Hacker News Reader

Comment by sampo | Hacker News Reader

68% of conservative voters, 71% of labour voters, and 77% of libdem voters support this.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/0...

> The continued relevance of these questions meant that thirty years later, in June 2020, YouGov were able to asked respondents the same questions, allowing us to discover how public opinion has changed in the intervening period. > Interestingly, the results reveal a fall in public awareness on the issue. In 2020, about half the population (51%) reported having heard about the proposals – though this figure seems likely to rise with the PM’s recent announcement. Back in 1990, the figure was a much higher 78%.

It goes on to list the coronavirus and Tiananmen as possible reasons; isn't the most obvious contributory factor that a lot of voters have been born since then, and it hasn't been on the national curriculum or often reported on?

Surprising isn't it, given how much of a driving force EU immigration was in the Brexit debate.

Hong Kong is a part of the Empire that was severed recently, and not because the people there actively sought that outcome. I suspect that for some of the people concerned about immigration, that makes Hong Kongers more British-separated-by-ill-conceived-policy than foreigners.

It kind of depends, immigration wasn't a big part of it from talking with many business partners. Many just dont like the idea rules are being made in Brussels.

The claim that Turkey was soon going to join the EU (which isn't going to happen) and flood the country with Turkish immigrants was a major component of vote leave messaging: "Turkey/NHS/£350 million".

Edit: FYI Dominic Cummings actually blogged about the important of Turkey to their success:

https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-...

Turkey has actually turned in a net labour importer not so long ago, and it has a robust industrial sector.

Rural Turkey has unemployment issue, but that's a separate matter to Turkish migrants to EU.

Turkish migration to EU is much more white collar, and urban.

P.S. The most hilarious rightist conspiracy theory I've heard of was that of Boris Johnson being a Turkish spy

To be fair Angela Merkel flooded Germany with millions of immigrants from the middle East.

Here's a source if you need one: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/germ...

Immigration was a big part of it.

Although unemployment was officially low, many in low end jobs felt that the huge influx of Eastern Europeans pushed wages down.

There is also the societal aspect of it because of the demographic change caused by a large influx of immigrants into an area.

Then, the prospect of Turkey joining the EU was raised, which would mean free movement for Turkish nationals and that scared people as well.

They may be disappointed when they discover the rules aren't made in Brussels because the UK joined the EU, but because it's the UK's largest trading partner and the largest trade bloc in the world.

Brexit will simply make their position worse.

> but because it's the UK's largest trading partner and the largest trade bloc in the world.

The North American trade bloc (NAFTA/USMCA) is actually slightly bigger by both GDP and population, though the EU is, yes, the UK’s biggest trade partner.

OK second largest. It makes them a formidable interlocutor in negotiations, and the power imbalance means things will inevitably be decided in Berlin which impact the UK on regulations, trade, tariffs and FOM. The UK has little leverage and power in this relationship.

No. As anyone with an interest in politics in the UK will tell you, free movement literally ended yesterday.

The problem with trying to threaten the EU with a no deal exit is it's like a bank robber threatening to blow his own head off - messy, undesirable, but ultimately not very persuasive.

It's mutually assured destruction. The EU doesn't want to lose billions of dollars in trade either.

I don't think the EU will be moved by this. They can easily wait till the UK exits without a deal then be in an even stronger negotiating position.

You understand the concept of 'mutual', right?

Like the bank robber, you seem to mistake a threat of self-harm by the UK for an existential threat to the EU. No deal is not mutually assured destruction, it's certain destruction for the UK and some damage to the EU.

That's not a very convincing lever in a negotiation. The final relationship will benefit the EU far more than the UK, simply because of the balance of power, regardless of delusions to the contrary and empty bombast from Johnson.

OK, you think the EU wants to deliberately damage itself, like your bank robber analogy. You're welcome to your opinion.

They'd be wrong.

A bill passed its 3rd reading in house of commons. It needs to get through the House of Lords. It still has some way before becoming law.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/common...

And when the UK crashes out of EU with no deal we'll inevitably re-allow free movement of EU workers because we have no bargaining power.

You're right. It needs to go through Lords. It will.

Regarding your last sentence: leaving no-deal off the table, and this being unable to walk away, would have meant we have no bargaining power.

> And when the UK crashes out of EU with no deal

It’s incredible how many times people have cried wolf about this.

If we have a deal that's going to include freedom of movement; if we don't have a deal we're going to be forced to include freedom of movement to get trading.

There's no version of the UK in 2022 that doesn't have freedom of movement for EU citizens.

Or repay the italian debt.

It wasn’t so much the fact of immigration, but the lack of control over immigration.

perceived lack of control.

There’s nothing “perceived” about it—the UK was forced to admit any “EU citizen” who wanted to come and immediately grant them permanent residency, which already represents a fundamental loss of control.

Why are you putting "EU citizen" in scare quotes? It's a perfectly well-defined concept.

The UK was certainly not obliged to immediately grant them permanent residency. See e.g. here https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...

While there was no obligation to grant permanent residency, the criteria that would allow removal before the five years (or two years in some cases) are narrow. If someone had a job and in some cases when they didn’t, it was impossible to remove them unless they posed a serious threat. That is, in fact, a significant limitation on the control the UK could exert over immigration from the EU.

Well, yes, there was freedom of movement. I'm not sure why being unable to remove someone who has a job is so terrible. We could have chosen to put a cap on migration from relatively poor EU countries, but we chose not to.

How could the UK control it?

We could have opted in to stricter controls on migration from Eastern Europe, but no-one wanted to at the time, as there would have been no benefit to doing so.

https://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blair...

No - because these are RICH Asian migrants, not POOR North African and Syrian migrants.

It's a combination of differential racism and elitism.

> "differential racism"

So basically the existing word "racism" didn't fit (because racist Brits would hate Asian HKers just as much as brown Syrians and black Africans) so you invented a new completely concept but conveniently attached the word "racism" to it for maximal emotional impact?

Despicable.

Racism works fine for what is described, there is nothing about racism which requires it to be “my race good, all other races equally bad”. “Differential racism” is a perfectly good way of distinguishing a multitiered racial heirarchy from a binary one.

Though I think nationalism may be at least as much of a factor as race-based differentiation. (That is, that nationalism in the context of colonial history is why HKers are treated more favorably by opinion than other non-white, or even white, immigrants.)

“Racism” is not a very good term for privileging non-white immigrants from former colonies over white European immigrants.

Racism is a perfectly fine term for weighting East Asian race less negatively than other non-white races in a function with multiple other factors besides race, resulting in certain East Asian immigrants being favored over white European immigrants.

Though, as explained already in GP, I think nationalism is the more relevant factor here, whether or not racism (binary or differential) is also involved (which at some level it obviously is.)

The UK is not weighting Asians higher than other non-white races. It’s favouring people from the Commonwealth and others to whom we have historical commitments above countries where no such ties exist.

> The UK is not weighting Asians higher than other non-white races.

I didn't say it was. I said that the upthread commenter’s use of “differential racism” to describe their explanation in which Britain was doing that was, contrary to the claim that it was redefining “racism”, a perfectly valid use of the term “racism”.

I've also said in every post in which I've argued that point that I think that what is actually happening involves nationalism in light of the HKs colonial history, not, or at least more decisively than, racism, differential or otherwise.

There two different issues here, one about whether a hypothetical scenario is within the usual definition of “racism” and one about whether than hypothetical is the best explanation of what is factually occurring.

The explanation is the obvious one. The UK has a treaty with China intended to prevent what is happening from happening. China is in breach of the treaty and, in light of that, the UK is acting to protect people to whom it believes it has an obligation. It has nothing to do with either racism or nationalism.

No one is arguing that point. What is being debated is why very conservative racists in the UK culture are overwhelmingly supportive of Asians over Syrians and North Africans. ...and differential racism is my belief as to why.

You are using “very conservative racists” and “differential racism” to explain something which is better explained by historical relationships and obligations. No such relationships or obligations exist with Syria or most of North Africa.

No country can invite everyone to immigrate. They have to be selective, and that doesn’t make them racist. No one has the right to immigrate to another country: it’s a privilege granted by the government and people of that country who make decisions about who to accept according to their own interests and perceived obligations - again, not racism.

So you’re starting from the presupposition that British conservatives are racist and then trying to explain away evidence contrary to that presupposition.

Eh? Racism judges people by their race, and judges different races differently. The word fits just fine. Adding "differential" was unnecessary, but maybe added to highlight the uneven extent of the negative judgement.

Having said that, the GP does not provide any evidence that racism was the motivating factor here.

> but maybe added to highlight the uneven extent of the negative judgement.

That was exactly the point.

> because racist Brits would hate Asian HKers just as much as brown Syrians and black Africans

Even a racist as extreme and obsessed with whiteness specifically as Hitler deemed some nonwhite races worthy of respect, even as he plotted others' extermination. Clearly it is absurd to define 'racist' so narrowly that even the actual Nazis don't qualify

It's a combination of differential racism and elitism.

Is it possibly more representative of your own prejudices that you see only negative motivation here?

This is the "he who smelt it, dealt it" form of logical argument.

Considering you are ascribing the worst possible motives to millions of people in a gross generalisation - it's a fair question to ask.

I think most people accurately assume that not many Hong Kong citizens will come, and none of the focus of recent anti-immigrant sentiment has been on ethnic Chinese people.

Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997.

About a quarter of the world has been a British colony at some point!

Hong Kong is very British, though. Most of the other colonized parts are not (Exceptions maybe Canada, NZ and Australia). But traveling from Hong Kong to Shenzhen, you can feel that there is a significant culture gap.

Also Hong Kong appears to have lots of British banking connections like HSBC and Standard Chartered.

Hongkong looks somewhat British in some aspects but not many. I think the main culture gap is that HK has kept a traditional Chinese culture that was swept away on the mainland.

> like HSBC

The name which means the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Company. A bank founded in China (Hongkong) by the British.

I think Hong Kong looks very British! At least in comparison to the other Asian nations that don't have a British Colonial history.

Sure it was founded in HongKong but at that time it's purpose was to facilitate trade and banking between the UK and mainland China. My point is that they still have lots of these relations up to this day.

Their two systems one county deal with China is being taken away, which effects not only Hong Kong people, but British honor.

In particular, it contravenes the treaty (the Sino-British Joint Declaration).

Whether UK citizens approve this or not, logistical challenge of making this happen is immense. I think UK politicians know this is just a threat.

Moving people & jobs physically to UK, when people have physical investment in a house, school, bank accounts, investments is not easy. I can see people moving if CCP is literally killing non-protesting citizens like holocaust. On top of it, what is to prevent CCP from blocking people from leaving?

People will take a lot before they physically leave the country. And CCP knows that very well.

One of the major phenomena of Hong Kong in the 1980s and early 1990s was families getting out if they could afford it, because everyone was nervous about the Chinese handover. This wave of emigration even plays a role in contemporary Hong Kong film of the era like Chungking Express. And even before the fears of the handover, many educated HKers were emigrating to the US for the sake of higher wages.

Yes, HKers have ties to HK that are a hassle to break, but plenty of people have broken them and up and left.

Most HKers are descended from mainland Chinese that crossed the border after WW2 in the 50s and 60s. Just mirroring their ancestor's footsteps.

The sentiment in the mainland is more or less get out and leave the us the land

To be honest I think that the Chinese government would not care or actually be quite OK with it.

Indeed, who would leave HK? Arguably the anti-CCP, the "troublemakers". So that'd mean less 'trouble' in HK and there is a large supply of mainlanders happy to move to HK.

Obviously the Chinese government will officially be outraged but privately they may think good riddance.

Talking to a Chinese friend who is quite pro-CCP, they are pissed that UK is offering this and say that mass emigration of HKers would be a major loss of face for the CCP.

Yes, but that does not mean there would not be a silver lining.

This offer of residency is political and possibly symbolically negative for China, but in practical terms it does not hurt China at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com