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?

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

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

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

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.

Brexit will simply make their position worse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

It's a combination of differential racism and elitism.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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

That was exactly the point.

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

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

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

> like HSBC

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

I know I don't have a problem with Syrian refugees and I would imagine that just one person out 60 something million would be enough to refute your statement.

But hey, Hong Kongers are “better” immigrants. We can all see through this I hope.

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.

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

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.

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