. If 100k people come here and all get jobs in london and pay tax whats the problem? its like southpark rednecks shouting they're taking our jobs then falling in a vast pile of homosexuality so prevent the future form happening.. 3. Benefits. When theres any strain on benefits or cuts as the tories want to do ANYWAY then immigrants being entitled to the same creates bad feeling form the people on benefits already. thats my opinion. If people set up fair rules it shouldn't matter if you are in EU or not in EU.
Angela Merkel warning as she urges UK to stay in EU http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726
A two way relationship depends on both parties. The brexiteers cannot guarantee how the other party would behave once they move the country out. What incentive would they have for keeping Britain sweet? Why would they give us a good deal? Why wouldn't they beef up Paris or Frankfurt as their main financial centre?
If Britain gets out of Europe, there are tendencies that other members are goiing to be hostile to Britain. Eventually, if Britain survives the onslaught: the union is finished, other members are likely to get out, especially those that are economically viable. Question how many of them?
Like Donga said in an early post, just look at the leading Brexiteers: Boris , Liam fox, Priti Patel, Duncan Smith, Gove, Farage. All rabid right wingers. So suddenly they are batting for the common working man? Surely nobody with any sense will believe them?
And then on the otherside you have David Cameron, George let me cut even more disability benefits Osbourne, Theresa May, most corporations, Jeremy lets ruin the NHS *unt last but not least even TONY gravy train Blair wants to remain. No my friend, you need to look at the arguments not who is running the campaign and getting all the airtime.
You've called it. None of them like London as a financial centre and with UK out there is nothing to stop eu to force a big swing away from London and onto Frankfurt.
Not often I agree with Cameron, but his example of Canada in the debate last night should strike a chord with those who are currently floaters. 7 years they've been trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU...... The Brexit balloons are working on the premise that the EU will fall over themselves to continue trading with us and it'll be 'business as usual'. It's a complete fallacy.
I've just watched a town hall with Jamie Dimon and George Osborne - is there any UK business (large or small) that would support Brexit?
