[blibble]

the only thing that is likely to halt is the unrestricted freedom of movement for EU workers

the view amongst the UK electorate is not and has never been "all immigration is bad", surveys reveal that a majority of the UK electorate actually support an increase in migration of highly skilled workers

they simply perceive unskilled migration to be a problem, and within the EU there is no ability to control it

as a result: for the highly skilled from other parts of the world it will likely become easier and cheaper to migrate to the UK (and the government has been making noises to this effect)

[pyrale]

As an european tech, I don't really care about whaetherthe british electorate thinks I'm the kind of cattle they want or not. I simply don't want to live in a society that will accept or reject me based on my utility value.

[mike-cardwell]

"I simply don't want to live in a society that will accept or reject me based on my utility value."

So where do you live now? I'd be interested to hear about this magical country which does not restrict immigration.

[guitarbill]

It's petty, but when I left the most satisfying thing was knowing that an ungrateful system no longer receives my above average tax contribution, let alone benefit from my work in other ways.

[Chris2048]

Having an above average tax contribution, simply means you earned more than average. The fact that you now flip on something so trivial, doesn't that just mean you were always a liability?

[Chris2048]

What do you want to be judged on? A majority of those British wanting more immigration control are struggling, you judge them from a position of relative comfort; You are relatively immune to the same concerns.

[pjc50]

> majority of those British wanting more immigration control are struggling, you judge them from a position of relative comfort

They're not being judged by officialdom on whether they get to live in the UK and freely move around it. They're only being "judged" in the sense of having the negative opinion of someone on the internet. Big difference.

Maybe we should be questioning migration control on a more local scale? 200k people move to London every year. If London decided to end UK free movement, only allowing skilled professionals in, it could solve the London housing crisis! /s

(That sounds absurd, but was in fact done to the Ugandan Asians who had their UK citizenship removed by act of Parliament)

[Chris2048]

> Big difference

A bigger difference is that these are two entirely different things. I mean "judge" entirely in the sense of negative personal judgement, not immigration status. And since I'm addressing you here, and your own comment, I'm not sure why that matters.

> If London decided to end UK free movement, only allowing skilled professionals in, it could solve the London housing crisis!

London already has defacto movement control with high rent and living costs.

Will the free movement work both ways (No southerners migrating to the North without permit)? Will tax and governmental control be localised too? How will that work given historical investment in any area common property to the country?

Why do you consider a comparison within a country is valid as with other countries? If that's your angle - why is it fair non-EU countries excluded from free moment?

[pyrale]

I did not judge anyone in this message. I merely explained that when Brexiters say they're not against economically sound migration, they miss the point: it's not about rejecting people, it's about making people not want to come in the first place.

[lhnz]

Don't kid yourself that you're not already being judged based on your utility.

[kristianc]

> as a result: for the highly skilled from other parts of the world it will likely become easier and cheaper to migrate to the UK (and the government has been making noises to this effect)

The government has been making 'noises to the effect' that it is concerned about the net migration number and bringing this down to the 'tens of thousands' [1]. This doesn't seem to distinguish between skilled and unskilled, it's just about reducing the headline number.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/08/conservativ...

[TechnicalVault]

If you've ever tried to employ someone on a UK visa you'll know why business, charities and academia are distraught about this. Even if you have no qualified UK applicants whatsoever you have to spend a lot of time and money fighting with UKBA papermill who reject applications on the slightest error. It would be fine if decisions were timely (like within a few weeks rather than years) or defective applications could be amended but the problem is the system is broken and deliberately so. Politicians have no incentive to fix it because that would increase immigration numbers for a year or two and thus they make it the next guys problem and broken it stays.

[pjc50]

> for the highly skilled from other parts of the world it will likely become easier and cheaper to migrate to the UK (and the government has been making noises to this effect)

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Also per https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/08/conservativ... - even if the UK were to accept "more skilled" immigrants, the overall number would be extremely limited.

(As it stands, they propose to limit it to "tens of thousands" including students, which means either the collapse of UK education exports or a virtual end to worker immigration)

Oh and see also http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-ministers-mis... : cabinet ministers will simply say whatever lie they need for the particular audience.

[arethuza]

'the view amongst the UK electorate is not and has never been "all immigration is bad"'

So why the fascination with net migration figures and the desire by some elements to have "one in one out"?

Edit: I do tend to worry that post Brexit there will be no reduction in net migration figures and there will be a resurgence of support for the far right who want to deliver on no immigration at all.

[TechnicalVault]

I suspect that more of a press obsession with pretty graphs and dramatic pronouncements than actual public interest. Give the press something more interesting to talk about and it'll pretty soon leave the front page.

[arethuza]

Immigration was arguably the central topic for the Leave campaign and it was known to "resonate" very strongly with certain groups of voters.

Not sure how you can argue that there is no "actual public interest" in the topic.

See: "All Out War" by Tim Shipman for more on this - a really excellent book.

[lhnz]

The British public think a good trade deal with the EU is more important than cutting immigration when negotiating Brexit [0].

Remember that about 20% of the leavers are 'liberal leavers' - they are pro-migration. Once you add this group to the remainers it's clear that a minority of anti-immigration voters shouldn't decide politics for everybody else.

[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people...

[DanBC]

Some newspapers are obsessed with migration.

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/operations/56bb369c9/pres...

> Overall, the Swedish press was the most positive towards refugees and migrants, while coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative, and the most polarised. Amongst those countries surveyed, Britain’s right-wing media was uniquely aggressively in its campaigns against refugees and migrants

[...]

> The discussion of refugees and migrants as a cultural threat or a threat to community cohesion was most prevalent in the British press (10.8%), followed by Swedish (8.2%), Italian (8.1%), Spanish (7.4%) and German (5.3%) newspapers. Another noticeable finding was the high incidence of threats to welfare/health systems in the UK press (18.3%) which was much higher than the other countries in the sample (Sweden 11.4%, 7.9% Germany, 7.3% Italy, 6.7% Spain). The prevalence of negative refugee frames could also be seen in the greater tendency for the British press to link refugees and migrants to crime (8.2%) than in other countries (Italy 4.3%, Germany 3.7%, Italy 2.6%, Spain 1.7%)

[...]

> In contrast, coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative. Despite the presence of newspapers such as the Guardian and Daily Mirror, both of which were sympathetic to refugees, the right-wing press in the United Kingdom expressed a hostility towards refugees and migrants which was unique. Whilst newspapers in all countries featured anti-refugee and anti-migrant perspectives, what distinguished the right of centre press in the UK was the degree to which that section of the press campaigned aggressively against refugees and migrants. This could be seen in the preponderance of negative frames and the editorialising in favour of Fortress Europe approaches.

[arethuza]

"uniquely aggressively in its campaigns against refugees and migrants"

Blame societies ills on the poor and weak - one of the oldest political tricks in the book and something that makes me physically ill to contemplate.

[fahadkhan]

The other element of this is that highly skilled EU worker would demand higher salaries than those from non-EU countries. How this will affect British workers is again hard to call.