[MichaelAza]

> [Britons beleave Brexit] has hampered government attempts to control immigration

I'm not very well versed in UK politics but what's the narrative behind this? In what way do Britons believe Brexit has made controlling immigration harder? While the ways it has hurt trade and the economy in general are obvious to me (both on the factual level and what I presume Britons believe) I have a hard time imagining what they could possibly think on this subject.

[rich_sasha]

A lot of Brexit politics was about immigration: how EU rules mean you cannot bar any European from entering and reading, except in extreme circumstances. And indeed, UK is much more international than many European peers.

But what happened post-Brexit is that (legal) immigration numbers are at all time high. There is a high fraction of low skilled immigrants from outside EU, often with questionable English and, well, looking different - which matters to some people. My point isn't to disparage hard working people, but that it's very visible.

So that's a major Brexit pledge gone completely awry. I don't think there is anything Brexit-related that made migration control objectively harder, only that the control failed. Although what also happened, not unrelated, is that high-skilled immigrants from EU largely left, because post-Brexit UK is not very attractive to Europeans. This is very perceptible especially in health care, where shortages of doctors and nurses are now quite scary.

And the immigration is so high in then because UK has always had labour shortages, patched by foreigners. It's only the country of origin that changed.

[rebuilder]

So basically Polish workers stopped coming because it was harder thanks to Brexit, and had to be replaced by less-white people?

[rich_sasha]

Kinda. Also Spanish nurses and doctors left, too.

And immigration, of people of any colour, is at all time high.

[FirmwareBurner]

Except from the EU.

[Levitz]

But if the immigration is legal then the control isn't failing at all, is it?

The few brexitters I talked with shared the same stance, that it was not acceptable for the EU to dictate immigration to the UK. It was not a matter of the influx itself, but about having that control. sovereignty was a big thing.

[rich_sasha]

Well, yes, people wanted control, but also to hear the foreigners are kept out. Not, good news, on our own volition, we decided to let in more people than ever.

[MichaelAza]

Seems like a plausible explanation. Thanks for explaining it.

[mytailorisrich]

There are no labour shortages that justify 750k immigrants in a single year.

The government is using immigration to prop up the (overall) economy while keeping wages down.

[jdietrich]

> There are no labour shortages that justify 750k immigrants in a single year.

Actually, yes. There was a very severe reduction in labour market participation due to the pandemic. The reasons for this are complex, varied and in many ways the fault of the government, but the upshot is that we lost ~700,000 employees from the labour market over the course of 2021/22. Job vacancies have declined sharply since mid-2022, but we still have about 150,000 more vacancies than we did pre-pandemic.

https://obr.uk/box/the-impact-of-the-pandemic-on-labour-mark...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...

[mytailorisrich]

Sorry, but no-one reasonable can believe that this is an accurate representation of the situation.

This just shows the state of the economy where, on the one hand the government is happy to use weak health reasons not to officially count people as unemployed [1], and thus to claim low unemployment while, on the other hand, importing more people, which only keeps productivity and wages down, and keeps the housing market hot.

This also allows the government to claim that the economy is strong when, in fact GDP per capita is going down.

The UK has a big issue with immigration in that it overly depends on it instead of fixing its domestic issues.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/24/500000-under...

[Whoppertime]

So that's where Justin Trudeau got the idea

[ElectricalUnion]

From my (foreign) point of view, is that now that the UK can no longer benefit even indirectly from what used to be a large transient workforce from the border-free Schengen Area, it instead is forced to actually accept "unsightly more permanent and real immigration" from the rest of the EU and the world at large to keep the economy turning.

So it went from "we don't like immigrants" to "pretty please immigrate to the UK even if you're not from the EU or we're toast".

[mike_hearn]

The UK isn't exactly begging people to immigrate. Quite the opposite. Legal immigration has blown through all records since the UK left the EU because the Conservative government set the salary thresholds very low.

This isn't what voters want or were promised at all, but there are currently no established parties in the UK that are willing to actually reduce immigration. They are all committed to allowing in the highest numbers possible.

In theory this behavior should be punished by voters, but if all the parties are the same then there isn't much voters can do except refuse to vote at all. This is what they're telling pollsters they'll do in the next GE. Polls predict a big shift to Labour, but this isn't because Labour is suddenly more popular. It's because the Conservative voters have become so disillusioned with being misled over the immigration issue that they're just refusing to vote at all.

[dfawcus]

Sort of, but we were never in Schengen.

However that didn't constrain EU workers, as the 4 freedoms are distinct from, and predate Schengen.

[rebuilder]

Just speculating here, but one way would be that the UK no longer can take part in EU-wide efforts to control the flow of migrants. The EU is doing quite a bit to keep immigrants out by e.g. paying Turkey to take them in instead.

[Whoppertime]

If you want an interesting perspective on how EU controls the flow of migrants try speaking with some Polish politicians.

[tim333]

It's made a big difference with the Africans and similar arriving in dinghies from France. Under the EU we could send them back to France. Now no.

[midasuni]

While the mail scream about the 50 people arriving on a dinghy they ignore the 2 plane loads arriving at Heathrow

[Whoppertime]

Why can't you send ships from France back to France without the EU?

[skissane]

The EU has a rule (Common European Asylum System) that you have to claim asylum/refugee status in the first EU country you arrive in. The UK benefited greatly from this rule while in the EU - anyone entering from France and claiming to be a refugee, they could be sent straight back to France, and under this EU rule France had to accept them.

Post-Brexit, once an asylum seeker in France makes it to the UK, France is no longer under any legal obligation to take them back, so they refuse. There isn't anything in it for them.

It also has rules about spreading the burden, so once a refugee claim is accepted, governments can then forcibly transfer them to a different EU country. Post-Brexit, the UK government can only transfer refugees to EU member states if they agree to receive them, and why should they, what is in it for them?

[tim333]

The French refuse to take the migrants back. Under the EU they were forced to take them under some rule or other.

[dfawcus]

There are no international water in the short straits between England and France.

To send a ship back we'd have to escort it, then the French would forcefully object to our actions.

Basically for us to send ships back, or send people back, without French cooperation amounts to an act of war. We'd have to use our armed forces, with the obvious reaction from the French armed forces.

Not really a practical, nor sensible proposition.

[WediBlino]

I recommend watching a BBC documentary called 'the thick of it'.

[monkeydust]

Second that but I hope your joking calling it a documentary.

[vardump]

Beleave: To leave behind, abandon. But pretty sure it should have been "believe". Regardless, I had to double take given the context.