Isn’t there an argument to say that if the deterrent strategy is effective, this will actually drive the number of boats UP in the short term, because it will create a premium on arriving before the regulations come into effect?
If what I've read is accurate, Braverman has sought to head this off by making the rules effective restrospectively from the moment they were announced (whether this gambit actually means anything, or will be noticed by those it is supposed to deter is another matter though)
Voters favour rules based liberalism when it comes to immigration? Are you sure? Or are they just unaware of how many migrants are arriving in the UK now?
Last year to June 2022 the ONS states that 504,000 migrants (that is the net figure and they came mostly from Asia) were granted the right to stay in the UK long term. Before Brexit in 2016 it was 335,000 (about 50% form the EU I think) a record back then.
Freedom of Movement was a key issue in the Brexit campaign with Penny Mordaunt lying about the UK being invaded by Turks and the infamous poster put up by the Leave side featuring a queue of people waiting at the EU border who were supposed to then come to the UK.
Maybe rules based immigration isn't an issue because the public think as Brexit is "done" and as there is no Freedom of Movement anymore then the immigration issue has been dealt with. Not because the public has became more liberal since 2016.
I really doubt those who voted for Brexit to end Freedom of Movement would be pleased to see 504,000 migrants entering the UK so why isn't that the issue? Ignorance on the part of the public?
Maybe the public's negative attitude to the small boats policy is centred around that policy alone. They don't like it for what it is and because it won't work not because the public has become more liberal.
Quite a lot of voters who chose Leave thought that stopping European workers coming here would mean more people could come from Commonwealth countries, which would mean reuniting with family members. 70% of people in Ealing Central and Acton constituency voted Remain. In Ealing Southall it was 50%, and the opinion given above was a real factor in the difference between the eastern and western ends of our west London borough.
Don't forget that Boris Johnson said we could take 300,000 people from Hong Kong. It would be difficult to argue that we did not have a responsibility towards them. They have undoubtedly increased the immigration rate, just as those coming from Ukraine have. The war was expected to last the summer, if that. And a lot of Russians have left Russia, no doubt some of them finding their way here.
We have messed up on Afghanistan and people are desperate to leave. Syrians, Sudanese, Libyans, and east Africans continue to seek asylum. As C4 News emphasised last night, if you have survived several months in a Libyan detention centre, crossing the English Channel will not seem a big deal.
Some older Leaver voters may be realising their mistake: who will look provide medical and domiciliary care when they need it? Who will drive buses and trains (those agency staff did not materialise!), who will harvest crops and who will do the plumbing?
People have been horrified by the small boats route to this country, and sickened by government criticism of the much-loved and admired RNLI in coming to the rescue. I can see why the government does not discuss in public what the legal routes are - they don't want to encourage asylum-seeking - but if they sincerely want to bring an end to the business of people-smuggling and trafficking, the only way is to be honest, while developing foreign policy that does not result in the endless of production of displaced persons.
The idea most people who wanted to end free movement were looking to replace EU migrants with ones from the Commonwealth does not wash. It was certainly true Priti Patel was running around the midlands courting the Asian vote dangling the prospect of more visas even citing the issue of a lack of curry chefs as a reason to vote for Brexit (that is an actual fact not a joke https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/15/brexit-lies-curry-vote-leave-restaurant-industry). The trouble is this was at the same time Brexit was being sold to others in other parts of the country as a means to restrict net migration period.
If you look at comments on forums such as the Daily Mail the objection to those arriving in small boats is not that they are illegal immigrants but that the country is full so the idea these people would be happy with immigration up to 509k is not credible. It's rather odd they aren't up in arms about it but then the Mail, Express and Sun are not for some reason making anything of it which is very strange.
However be that as it may, the idea people are relaxed about high migration figures because Brexit was never about restricting migration on the whole is in my opinion made up nonsense from those who are making excuses over the fact the promised closing of the borders hasn't happened.
Isn’t there an argument to say that if the deterrent strategy is effective, this will actually drive the number of boats UP in the short term, because it will create a premium on arriving before the regulations come into effect?
If what I've read is accurate, Braverman has sought to head this off by making the rules effective restrospectively from the moment they were announced (whether this gambit actually means anything, or will be noticed by those it is supposed to deter is another matter though)
Voters favour rules based liberalism when it comes to immigration? Are you sure? Or are they just unaware of how many migrants are arriving in the UK now?
Last year to June 2022 the ONS states that 504,000 migrants (that is the net figure and they came mostly from Asia) were granted the right to stay in the UK long term. Before Brexit in 2016 it was 335,000 (about 50% form the EU I think) a record back then.
Freedom of Movement was a key issue in the Brexit campaign with Penny Mordaunt lying about the UK being invaded by Turks and the infamous poster put up by the Leave side featuring a queue of people waiting at the EU border who were supposed to then come to the UK.
Maybe rules based immigration isn't an issue because the public think as Brexit is "done" and as there is no Freedom of Movement anymore then the immigration issue has been dealt with. Not because the public has became more liberal since 2016.
I really doubt those who voted for Brexit to end Freedom of Movement would be pleased to see 504,000 migrants entering the UK so why isn't that the issue? Ignorance on the part of the public?
Maybe the public's negative attitude to the small boats policy is centred around that policy alone. They don't like it for what it is and because it won't work not because the public has become more liberal.
Quite a lot of voters who chose Leave thought that stopping European workers coming here would mean more people could come from Commonwealth countries, which would mean reuniting with family members. 70% of people in Ealing Central and Acton constituency voted Remain. In Ealing Southall it was 50%, and the opinion given above was a real factor in the difference between the eastern and western ends of our west London borough.
Don't forget that Boris Johnson said we could take 300,000 people from Hong Kong. It would be difficult to argue that we did not have a responsibility towards them. They have undoubtedly increased the immigration rate, just as those coming from Ukraine have. The war was expected to last the summer, if that. And a lot of Russians have left Russia, no doubt some of them finding their way here.
We have messed up on Afghanistan and people are desperate to leave. Syrians, Sudanese, Libyans, and east Africans continue to seek asylum. As C4 News emphasised last night, if you have survived several months in a Libyan detention centre, crossing the English Channel will not seem a big deal.
Some older Leaver voters may be realising their mistake: who will look provide medical and domiciliary care when they need it? Who will drive buses and trains (those agency staff did not materialise!), who will harvest crops and who will do the plumbing?
People have been horrified by the small boats route to this country, and sickened by government criticism of the much-loved and admired RNLI in coming to the rescue. I can see why the government does not discuss in public what the legal routes are - they don't want to encourage asylum-seeking - but if they sincerely want to bring an end to the business of people-smuggling and trafficking, the only way is to be honest, while developing foreign policy that does not result in the endless of production of displaced persons.
The idea most people who wanted to end free movement were looking to replace EU migrants with ones from the Commonwealth does not wash. It was certainly true Priti Patel was running around the midlands courting the Asian vote dangling the prospect of more visas even citing the issue of a lack of curry chefs as a reason to vote for Brexit (that is an actual fact not a joke https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/15/brexit-lies-curry-vote-leave-restaurant-industry). The trouble is this was at the same time Brexit was being sold to others in other parts of the country as a means to restrict net migration period.
If you look at comments on forums such as the Daily Mail the objection to those arriving in small boats is not that they are illegal immigrants but that the country is full so the idea these people would be happy with immigration up to 509k is not credible. It's rather odd they aren't up in arms about it but then the Mail, Express and Sun are not for some reason making anything of it which is very strange.
However be that as it may, the idea people are relaxed about high migration figures because Brexit was never about restricting migration on the whole is in my opinion made up nonsense from those who are making excuses over the fact the promised closing of the borders hasn't happened.
You might re-read what I actually wrote.