Why are many curry house owners favoring Brexit?

The support for Brexit from chefs and curry house owners, predominantly from Bangladesh, has come as a surprise voice in the debate, as the Leave campaign is widely perceived as anti-immigration.

Their argument centers around “freedom of movement,” one of the pillars of the European Union — meaning that citizens from across the community can essentially turn up in the country of their choice and try their luck at finding a job.

“It’s not that we think Europeans shouldn’t have a chance in Britain, it’s just that we feel the country should choose who it needs, what kind of skills they need, so that industries like ours are not short handed,” Khan told CNN.

Freedom of movement has put pressure on Britain’s migrant intake from outside the EU, prompting the government to almost double the minimum salary required for non-EU immigrants, from £18,700 ($26,610) to £35,000 ($50,000).

“This just doesn’t suit the industry. The average salary for a chef in the country is £25,000, so why should we have to pay a junior chef £35,000 to make curry? It’s just not affordable,” Khan said.

Call it the cheap channa argument, though note if this chain of reasoning were better known, it might help the prospects for Remain.  The story is here, and here are my previous posts on Brexit (which I nonetheless oppose, cheap channa or not).

For the pointer I thank Brennan McDavid.

Comments

Never mind that, which curry houses in London does Tyler recommend?

They can't teach a Czech to make Curry?

Frankly that is not all that surprising considering they (my guess is) tend to be more established, British connected immigrants.

Yes, we need to know what the traditional pub owners think. If they favor Brexit, then the owners of the fish & chips shops are the key. If they too favor Brexit, then it is inevitable Britain leaves the EU.

Not to worry, with typical penetrating insight, the BBC has already tackled this weighty matter - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36464686 - "EU Referendum and Whitby fish & chips: Batter in or out?"

> cheap channa or not

Wait, did Tyler just make a cheap chalupas joke?

Did that really just happen?

Yup. It was a good one.

Yes, I was just about to post an "I see what you did there."

Brexit now ! why stay with a supra-national bureaucracy whose main goal seems to islamize the West. In no country in Europe does the bulk of the population aspire to live in a bazaar of world cultures, They know immigration exacts a steep price in freedom.

There are 85 Sharia courts in the UK. Does anyone believe Sharia is compatible with human rights ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358625/Inside-Britain-s-Sharia-courts-EIGHTY-FIVE-Islamic-courts-dispensing-justice-UK-special-investigation-really-goes-doors-shock-core.html

Fortunately here the mayor of Irving, Tx had more balls and stopped the Sharia court
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/muslims-are-angry-at-texas-mayor-after-she-stops-sharia-court-here-is-her-epic-response/

Let me quote the french polymath Ernest Renan who wrote in 1883 " Islam is the heaviest chain mankind has ever borne. It has always been liberal when weak and violent when strong"

The islamization of Europe is changing daily life in myriad ways. It is the number one issue in the West. Everything pales in comparison.

Hahaha. It is funny how desperate racists are getting lately and how they are trying stupid stunts. Are they losing faith in Trump's prospects?

Well from the Bangladeshi viewpoint England is ridiculously underpopulated.

England - 50 thousand square miles - 54 million residents.
Bangladesh - 56 thousand square miles - 147 milion residents.

I'm sure Bangladeshis think that England can/should support how many tens of millions of Bangladeshis than it currently does?

The more bangladeshis per square mile the cheaper the channa.....

It surely could support more English, but, you know, "no sex, people, we're British"... The more British per square mile, the cheaper the haggis, the Black Pudding, the kidney pie and the fish and chips.

You have no arguments. Tell us exactly why you like Islam, why it's compatible with western values, and what Islamic country you would propose as a model for the west to emulate.

Why should _I_ tell you, when I can defer to Thomas Jefferson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Religious_freedom

Interesting too the following lines by William Lancaster:

"Let us remember that we form a government for millions not yet in existence.... In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it."

You aren't a Papist, are you?

Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian system of governance. Unlike Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism or Shintoism, the religious aspect is secondary to the legal one.

Rather than lie, you should try to understand what happened. Islam is a religion that operates in a great number of systems of governance, including the United States, since the 1880s at least.

What changed? I go with the idea that the west has enjoyed great progress as it became less religious. This has caused all fundamentalists to question reality. How can atheists and agnostics prosper when God has made this world for us? (what ever they "us," there are thousands)

There is common ground between Cliven Bundy and an Islamic terrorist. They both think God gave them a deal, and the modern world broke it. Thank your particular God that the Bundy-ites didn't pull this trigger:

http://www.bobcesca.com/the-bundy-sniper-was-finally-arrested/

"Unlike Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism or Shintoism, the religious aspect is secondary to the legal one"

You must be joking.

Religious wars all tied to Christianity drove immigration to the American shores for almost all of 500 years 1500-2000.

The Puritans fleeing Christian persecution. Amish, Brethren, Quakers fleeing Christian persecution. Irich fleeing Christian persecution. Jews fleeing Christian persecution.

And once in the Americas, Christian have been killing in the name of Jesus since the beginning.

And conservatives are constantly invoking Christianity to justify their view of what the laws must be.

Even health care law is debated and opposed based on Christian ideology.

The same way Catholics (against whom, according to Ann Coulter, the Founding Fathers warned America) are. The same way Judaism is, from Moses ordering killings for breaking the Sabbath rest to mandated stoning or homosexuals and blasphemers (ever heard of St. Stephen?). Yet, I am against going back to burning Jews and Torahs as in the "good" old days of Medieval Europe. I do not need to "like" any religion or ideology to despise racists who want to play Americans against themselves.

You live in the past John. None of this is happening today. No Christians are blowing up airliners or blowing themselves up in Brussels airport or gunning down 50 people in Orlando. No Christians are promoting stoning and beheadins. Islam may have seemed " normal" in the 7th century, This is now.

It seems the problem is "voluntary mediation and arbitration" for me, but not for thee.

http://www.canonlawprofessionals.com/mediation.html

@anon Islam's numbers are small in the US and that's why they coexist. ( and not that well witness the Orlando shooting today from the religion of peace), When they reach majority numbers, democracy is gone. Go try to live in Mollenbeek and see how much tolerance there is there. Equating Christian fundamentalist with Islamic fundamentalists is mendacious and ridiculous. They don't blow themselves up, they don't burn women who don't want to marry them as they do in Pakistan.

Do you really not know of any American fundamentalists who have cited Christian belief as justification for killing innocents? There are recent and historic examples.

To treat this seriously, here is a very related discussion:

How extreme beliefs, not mental illness, may fuel mass shooters

I am not really sure I buy the belief vs illness framing. I think most often if you do go overboard with a belief, it is a sign of illness. Perhaps there are extreme moments, madness of crowds, that are exceptions. But when small numbers of a population turn violent, it is probably something about those individuals.

"When they reach majority numbers, democracy is gone."
The same is true about Christian Fundamentalists--always crying about their minority status and the way the wide society is "God-hating"-- and Jewish Fundamentalists-- ask the first Christians how wonderful was to live under them!

The rights of Sharia law do not extend beyond that which is allowed by the law of the country they practice in.

It could even be considered as a tax savings, as they are also required to pay towards a court system that they use less frequently.

Or, am I mistaken. Are there specific aspects of Islamic jurisprudence being applied in the UK which contravene the laws and practices of the land?

I'm curious to know your opinion of religious organizations which promote the use of Biblical Law as a means of dispensing justice. Would this concern you any more than Sharia?

In my opinion, I think it's basically fine to leave it up to diverse groups to set their own standards so long as they do not contravene those established by the broader jurisdiction of the political entity (be it city, province, country) they reside in.

"The support for Brexit from chefs and curry house owners, predominantly from Bangladesh, has come as a surprise voice in the debate, as the Leave campaign is widely perceived as anti-immigration."

In India we call it "unreserved compartment mentality". In our trains a couple of coaches, or "compartments" as we call them, are free-for all, without a seat reserved and no restriction on how many get in, as long as they have an "open ticket". Not surprisingly, these compartments get overcrowded and those who are already in try to prevent those who want to get in, though they themselves entered an already packed coach! The immigrants from Bangladesh in Britain appear to have this mentality. Perhaps Indians too have it. After all, we are form the same stock !

This comment was supposed to go here:

Well from the Bangladeshi viewpoint England is ridiculously underpopulated.

England – 50 thousand square miles – 54 million residents. Bangladesh – 56 thousand square miles – 147 milion residents.

I’m sure Bangladeshis think that England can/should support how many tens of millions of Bangladeshis than it currently does?

The more bangladeshis per square mile the cheaper the channa…..

It surely could support more English, but, you know, “no sex,, we’re British”… The more British per square mile, the cheaper the haggis, the Black Pudding, the kidney pie and the fish and chips.

What an odd comment. The UK scores relatively high on measures of "sociosexuality", and the lowest TFR in Europe is in Portugal.

That's like saying that Britain becomes more open to immigrants the more immigrants it has to answer the poll takers. It's the same with TFR - fecund foreigners drive it up and then you claim that Britain's TFR is getting better, as if it were ruddy Englishmen popping out all over the place, not inbred subcontinentals and their imported cousins.

I don't claim that TFR is getting better, however, higher than Germany or Portugal, migrants or no. My in response to the odd inaccuracy of "well, no sex we're British".

Median Age UK, migrants and all: higher than 40 years.
Total fertility rate:
1.89 children born/woman
They are dying.

my objection to free immigration is that many of the immigrants want to hang on to their own cultures , which are inimical to western values. At present the west has the most advanced culture and these immigrants will pollute it

The best anti-democracy argument I've seen isn't really about "western" values.

What it says to me is mind your governance, and don't get caught up in the western luxury of culture wars.

A few questions:

1) Which immigrants hold which values that you find to be inimical to Western values?

2) Specifically, which Western values are you talking about?

3) In terms of culture, in which sense do you consider Western culture to be most "advanced" and what about immigrants would reduce that state of "advancement"?

On number 3), I'm more inclined to think that the interactions would create fertile ground for combinations of ideas which could lead to a greater probability of more diversity with greater possibility for cultural advancement as a direct result of that diversity.

No monocultures please.

Followers of Islam:

1- Do not believe in woman equality under the law, do not accept separation of church and state, do not believe in democracy, do not tolerate non-believers, do not tolerate any criticism of the faith do not permit leaving the faith, believes Sharia law precedes secular law. ,allows prepubescent marriages, sanctions honor killings ( about 1000 in Pakistan very year), outraged by cartoonists and call for their death, stoning for adultery, etc.., etc.. again not taken from an old book, no one reads let alone practices but relatively common in Muslim countries

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/afghanistan-shots-fired-to-disperse.html

Problems with the story:

1) it's anecdotal

2) their argument for Brexit is that the EU brings in too many skilled workers while they want cheap and unskilled

3) story says South Asian immigrants are too educated for chef jobs but this confuses ethnic Indians who are indeed very successful at school, with ethnic Bangladeshis who have the worst educational attainment in Britain after Travelers/gypsies. The story is about Bangladeshis.

In 2014, the average wage for ethnic Indian men versus ethnic Bangladeshi men was 16.67 pounds/hour versus 8.50.

So the real takeaway is that as bad as the EU may be for Britain, it's nowhere near as bad as the failure to impose a points system on immigrants from outside the EU.

Europeans will eventually fight each other in World War III just to prove they can't be racist because they hate white people.

Sure, sure. Così è (se vi pare).

Bad weekend Steve?

I think there's a certain joy in being proven right, with concomitant sadness at being proven right about bad things. Do the Germans have a word for it? Steve has been proven right quite a lot recently.

Steve views the world through a mid-century American racism. It is a pre-genetic racism. It has been defeated by science. I think he's smart enough to realize that, but he just hopes to live it out. He hopes to die an old mid-century racist before everyone else catches on.

The only racists are people like yourself and John L. You both thrive on disproportionately blaming white people for islamic terrorism. Probably because you see yourself as much better than the average white person.

I have never in my life blamed white people for Islamic terrorism.

"It is a pre-genetic racism."

Because genetics have since proven that there are no genetic differences between races?

Its really a fantasy that the UK would leave the EEA single market for a few more Bengali curry houses though, isn't it?

The real fantasy is that people in Europe need permission from politicians and bureaucrats to trade with each other. German finmin Schauble said the other day that Brexit would mean no more free exchange.

Think about that for a second. A German will be restricted from buying a Dyson product because a politician was feeling spiteful.

And the most ridiculous element is that not only is the EU shrinking quickly as a source of UK exports but the British are running a trade deficit with the EU of 9 billion pounds a month. So if Schauble triggers a trade war the EU ultimately suffers the most.

Schauble does seem to me from limited exposure to lack credibility (I understand he has made statements to the effect that Muslim migration is needed to save Europe from the genetic load of inbreeding).

That particular comment, and I think you have detected correctly this as a personal and spiteful comment, is something I would imagine he would need to discuss with European counterparts in the event of a Brexit, who would have their own opinions on it. It doesn't do much for the appearance of the EU as a dictat of the Germans, maintained in its form out of rigid Continentalist ideology and coercion rather than any kind of economic or political practicality and consent of member states. Whether other European states are comfortable with denying a UK outside of the EU EEA access is a question for all EU states as a whole, and if the Germans chose to use a veto on that, then the EU as an institution could be in for interesting times.

Though I didn't really explain properly, my comment wasn't so much that Britain opting out of the EEA to opt out of freedom of movement, if it Brexits, was a fantasy.

That seems perfectly possible, and understandable. Particularly migration to England is probably linked to house price inflation that outstrips by far the positive effects of migration on GDP, and specifically on any kind of wage inflation for English citizens, so they're hardly going to keep sitting there and keep on taking it just to keep the overall size of British GDP growing while their own debts and liabilities grow.

(As much as it could be shortsighted potentially, if migration flows from the EU would begin to subside naturally. But that's an unknown.)

Just if Britain has opted out of the EEA, to get rid of the freedom of movement, I can hardly see them going "Well, actually now we've made migration from low earning and low skilled European migrants much more difficult, and with the unwanted side effect of tariffs of selling to Europe, it's time for open season on low skill Bengali migration". That's the fantasy. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to trade "penny pierogie" migrants for "cheap channa" migrants, on anything even close to a 1:1. It would defeat the whole purpose of having got rid of freedom of movement (at cost to free trade) in the first place.

Immigration is destroying England and most of Europe. Being anti-immigration is the only rational belief.

What does "destroy" mean to you?

How about "immigration is nicely complementing European cultures and making things more interesting"?

I hope 30 fundamentalist Christians move in to your home. It would be very interesting and I'm sure you wouldn't oppose them or their democratic rule over your home, like a completly hypocritical bigot?

I continue to not care about Brexit. First, because it's none of my Californian business, but second because I doubt it will make much difference in economic growth or human happiness. It will rapidly average out to be the same path either way.

Curry houses are funny though. As I understand it they can serve anything somewhat Asian, but not Kabobs .. never Kabobs.

In truth, the Remain campaign is racist as a matter of policy. It requires that (mostly white) people from Europe go to the front of any immigration queue, whereas Leave propose an Australian style points system.

Once again,

Blame the Immigrants,

This time for the

Anti-Immigration Policy.

If only we didn't have those Immigrants, we wouldn't have that damn Anti-Immigration Policy.

You appear to be joking, but you are correct. There is no need for any immigration policy at all in the lack of immigrants

Bill works a job that won't be taken by immigrants.

Bill lives in a neighborhood too expensive for immigrants.

But Bill wants other people to lose their jobs and be subjected to criminality so he can tell those people how good he is for choosing the ethical answer when it costs him nothing at all.

Bill is extremely selfish.

Let's see... We have an "immigration problem". Who should we blame....???? I know the legal citizens... Of course, why didn't I think of that? Duh!

What does this mean for the trucking industry? Not sure what share of their costs driver labor is, but I’d expect they’d adopt it in a heartbeat if it could save them much money. Is it assumed self-driving technology will be pretty easily applied to rigs that haul freight, or are there any reasons to believe that uptake will be slow or won’t happen there? I think there are least a couple million truck driving jobs in the US, so that could be a big dea yük asansörü

What does this mean for the trucking industry? Not sure what share of their costs driver labor is, but I’d expect they’d adopt it in a heartbeat if it could save them much money. Is it assumed self-driving technology will be pretty easily applied to rigs that haul freight, or are there any reasons to believe that uptake will be slow or won’t happen there? I think there are least a couple million truck driving jobs in the US, so that could be a big dea zincirli caraskal

What does this mean for the trucking industry? Not sure what share of their costs driver labor is, but I’d expect they’d adopt it in a heartbeat if it could save them much money. Is it assumed self-driving technology will be pretty easily applied to rigs that haul freight, or are there any reasons to believe that uptake will be slow or won’t happen there? I think there are least a couple million truck driving jobs in the US, so that could be a big dea zincirli vinç

What does this mean for the trucking industry? Not sure what share of their costs driver labor is, but I’d expect they’d adopt it in a heartbeat if it could save them much money. Is it assumed self-driving technology will be pretty easily applied to rigs that haul freight, or are there any reasons to believe that uptake will be slow or won’t happen there? I think there are least a couple million truck driving jobs in the US, so that could be a big dea hidrolik yük asansörü

Comments for this post are closed