[Link]

Net migration to Britain fell by 49,000 to 273,000 in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, partly fuelled by 12,000 more Poles and other east Europeans going home, according to official figures.

Question to 'out' voters who had concerns about migration - is this what you voted for? That's not a loaded question, genuinely interested if this is one of the things that you hoped would be a result of Brexit. I appreciate that this is 'organic' reduction in migration rather than govt sanctioned but the numbers have gone down regardless.

Now that both David Davis and Amber Rudd [Link] have told us that Brexit won't change immigration levels, it's time to say clearly that the anti-immigration rhetoric leading up to the Referendum and since were lies. The rhetoric was a deliberate attempt to use racism and xenophobia as a means to win votes, raising 'hopes' in people that their lives would be made better if immigrants were sent back and/or prevented from coming to Britain.

The result is that people in power, backed by the media have repeatedly inflamed hatred, false illusions in how people's lived can become better, deflected attention away from what has really cut standards of living, and public services.

This is one of the great scandals of our day.

Remember, we have the evidence: David Davis and Amber Rudd have told us, Brexit won't change it. People were told lies for votes.

(note: it won't change levels because the bilateral deals the govt want to negotiate will involve some degree of free movement of labour. )

Edited by nickgusset (27 Feb 2017 1.25pm)

I see a bunch of hereditary peers, unelected life peers and various priests have voted against the Government's Brexit Bill. How about a referendum to scrap the Lords or have it elected.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

You don't think we should consider ex pats living in the EU then?

That's exactly what the Government is doing, the Lords have now put them at risk.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

In a more pragmatic posting: this will go back to the commons, they will vote again to reject the amendment (as they did before), and the Lords will back down.

Perhaps they'll be more interested in representing the interests of UK citizens then, rather than "EU citizens".

Why? I thought we had a "weak bargaining position", and they wanted to "punish us"? Why the sudden good will? The PM offered to take this whole issue off the table in November. Why did Tusk, Juncker and Merkel slap it down then? So they could "reciprocate" in the coming two years?

UK: Well, we're kind-of bound legally to offer full rights to "EU citizens". Will you do the same for UK citizens?
EU: Sure, for a £20Bn downpayment and £3Bn per year
UK: Err... that's not nice. We'll impose the same conditions then
EU: No you won't. Your geriatric unelected chamber foisted the amendment on you. Pay up, or we send them home.
UK: Gee, that backfired. You don't want to "take the moral ground" (TM; some unelected prikc today)?
EU: Nope, we prefer "secret, dark debates" (TM; Juncker). Does this policy make us look bad? Yes. Would we be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact? (TM; Juncker) No."

Meanwhile. No "population" voted to stay in. No "population" voted to leave. You will have seen the content of the Article 50 bill. It has fewer characters than a text message. It's designed to start the process of leaving, not debate the nature and particulars of leaving. Those are for the 2 years following the triggering of Article 50.

I think the idea is if we show some goodwill and take the high ground by allowing settled families, some with kids who have known only the UK for friends and school, and others who have made the UK their home to stay then future negotiations may not be so bitter.

Doesn't appeal to the Hard Brexiteers of course but then nothing short of us being super-rich and foreigner-free and the rest of Europe being driven into destitution will.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

That's crazy negotiating tactics, though. If you have something the other party wants, and they have something you want, you negotiate a reciprocal agreement, you don't enshrine into law that you will give them what they want regardless - then there's simply nothing you have to offer them to get the reciprocal part (and you end up giving ground elsewhere).

I'm all for the rights of EU citizens currently here and UK citizens currently there, and would be happy to reach that agreement now for the sake of the security of all concerned (of course the EU will refuse to do that until article 50 is invoked, so we have to wait until then)

This "issue" is not high up the list on EU's negotiating wish list. The vast majority of UK migrants to other EU countries are high skilled workers or retirees who spend money and pay taxes in those countries. Spain, Italy and France won't want to get rid of Brits living in their countries so affording them the same rights that we guarantee their nationals before even coming to the table, will be straightforward. It may even buy us a bit of goodwill, something in extremely short supply among the other EU nations who, let's face it, are in a much stronger bargaining position than us anyway.

More importantly though, people are not bargaining chips and the Government's thinly veiled threats to use them as such is deplorable.