Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

[WelshBluebird]

There comes a point where the south-east, which by your own words already has a massively dense population, simply can no longer cope with the rising population size.

Now, I personally disagree with that (to start with there are still a tonne of brown field sites in and around London), but lets just take that as true for the sake of argument. In which case, isn't that just as much due to internal migration from the rest of the UK as it is due to immigration though? And I wonder how much of the immigration is actually from the EU as apposed to outside the EU (what I am getting at is out of Londons population growth, how much of it is actually to do with EU immigration).

In any case, and I know I hold different opinions than most on this, but if we are talking about the south east and London and how it is struggling to cope, I don't see why I should have any more right to live in London than someone from say France. If the south east really "can no longer cope with the rising population size", then surely we should also be discussing limiting other forms of migration to the area, including non EU and internal?

 

[Howardh]

A freedom that most don’t use, versus the issues which a rapidly rising population brings in an already comparatively densely populated country that’s experiencing pressures on infrastructure, services and housing, with no politician seemingly able to offer solutions. That is how many people see it, and evidently many feel the loss of freedom of movement is a price worth paying.

Perhaps the remain contingent could consider whether the EU could have compromised more on the issue. Normally if a politician or political party lose an election they are held responsible and key figures resign, yet when the EU effectively lost a referendum no one seems to feel that EU is in any way responsible. Just an observation.

How typical is that selfish Brexit view. https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ 1.2 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries, according to 2015 estimates from the United Nations (UN). Around 900,000 UK citizens were long-term residents in other EU countries in 2010 and 2011, according to census data across the EU collated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Is 900k not enough for you? I get you think that by "getting back control" you think you will reduce immigration, but the chances are that will never happen as we need their support to fund our pensions, infrastructure etc as the years go by. Immigration will probably increase - and if EU's feel unwanted then there's millions in Asia/Africa who would move here for starters.
And as alluded to above - if the south-east is full then you need to stop people moving around the country, just like in North Korea and former communist countries. Will you do that??
Also, you rant on about people leaving London because of "Europeans" (yeah, right.) So you are happy for them to move anywhere you or they like, but aren't happy about me and others losing the right to move to the EU??
Make your mind up....!!

 

[nlogax]

Despite the long prose above, I really wish the mods would ban this type of Brexit discussion forum, it has nothing to do with railways, is distorted with the weight of grieving remainers and all it succeeds in doing is winding people up.

You've noticed this is the General Discussion forum, right? Films, music, grating sounds (Remainers and Brexiteers alike), Trump, typefaces, rugby, electronics. All life is here to be talked about.

And..ok. You're wishing something was banned because it's winding people up? Is it easier if we all just agree with you? Is it nicer for you if we just give a small sigh, acknowledge you were right and live with this decision, not even daring to utter a peep of dissent? Is the referendum decision done and dusted for you, neatly squared away, nothing more needs saying, no details of this outcome needing any further debate or discussion?

So. Much. Nope.

 

[Barn]

It is interesting that, although this discussion is nominally about the type and timing of a deal (i.e. forward looking), most posts have been about whether the referendum decision was correct (i.e. backward looking).

At what stage do people think that the conversation will move on, not just on this forum but in society more generally? Might it be when trade talks start? Not until 2019? Perhaps not even then?

 

[nlogax]

At what stage do people think that the conversation will move on, not just on this forum but in society more generally? Might it be when trade talks start? Not until 2019? Perhaps not even then?

Maybe once it becomes even slightly clearer what it is Brexit means (let's not reply with the obvious ) - in terms of a deal, of our future relationship with the EU, with our EU friends living and working here in the UK, with how much more basic goods will cost..the list goes on.

From this perspective the UK government looks as though it can't negotiate its way out of a wet paper bag. Right now we're staring at a grey fog. What's behind it? Sunlit uplands or a cliff edge? I feel this is what stops the national conversation progressing. In the short term we've been condemned to living, working and trading in a big ol' ball of unknown.

 

[najaB]

At what stage do people think that the conversation will move on, not just on this forum but in society more generally?

Right now we're staring at a grey fog. What's behind it? Sunlit uplands or a cliff edge? I feel this is what stops the national conversation progressing. In the short term we've been condemned to living, working and trading in a big ol' ball of unknown.

I'd love nothing more than a forward-looking conversation, but I'm a little distracted by all the fog (or is it smoke being blown up my arse?)

 

[deltic]

There comes a point where the south-east, which by your own words already has a massively dense population, simply can no longer cope with the rising population size.

It’s quite clear from conversations being heard that many people feel this point is now too close for comfort, whilst people in other parts of the country look at the south-east and don’t wish to see their area go the same way.

People might be more reassured if they felt their was some kind of strategy for managing all this, but instead they see more and more people all trying to use the same infrastructure and services, and house prices rising seemingly out of control. Where I live, both houses either side of mine have recently changed hands, in both cases to ex Londoners who have chosen to leave London “because we’re sick of all the Europeans”.

For the last 20 years or so more people have come to the UK from outside the EU over which we have total control than from the EU. I am interested by the frequent comments about pressure on services due to European migration, what examples can people give of this?

 

[najaB]

I am interested by the frequent comments about pressure on services due to European migration, what examples can people give of this?

I'd also find it interesting to know exactly how the EU has prevented construction of new housing over the same time period.

 

[bramling]

I'd also find it interesting to know exactly how the EU has prevented construction of new housing over the same time period.

No one has said EU has prevented building of new housing, but other factors have. Meanwhile, I can go walking round any one of my local villages and find plenty of “no development here” type posters.

The pro EU contingent simply can’t or won’t accept that we simply do not have the room to open up to potentially the whole of the EU. If numbers going out equalled numbers coming in then there wouldn’t be so much of a problem, but we’re not in that position, and as others have said at present we wouldn’t be even if we didn’t have EU immigration.

As for brown fields sites, I’d like to know where these are. In my locality most such sites went ages ago, things like industrial estates and petrol stations became flats long ago.

 

[Howardh]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I see the EU's growth (including the UK) is 0.6%, higher that the UK's stand-alone 0.4%. Is it wise to have your future competitors doing better than yourselves?
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...zone-gdp-growth-france-unemployment-inflation

On an annual basis, the eurozone economy expanded by 2.5% during the last quarter - which is its fastest rate since the first three months of 2011. Economists say the recovery seems to be strengthening.

In another boost, the eurozone unemployment rate fell to 8.9%, as the expanding economy helped people to find work.

Looks like that will be where the jobs are, unfortunately we won't have access to them! Good news, however, is Stirling improving against the Euro, wonder if the threat/promise of interest rate rises has given Stirling a boost?

 

[najaB]

The pro EU contingent simply can’t or won’t accept that we simply do not have the room to open up to potentially the whole of the EU. If numbers going out equalled numbers coming in then there wouldn’t be so much of a problem, but we’re not in that position, and as others have said at present we wouldn’t be even if we didn’t have EU immigration.

EU migrants are, for the most part, here to work. They'll be filling jobs which otherwise be filled by UK nationals. Who would need housing the same as the EU nationals need housing.

So the demand for homes would be the same, in the same places regardless of the nationality of the people living in them.

 

[yorkie]

We won't allow comments along the lines of hoping people die due to the way they voted; is not acceptable.

If anyone spots anything objectionable please do click the "Report" button on the relevant post, to let us know. Please don't react to it or re-publish it in any way as this makes it easier for us to keep the thread on-topic and tidy.

 

[Howardh]

EU migrants are, for the most part, here to work. They'll be filling jobs which otherwise be filled by UK nationals. Who would need housing the same as the EU nationals need housing.

So the demand for homes would be the same, in the same places regardless of the nationality of the people living in them.

Indeed, and add to that is UK nationals can't go and work in the EU (as easily) then they will fill in the vacancies here so there's no net loss on demand for infrastructure. And there will be UK working abroad who may choose to return.

Cannot see Brexit making any significant difference to our demands. All it does is shift the deckchairs.

 

[radamfi]

No one has said EU has prevented building of new housing, but other factors have. Meanwhile, I can go walking round any one of my local villages and find plenty of “no development here” type posters.

The pro EU contingent simply can’t or won’t accept that we simply do not have the room to open up to potentially the whole of the EU. If numbers going out equalled numbers coming in then there wouldn’t be so much of a problem, but we’re not in that position, and as others have said at present we wouldn’t be even if we didn’t have EU immigration.

As for brown fields sites, I’d like to know where these are. In my locality most such sites went ages ago, things like industrial estates and petrol stations became flats long ago.

House prices in most of the country have fallen in real terms since 2008, and in some areas even in cash terms.

If overcrowding is the main reason for voting Brexit, then how do you explain the overwhelmingly pro-Remain voting in the most crowded part of the country? They should have the most reason to vote Leave. A lot of people from around Britain have voluntarily chosen to be in a big crowded city. Indeed, the fact that it is big and crowded is a huge draw.

Just because "potentially" the whole of the EU could come here, doesn't mean they will or are likely to. They've got 29 other countries to choose from. Even if you look at the countries which have the most emigrants, the vast majority of the population haven't left. The vast majority of the British people don't live in London or even the South East. There are approximately 23 million in the London, South East and East of England regions, meaning over 40 million in the rest of the UK. Those 40 million, in theory, could move to London at any time. But most of them don't.

 

[bramling]

EU migrants are, for the most part, here to work. They'll be filling jobs which otherwise be filled by UK nationals. Who would need housing the same as the EU nationals need housing.

So the demand for homes would be the same, in the same places regardless of the nationality of the people living in them.

That just doesn't square up at all. Are you saying that these otherwise UK nationals just disappear? Fact is that if population size increases, which it is (for various reasons but one of which is undoubtedly EU immigration) then demand for housing increases. Whichever way one tries to spin it, you can't get away from that basic reality.

 

[bramling]

House prices in most of the country have fallen in real terms since 2008, and in some areas even in cash terms.

If overcrowding is the main reason for voting Brexit, then how do you explain the overwhelmingly pro-Remain voting in the most crowded part of the country? They should have the most reason to vote Leave. A lot of people from around Britain have voluntarily chosen to be in a big crowded city. Indeed, the fact that it is big and crowded is a huge draw.

Just because "potentially" the whole of the EU could come here, doesn't mean they will or are likely to. They've got 29 other countries to choose from. Even if you look at the countries which have the most emigrants, the vast majority of the population haven't left. The vast majority of the British people don't live in London or even the South East. There are approximately 23 million in the London, South East and East of England regions, meaning over 40 million in the rest of the UK. Those 40 million, in theory, could move to London at any time. But most of them don't.

Reality is hundreds of thousands *are* coming, and it's simply not sustainable. A lot of people in your big crowded city are choosing to leave that city, which is contributing to housing and infrastructure issues throughout the south-east.

And I wouldn't say the south-east's remain vote was "overwhelming". Not at all.

 

[bramling]

For the last 20 years or so more people have come to the UK from outside the EU over which we have total control than from the EU. I am interested by the frequent comments about pressure on services due to European migration, what examples can people give of this?

A couple of examples locally which spring to mind:

1) Compulsory water meters, which as per the letter from the water company is due to "heavy strain on provision of water supply due to rising population in the area".

2) A school local to me forced to expand at short notice on a constricted site "to keep up with demand from a rising population".

3) Rising commuter demand at my local station and on local roads/the local motorway, which coincides with a trend of considerable influx of people moving from London, which has exploded in the last few years relative to the past.

 

[DarloRich]

Reality is hundreds of thousands *are* coming, and it's simply not sustainable. A lot of people in your big crowded city are choosing to leave that city, which is contributing to housing and infrastructure issues throughout the south-east.

And I wouldn't say the south-east's remain vote was "overwhelming". Not at all.

These kind of posts clearly show the reality of immigration and the perception of immigration are two very different things. I wonder how Brexit will stop economic migrants from Africa or Asia coming here. That, to me, is a bigger problem than decently skilled and educated Poles or Latvians coming here and contributing to society via their taxes.

A couple of examples locally which spring to mind:

1) Compulsory water meters, which as per the letter from the water company is due to "heavy strain on provision of water supply due to rising population in the area".

2) A school local to me forced to expand at short notice on a constricted site "to keep up with demand from a rising population".

3) Rising commuter demand at my local station and on local roads/the local motorway, which coincides with a trend of considerable influx of people moving from London, which has exploded in the last few years relative to the past.

Another contributory factor is the change in family units. We live as singles longer and more often than ever before. All those single units need housing and cars and food and light and water etc.

Another factor is that greedy private companies have not invested in their distribution networks for some time and the system is at breaking point.

Another factor is the economic centre of the UK has concentrated in the SE. Cheers Brexit loving Tories! That means people like me had to move there for work. Sorry. I signed on for a bit but didn't like it.

Another factor is that consecutive government shave not invested enough in house building using the increase in demand & the subsequent the rise in prices and as an alternative to proper provision for many people in retirement.

Another factor is immigration. It isnt the only factor. It isnt even the major factor in many cases.

 

[Howardh]

That just doesn't square up at all. Are you saying that these otherwise UK nationals just disappear? Fact is that if population size increases, which it is (for various reasons but one of which is undoubtedly EU immigration) then demand for housing increases. Whichever way one tries to spin it, you can't get away from that basic reality.

I'm puzzled at what you are trying to get at.
I'll have a go. If there was zero migration/immigration then our population would rise naturally as births exceed deaths. Get that totally.
So - in order to fund the elderly retired, we either need more working (increased working population) or reduce the pension bill or keep working longer (or all three) - so increasing the population is a good thing overall. Keeps us in pensions.
Now back to immigration - we lose many to go to work/retire overseas and we need immigrants to come in to fill jobs that we won't do; so the chances are that if we reduce EU immigration then we simply increase it from elsewhere.
The population of this country is NOT going to reduce unless there is war or a very severe medical issue. And even if it did, where will the money come from to fund the elderly (you and I should, hopefully, join the pension brigade at some point!)
Basically, r/e migration, I just can't see what the benefit of leaving the EU will be. All it does is shift the EU into the "rest of world" category and those wanting to come will have to "apply" whereas the EU's now can come and look for work and can stay a wee while (three months I think - anyone?) but can't claim welfare/benefits and will have to return if they can't support themselves.
Of course, if the Irish border remains fully open then they (EU's) can come that way unannounced should they so wish, and we won't even know they're here.
It's a paper exercise, and five years down the line when asked if immigration is "controlled" we won't know because (a) we don't have any accurate figures today to compare them with and (b) we won't know how many have crossed from Ireland.
The best way to "control" is let people work and pay taxes, if they aren't working or supporting themselves then give them nothing - which was pretty much Cameron's position.
"Nothing Will Change".

 

[najaB]

That just doesn't square up at all. Are you saying that these otherwise UK nationals just disappear? Fact is that if population size increases, which it is (for various reasons but one of which is undoubtedly EU immigration) then demand for housing increases.

The main issue in the UK isn't total housing supply, it's the uneven population distribution and demand. There are a lot of jobs in London and the South East so we need a lot of houses in London and the South East. The nationality of the occupants of those houses doesn't make a difference.

 

[Howardh]

A couple of examples locally which spring to mind:

1) Compulsory water meters, which as per the letter from the water company is due to "heavy strain on provision of water supply due to rising population in the area".

2) A school local to me forced to expand at short notice on a constricted site "to keep up with demand from a rising population".

3) Rising commuter demand at my local station and on local roads/the local motorway, which coincides with a trend of considerable influx of people moving from London, which has exploded in the last few years relative to the past.

Compulsory water meters have saved me £600/year - couldn't believe it when I saw my first bill compared to the rates!! Used to be £1040 annual before the change, now it's £200-isn for 6 months. Yayness!!
Don't understand (2) - what's the point?
"People moving to London" - presumably the majority from elsewhere in the UK. Why? Higher wages?? Of course you have the complete freedom to move away and seek alternative employment, it's lovely in Lancashire, we'd be glad to have you. 3 bed semi for under £400k in a leafy suburb? Then there's France, Spain, Italy you could move to - lots of open space with little congestion.
Oh....

EDIT - just a thought, if Brexit's a raging success and there are thousands of more jobs in London and the south-east; won't that make the position worse as they want workers to move there from anywhere, and population will increase and increase...??

 

[Barn]

The main issue in the UK isn't total housing supply, it's the uneven population distribution and demand. There are a lot of jobs in London and the South East so we need a lot of houses in London and the South East. The nationality of the occupants of those houses doesn't make a difference.

This is part of what I was thinking about earlier. Some jobs are created because immigration allows them to exist. An example is the explosion of branches of takeaway lunch and coffee shops in London. I have a choice of at least 5 Pret a Mangers that I could visit at lunchtime and be back in the office within ten minutes. Without immigration I doubt they would exist - not because British people are 'too good' for them, but simply because there aren't enough 20-something British people looking for that work.

Although it is possible that these jobs deliver more in tax and recycled spending than they cost in tax credits and benefits (although TBH I find that hard to believe given the personal allowance and the likely salaries), are those jobs 'worth' the extra over-crowding and housing demand in London?

 

[najaB]

Although it is possible that these jobs deliver more in tax and recycled spending than they cost in tax credits and benefits (although TBH I find that hard to believe given the personal allowance and the likely salaries), are those jobs 'worth' the extra over-crowding and housing demand in London?

I can't speak to the latter part of your post, but the jobs wouldn't exist if they didn't make the companies money. Using your example, Pret-a-Manger isn't going to open a new location as an altruistic attempt to reduce unemployment.

 

[radamfi]

And I wouldn't say the south-east's remain vote was "overwhelming". Not at all.

I said "the most crowded part of the country". That's London, excluding the rest of the South East. The rest of the South East is not crowded compared to much of northern England. In the South East and East of England regions, the only metropolis of any size is the Portsmouth-Southampton urban area, quite distant from London. Next biggest is the Brighton area conurbation, only the 15th biggest in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[jon0844]

I can't speak to the latter part of your post, but the jobs wouldn't exist if they didn't make the companies money. Using your example, Pret-a-Manger isn't going to open a new location as an altruistic attempt to reduce unemployment.

I do think it's fair to say that some businesses survive only because they can find plenty of people willing to work for a low-wage. Now I don't mean illegal wages, but the sort of wages that a lot of people couldn't really live on.

Many people from Europe CAN afford low wages because they don't intend to save for a deposit to buy a home, and pay a mortgage.. and they'll live in accommodation that is cheap (often sharing) and not necessarily in great condition. It's acceptable because it may only be for a year or two, before going home with a lot more money than could have been earned at home.

But the value of the pound and economies picking up at home (perhaps because many people have brought a lot of money in from working abroad) means a lot of eastern Europeans are leaving. Some may well be going because they don't feel welcome or 'safe' here anymore.

These shops and bars have to hope there are more people to take their place, because many 'locals' will still not want the work. And I bet customers won't want to pay more than they already do for a drink to up the wages.

 

[radamfi]

The population of this country is NOT going to reduce unless there is war or a very severe medical issue. And even if it did, where will the money come from to fund the elderly (you and I should, hopefully, join the pension brigade at some point!)

The "problem" is that the population *would* decrease without immigration, as would most western countries, as women are having less than 2 children on average. There would be more old people per working person without immigration.

 

[radamfi]

economies picking up at home (perhaps because many people have brought a lot of money in from working abroad) means a lot of eastern Europeans are leaving.

At the moment, there is an imbalance between western and central/eastern Europe. Central/eastern Europe would be as rich as western Europe if it wasn't for the decades of communism. However, the gap is closing gradually as growth in the west is slower than in the east, which you would expect as the west are mature economies. EU regional policy further stimulates the growth in the east, as well of course as the poorer regions in the west, like Cornwall and Wales.

There is a strong geopolitical argument for having the central/eastern European countries in the EU. Without that, they would probably be sucked into Putin's sphere of influence. The "penalty" for that is relatively high economic migration to the west, but as explained above, that is temporary.

 

[Moonshot]

Interesting to note that so far, more seem to think that " no deal " is the likely outcome.

 

[baz962]

Just though I would ask a question, why do people think that leaving easa will be a problem bearing in mind they are 15 years old and easyjet just celebrated its 20th birthday imo opinion we did fine before easa and will continue to do so.Also wizzair just opened it's first uk base at Luton and I personally do not think they would have done that if they were worried.

 

[NSEFAN]

Just though I would ask a question, why do people think that leaving easa will be a problem bearing in mind they are 15 years old and easyjet just celebrated its 20th birthday imo opinion we did fine before easa and will continue to do so.Also wizzair just opened it's first uk base at Luton and I personally do not think they would have done that if they were worried.

We would presumably need to create our own version of this body, with appropriately trained and qualified staff (others suggested this could take longer than 2 years to set up, I have no idea).

What was acceptable 20 years ago may not be acceptable today. This is sometimes forgotten in this discussion: leaving the EU isn't the same as sending the country back to a pre-1973 state, where many other things were very different.