Spotting falsehoods and unkeepable promises is vital. Of course the Remain campaign spread a lot of rubbish, too. But I figure that's because increasingly it has been found to work. The 2015 election campaign and the 2014 Scottish Referendum showed that fear, demonising the opposition, bribery and lies can win.

Not sure I agree with this. It's the received wisdom based on the result of the Scottish referendum, but I personally think that the experts called it wrong there. At the start of the campaign in Scotland No was leading by almost 30 pts. By the end, after weeks of relentlessly negative campaigning, the eventual margin of victory was 10 pts. For sure they won, but you could also argue that they shed a huge number of voters over the course of the campaign. Maybe Project Fear didn't actually work, maybe it just narrowed the margin of victory.

For me, Remain threw this referendum away by the tone of their campaigning. There was no attempt to make a positive case for EU membership, it was all a relentless torrent of dire warnings that grew ever more hyperbolic as the weeks went by. From speaking to people I noticed that everybody I knew just stopped listening after a while, and many people got so pissed off with the whole thing that it tipped them over into voting Leave. It was a big mistake in my opinion.

Sassenach wrote:

Spotting falsehoods and unkeepable promises is vital. Of course the Remain campaign spread a lot of rubbish, too. But I figure that's because increasingly it has been found to work. The 2015 election campaign and the 2014 Scottish Referendum showed that fear, demonising the opposition, bribery and lies can win.

Not sure I agree with this. It's the received wisdom based on the result of the Scottish referendum, but I personally think that the experts called it wrong there. At the start of the campaign in Scotland No was leading by almost 30 pts. By the end, after weeks of relentlessly negative campaigning, the eventual margin of victory was 10 pts. For sure they won, but you could also argue that they shed a huge number of voters over the course of the campaign. Maybe Project Fear didn't actually work, maybe it just narrowed the margin of victory.

For me, Remain threw this referendum away by the tone of their campaigning. There was no attempt to make a positive case for EU membership, it was all a relentless torrent of dire warnings that grew ever more hyperbolic as the weeks went by. From speaking to people I noticed that everybody I knew just stopped listening after a while, and many people got so pissed off with the whole thing that it tipped them over into voting Leave. It was a big mistake in my opinion.

I do agree that it backfired. Of course, both sides were using Fear, so it was just depressing and negative (which played into the Leave side's hands).

Corbyn was actually talking about positives, but he didn't get the message out and people (particularly the media) didn't want to listen to it. Far more interesting to watch Boris v Dave.

In Scotland, of course, what we had was a point where the polls narrowed and Yes was in the lead with a few weeks to go. The panic button was hit and everything was thrown at it (the bribes as well as doubled-down fear), and the polls stabilised. It appeared to have worked - although in hindsight all that did was mean that Scotland was itching for an excuse to have another go, which we just gave them.

As I understand it, the population is growing there by half a million a year, right? And, it's also not from an increase in birth rate.

Is it "xenophobia" to look at a sluggish economy and stagnate wages, and to wonder if unregulated migration is helpful?

Is it wrong to look at certain laws that are imposed by Brussels or European courts and wonder how much it really means to have your own country if you have no say in some of the laws?

Doctor Fate wrote:As I understand it, the population is growing there by half a million a year, right? And, it's also not from an increase in birth rate.

Is it "xenophobia" to look at a sluggish economy and stagnate wages, and to wonder if unregulated migration is helpful?

Is it wrong to look at certain laws that are imposed by Brussels or European courts and wonder how much it really means to have your own country if you have no say in some of the laws?

Given that coming out has so far impacted our economy negatively, and that recent EU immigrants contribute more than they take out, it may not be xenophobia but it is not first grade economic analysis.

We do have a say in the laws. All laws go through the European Parliament (which we have elected MEPs on) and the European Council (which our elected government sits on, and has veto and opt out powers for in some areas).

And much of the court decisions people complain about comes from a separate system, the ECHR, which we will still be part of and which we wrote the founding Convention for before the EU existed.

It is hard to accuse "some" of "wanting to make it all about xenophobia" when you had immigration front and centre of the campaigns at times.

followed by

Given that coming out has so far impacted our economy negatively, and that recent EU immigrants contribute more than they take out, it may not be xenophobia but it is not first grade economic analysis.

...sure sounds like you want us to believe it was all about xenophobia now doesn't it?

Let's use me as an example in the States. I am no "xenophobe" But i do want to keep immigration in check and I do not want to give government benefits to illegals. I have zero problem with legal immigration from any country, any religion, any race, any ethnicity. I am not a xenophobe but I do want to keep it in check and keep it legal. It would sound as if I have many "twins" in the UK yet Danivon wants to paint us as either "Xenophobes" or "first graders"? There is no one single reason to stay or to go, there are a whole slew of reasons and it does not boil down to xenophobia only.

tom

Let's use me as an example in the States

Why?

But I do want to keep immigration in check and I do not want to give government benefits to illegals. I have zero problem with legal immigration from any country, any religion, any race, any ethnicity. I am not a xenophobe but I do want to keep it in check and keep it legal.

The immigration into the UK has been legal. There is not a problem with illegal immigration.
More over the migrants are a net postive influence on the UK economy. Not a drag.

In the US, the immigrant population, whether illegal or legal has also had a net positive impact on the US economy.

The people who voted for Brexit in the UK voted primarily because their personal economic circumstances have been poor for the last 2 to 3 decades. And they chose to blame immigration and the EU, wrongly.
The similarilty in the US is that those who support Trump have also had poor personal economic circumstance for the last 3 decades. And they also are looking for a bogey man to blame rather than addressing the more complex reasons for their situation.
Its also easier for those who are benfitting the most economically for the last 3 decades to let these people flail at bogey men rather than understand why they are actually losing. The elimintion of Glass Steagal and other financial regulations did more to widen economic disparity than the importation of migrants. And thats true in both nations.

danivon

We do have a say in the laws. All laws go through the European Parliament (which we have elected MEPs on) and the European Council (which our elected government sits on, and has veto and opt out powers for in some areas).
And much of the court decisions people complain about comes from a separate system, the ECHR, which we will still be part of and which we wrote the founding Convention for before the EU existed

.
If England wants to continue to do business in the EU, most of the EU laws will have to be followed anyway, won't they?
Non-compliance to regulations on products, packaging, employment standards would simply eliminate a company from potential exports? And isn't the EU market crucial for most UK manufacturers?
Other than opting out of immigration what has Brexit changed?

rickyp wrote:In the US, the immigrant population, whether illegal or legal has also had a net positive impact on the US economy.

Feel free to prove that illegal immigration has a net positive impact on the US economy. Good luck!

The similarilty in the US is that those who support Trump have also had poor personal economic circumstance for the last 3 decades. And they also are looking for a bogey man to blame rather than addressing the more complex reasons for their situation.

Oh, they have fixed blame all right: on the system and the President under whom the economy "recovered" and they did not.

The elimintion of Glass Steagal and other financial regulations did more to widen economic disparity than the importation of migrants. And thats true in both nations.

So, Glass-Steagall, which was repealed under Bill Clinton (who Hillary will put in charge of the economy), is the key economic problem in the UK? Interesting.

Btw, that's a very broad statement made with zero support. Well done!

uhhh, Ricky
Yes I said I wanted Legal immigration but you conveniently miss keeping it " in check"

Yes, in the UK it was legal but it was not in check by any means.
You want to insist it is a net positive and while I doubt that, I will give you that because it does not matter! The citizens want to keep it under control, a whole host of problems happens when immigration is not kept under control. Your argument simply that it is a net positive does not matter, If I wanted to build a shopping Mall at the end of your street, I could point to it being a net financial positive but somehow I suspect you don't want a parking lot in your back yard do you?

The citizens have a right to expect controlled immigration policies, much has to do with xenophobia no doubt, but not all, far from it being all about one aspect only!

(and echoing DF's claim ...good luck proving it [illegal immigration] has a positive effect on the US economy!)

Interesting perspective from Ms. Le Pen...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/marine-le-pen-after-brexit-the-peoples-spring-is-inevitable.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

fate

Feel free to prove that illegal immigration has a net positive impact on the US economy. Good luck

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... us-economy

When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answ ... nID=000788

There are places in the United States where illegal immigration has big effects (both positive and negative). But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.

http://illegalimmigrationeconomics.weeb ... fects.html

Illegal immigration not only provides some of the United States’ most vital industries with the necessary low-skilled labor, but it also provides the United States, and many of its states, with a budget surplus. One of the other main reasons that the majority of Americans feel so strongly about the United States becoming tougher on illegal immigration is that they believe illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, while still receiving social benefits. The truth, however, is the converse: Illegal immigrants pay many of the same taxes that American citizens pay, but they receive very few of the benefits that their tax dollars pay for.

Feel free to try and prove that they are a net negative.

fate

So, Glass-Steagall, which was repealed under Bill Clinton (who Hillary will put in charge of the economy), is the key economic problem in the UK? Interesting.

Yes. But it really goes back to the 60's and began with a vengance in 1980 with financial deregulations that moved the financial industry from being the lubricant for industry and commerce to being an industry unto itself.
Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions of the financial capitalism that has developed over the decades between 1980 and 2010, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity), and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.
Financialization describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible or intangible, future or present promises, etc.) into a financial instrument. The intent of financialization is to be able to reduce any work product or service to an exchangeable financial instrument, like currency, and thus make it easier for people to trade these financial instruments.
Greta Krippner of the University of Michigan writes that financialization refers to a "pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production."
This has lead to the devaluation of labor, and has lead many American and UK companies away from their core capacities. When a significate portion of a companie profits start to accrue from financial transactions ratehr than manufacruer or delivery of service .... the compay changes. And over time its core capacities are diminished

This is what has happened for decades. Its why most of the recovery went to the top 1% who benefitted greatly from the investment of low and free money - unfortuantely for the economy as a whole mostly into more financial "instruments".
And yes Clinton is at fault.
Who has policies to fix this now? In the US, Elizabeth Warren and to a lesser extent Hilalry Clinton.
The Republican Party is still in thrall of "Trickle down".
(Trump's economic plan would send the US into a decades long recession.)

tom

Yes, in the UK it was legal but it was not in check by any means

What makes you think migrantion into the UK was out of control?
What is your source for this?

From what I can find there is a perception but actual facts are harder to find.

Around 3 million people living in the UK in 2014 were citizens of another EU country. That’s about 5% of the UK population. Over 2 million nationals of other EU countries are in work, about 7% of the working population.
Recent figures suggest just over half—around 1.6 million—of the EU nationals living here arrived between 2006 and 2014.
EU nationals of working age are more likely to be in work than UK nationals and non-EU citizens. About 78% of working age EU citizens in the UK are in work, compared to around 74% of UK nationals and 62% of people from outside the EU.
1.2 million people from the UK living in the rest of the EU

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

rickyp wrote:fate

Feel free to prove that illegal immigration has a net positive impact on the US economy. Good luck

Feel free to try and prove that they are a net negative.

Oh brother. You proved they are needed to pick lettuce and tomatoes. Wonderful. That is a far cry from proving they are a net plus. In fact, I think you wrote the last article. Why?

According to a 2006 Texas poll, 1.4 million illegal immigrants who reside there added nearly $18 billion to the sate’s (sic) economy and only received $1.2 billion in benefits (Ewing).

There can't be three people on the Internet who refuse to use a spellcheck program. I don't believe it.

Illegal immigration is costly:

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.
Key Findings
-Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
-The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
-Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
-At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. -At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
-Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

Further, I don't believe we have any way of measuring how much illegal immigration suppresses wages for those on the lower rungs of the employment ladder.

Also, how much are the lives worth that illegal immigrants end every year?

rickyp wrote:fate

So, Glass-Steagall, which was repealed under Bill Clinton (who Hillary will put in charge of the economy), is the key economic problem in the UK? Interesting.

Yes. But it really goes back to the 60's and began with a vengance in 1980 with financial deregulations that moved the financial industry from being the lubricant for industry and commerce to being an industry unto itself.
Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions of the financial capitalism that has developed over the decades between 1980 and 2010, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity), and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.
Financialization describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible or intangible, future or present promises, etc.) into a financial instrument. The intent of financialization is to be able to reduce any work product or service to an exchangeable financial instrument, like currency, and thus make it easier for people to trade these financial instruments.
Greta Krippner of the University of Michigan writes that financialization refers to a "pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production."
This has lead to the devaluation of labor, and has lead many American and UK companies away from their core capacities. When a significate portion of a companie profits start to accrue from financial transactions ratehr than manufacruer or delivery of service .... the compay changes. And over time its core capacities are diminished

This is what has happened for decades. Its why most of the recovery went to the top 1% who benefitted greatly from the investment of low and free money - unfortuantely for the economy as a whole mostly into more financial "instruments".
And yes Clinton is at fault.
Who has policies to fix this now? In the US, Elizabeth Warren and to a lesser extent Hilalry Clinton.
The Republican Party is still in thrall of "Trickle down".
(Trump's economic plan would send the US into a decades long recession.)

Meh, I find it funny:

1. That your spelling is so bad that you spelled 'company' two different ways in one post.
2. That Hillary, a woman who has used government to make herself rich, is your 'hope' for the US when she will continue the same lousy policies of this President.
3. Are worried about a recession when Obama has us on the verge of one right now. PS: those go in cycles. Sure, government can make them worse, but they can't stop them.
4. US law can crush the British economy. Sad times for the UK.

More over the migrants are a net postive influence on the UK economy. Not a drag.

This is a questionable assertion to say the least. It's been repeated so often over recent years that it's come to be seen as a truism, but the fact is that it's based on a misleading set of statistics. It may be true that recent EU migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, but for purposes of that statistic 'benefits' simply equates to in-work tax credits and the like. What it doesn't take into account is the cost of providing healthcare for them through the NHS. Neither does it account for the cost of educating their children in our schools. These things are free at the point of delivery in the UK. More obliquely, it doesn't, and surely can't ever, account for the effect that so many new arrivals has on the cost of living for those who already live here. Mass migration has placed enormous strain on the housing stock, which in turn has driven up rents and fed into the ever spiralling costs of buying a house (which in turn drives up mortgage costs).

What you also overlook in the simplistic analysis is that the supposed economic benefits of mass immigration apply asymmetrically. It's fantastic for employers, who get a limitless supply of cheap, non-unionised labour. It's also good for those who employ nannies, or who want to get a cheap plumber or an extension put on their house at rock-bottom rates. Not so great for those who work in manual trades, who have seen years and years of wage suppression brought about by so many tradesmen coming over from Eastern Europe who are willing to work for much less than they do. Not great either for agricultural workers, people who work in warehouses, truckers, factory workers and so on. It's especially not great for those who finish school without many qualifications. All the trades that used to be open to these people which would have allowed them to nevertheless find gainful employment and ultimately make a decent living are becoming blocked because employers are no longer offering the apprenticeships that used to be available. Why spend years training up a British school leaver when it's far cheaper and more productive to simply recruit somebody from Poland ? Three quarters of all new jobs created in Britain last year went to a foreigner. Think about that for a second.

It's very patronising to state that those who have been the losers out of this process are too stupid to understand what's happening in their own communities. Frustration with mass immigration has been building for years, and frankly they tend to know a lot more about it than the comfortably-off middle class types who demonise them for their attitudes.