They don't even clarify what is the 'immigration' problem.
i mean different echelons of society see the immigration different.
reading articles and watching documentaries i get the notion that maybe there are three different 'types' of immigration problems that british people are against:
A- older people in smaller towns have the traditional problem with west indians, pakistanis, and indians type of immigration that started with the rivers of blood speech in the 60s. Those corner shop immigrants are now dead and their kids and grand kids more british than the brits themselves.
B- east european immigration divided into two groups, hard working poles, romanians, etc etc and some layabout gypsies, albanians, pimps blah blah .
i think a kind of drastic kind of change in law would have sufficed to taking care of this problem rather than full exit. I read that Germany is about to pass laws for Euro citizens to have worked in germany for few years before qualifying for benefits. i don't see why uk couldn't have done something parallel to that.
C- last but not least the brown threat from those turban wearing people in the middle of East.
i think if they take a referendum on which immigration they are against it will split in the thirds for the types above.
what i like know, how not being in europe will help them stop category Cs getting in since they actually exported british terrorists to europe, US, Syria.
if anything Euro should have installed security measures against British Citizens and not vice versa. Weren't the Charlie hebdo brothers for a time trained in England ...
i am not sure or maybe the guy in Nice, i read that they all have visited with muslims in britain one time or other.
just doesn't make sense other than playing in the hand of North American politics to weaken the union so that Trump can export garbage to Europe as well.
In canada we are going in reverse. We are trying to get produce from Europe to lessen our dependence on the US