EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[HH]

It may seem dark now, but... (strains of the dambusters) ...Britain is at its finest when our backs are against the wall (or sea). Remember, the darkest hour is just before dawn!

"Few men even considered the possibility of life in other countries. And yet, across the gulf of the channel, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this country with envious eyes. And, slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us."

"It seems totally incredible to me now that everyone spent that evening [after the Referendum] as though it were just like any other."

What a visionary HG Wells was!

 

[nidave]

There is a "middle ground" party which stood on a manifesto of remaining in the EU, yet people didn't vote for it. Why not?

Becasue students blame the lib dems for the rise in tutition fees which Labour say they will aboloish - Wonder what the average age of Momentum is.

 

[bramling]

You really think you are going to get all the EU benefits by leaving the EU dont you? Oh, with the exception of those nasty nasty people coming over and working and taking up spaces on trains in the South east.

Repeating time and again your line about taking up spaces (or was it seats last time?) on trains in the south-east doesn't make it any more factual!

 

[nidave]

It may seem dark now, but... (strains of the dambusters) ...Britain is at its finest when our backs are against the wall (or sea). Remember, the darkest hour is just before dawn!

"Few men even considered the possibility of life in other countries. And yet, across the gulf of the channel, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this country with envious eyes. And, slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us."

"It seems totally incredible to me now that everyone spent that evening [after the Referendum] as though it were just like any other."

What a visionary HG Wells was!

We all just got to belive and it will happen

 

[nlogax]

It may seem dark now, but... (strains of the dambusters) ...Britain is at its finest when our backs are against the wall (or sea). Remember, the darkest hour is just before dawn!

*gets misty-eyed*. Lovely stuff. Great Britain can overcome anything purely by dint of delusion and arrogance dipped in the sweet, sweet waters of our wartime victories. Are those Spitfires overhead? Quick, everyone get to Dover and flick v-signs in the general direction of Calais..that'll show 'em.

 

[mmh]

You really think you are going to get all the EU benefits by leaving the EU dont you? Oh, with the exception of those nasty nasty people coming over and working and taking up spaces on trains in the South east.

Why do you continuously mention foreigners on trains? Are you a bit racist?

 

[nidave]

Why do you continuously mention foreigners on trains? Are you a bit racist?

Its a refrence to a member on here who keeps saying they want less EU workers so there is less pressure on the infractructre in thier local area. There is plenty of posts from that person on that subject. I also suspect you know why I keep mentioning it.

 

[mmh]

Its a refrence to a member on here who keeps saying he wants less EU workers so there is less pressure on the infractructre in thier local area.

Oh, right. That's hardly an uncommon opinion. Why do you think it's notably controversial?

There is plenty of posts from that person on that subject. I also suspect you know why I keep mentioning it.

I didn't, but then after not much time following this thread it becomes a bit difficult to remember who is who and who said what, as it's mostly just a never ending loop of the same stuff, unless they're notable for something.

 

[bramling]

Its a refrence to a member on here who keeps saying they want less EU workers so there is less pressure on the infractructre in thier local area.

Ah, so now it's changed from seats on trains to infrastructure. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[nidave]

Oh, right. That's hardly an uncommon opinion. Why do you think it's notably controversial?



I didn't, but then after not much time following this thread it becomes a bit difficult to remember who is who and who said what, as it's mostly just a never ending loop of the same stuff, unless they're notable for something.

Its worth reminding everyone why some people want to leave the EU considering the same people are saying these things on the one hand are also claiming they didn’t vote to keep foreigners out.

Ah, so now it's changed from seats on trains to infrastructure. Glad we cleared that up.

I wonder who the person could be I am refering to. Do you know who the person in quesion is who wants to stop people working in the UK from the EU.

 

[bramling]

I wonder who the person could be I am refering to. Do you know who the person in quesion is who wants to stop people working in the UK from the EU.

Perhaps if someone would come up with some vision for managing the consequences of population growth then people's concerns about this issue would be addressed. So far all we hear is "invest", which doesn't cut it.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Perhaps if someone would come up with some vision for managing the consequences of population growth then people's concerns about this issue would be addressed. So far all we hear is "invest", which doesn't cut it.

Why not? (Other than we've spent all out money on a pointless Brexit exercise that we leave the country poorer).

 

[mmh]

The home secretary said most people would agree the current level of net migration, 273,000, was "very high" and it should be cut to a level that "meets first our economic need but at the same time is not too high a burden on our communities or infrastructure"

Taking that at face value, what's particularly controversial about it?

 

[bramling]

Why not? (Other than we've spent all out money on a pointless Brexit exercise that we leave the country poorer).

Because some areas of the country are at the saturation point where infrastructure enhancement is now *extremely* difficult, costly and disruptive.

 

[EM2]

Taking that at face value, what's particularly controversial about it?

I don't believe that 273k is 'very high', our economic need *is* being met by the current level of immigration as we have record employment at the moment, and nor do I see infrastructure or communities being highly burdened.

 

[EM2]

So far all we hear is "invest", which doesn't cut it.

Why doesn't it? Investment would create jobs and improve the infrastructure that we're being told is under strain. £4.2bn would pay for a lot.

 

[EM2]

Because some areas of the country are at the saturation point where infrastructure enhancement is now *extremely* difficult, costly and disruptive.

Then improve the infrastructure elsewhere, and some of the people in the 'saturated' areas will move to the newly-improved areas.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Because some areas of the country are at the saturation point where infrastructure enhancement is now *extremely* difficult, costly and disruptive.

What you're suggesting is to reduce employment and productivity in those areas that a saturated by removing migrants, thereby reducing GDP. Which will already be shrinking by dint of having no trade deals, pushing us faster into recession?

 

[bramling]

Then improve the infrastructure elsewhere, and some of the people in the 'saturated' areas will move to the newly-improved areas.

Just like that. I wonder why we haven't already done it?

 

[EM2]

Just like that. I wonder why we haven't already done it?

Because we've had Governments ideologically wedded to the South-East. Remember the Conservatives' idea of 'managed decline' of Liverpool?

 

[mmh]

What you're suggesting is to reduce employment and productivity in those areas that a saturated by removing migrants

Who has suggested that, where?

no trade deals

That is not true.

 

[Esker-pades]

Who has suggested that, where?



That is not true.

In the first few years of leaving the EU, we will not have a trade deal with anyone. Having one with the EU is a long way off, let alone anyone else.

 

[mmh]

In the first few years of leaving the EU, we will not have a trade deal with anyone. Having one with the EU is a long way off, let alone anyone else.

It wasn't true the first time, repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

[furnessvale]

What?
The fuss is over having the benefits of the EU being taken away from us - Lets try and put it a diffrent way (this is an analogy) You have food in your cupboard - you dont worry about someone coming and taking that away from you - or if you do its not something you dwell too much on - now lets say we had a vote and it was decided that I am going to take food from your cupboard for the next 50 years and you could do nothing about it as someone else told you it was "the will of the people" - I think you would not be happy and kick up a fuss.

All assumptions and remain spin.

 

[mmh]

I don't believe that 273k is 'very high'

It is a high figure. It's one of, if not the, highest rates in the EU, in one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

Whether you think it's OK or not, those are facts.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It wasn't true the first time, repeating it doesn't make it true.

Show me the trade deals.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The home secretary said most people would agree the current level of net migration, 273,000, was "very high" and it should be cut to a level that "meets first our economic need but at the same time is not too high a burden on our communities or infrastructure"

Taking that at face value, what's particularly controversial about it?

To my mind, what's objectionable about it is the way it implicitly views immigrants purely as economic commodities to be used if and only if they benefit our economy. That same focus by the way follows right through the full white paper. And - you know what - people from other countries aren't goods, they are human beings. Strangely, they are just as human as British people. People don't come to the UK in order be slaves to our economy - and they shouldn't be treated as such. They come because they have dreams of experiencing life in the UK. Perhaps because they want to be with their British girlfriend or boyfriend or family members. Perhaps because they want to retire or study here. And so on. To my mind, an immigration policy that's not objectionable and so is less controversial would be one that focuses as far as possible on giving human beings the freedom to live the life that they want where they want to and with the people they want to share it with. That doesn't mean no immigration controls, because clearly you also need to think about what UK infrastructure can support, and also the needs of people in the UK for continuity and stability in the communities that they already live in. And for what it's worth, I'd say a net migration of 273K probably is a bit on the high side from that point of view, and it would arguably be better if it was possible to get it down a bit. Add to that issues about the need for people living here to speak reasonable English and have enough understanding of and respect for how UK society works. And there are ample reasons to control immigration. But for me, the core thing is what underpins whatever the rules are and how would-be migrants are treated should be respect for people as human beings, not tests to see whether they are economically valuable enough.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Who has suggested that, where?

@bramling

 

[mmh]

@bramling

I don't recall that, could you link to the post please?

 

[Howardh]

Perhaps if someone would come up with some vision for managing the consequences of population growth then people's concerns about this issue would be addressed. So far all we hear is "invest", which doesn't cut it.

The Home Secretary may be only too pleased to help?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46613900

Tens of thousands of low-skilled migrants could come to the UK to work for up to a year under proposed new post-Brexit immigration rules.
The measure, which would last until 2025, is intended to protect parts of the economy reliant on overseas labour.
The idea was described as "shocking" by campaign group Migration Watch.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid said the new system would be based on UK needs rather than where migrants were from and show the UK "open for business".
Unveiling what he said would be the biggest shake-up of immigration policy for 40 years, Mr Javid said that while there was no "specific target" for reducing numbers coming into the UK, net migration would come down to "sustainable levels".

The much-delayed White Paper - a document setting out proposed new laws before they are formalised in a government bill - also includes:

• Scrapping the current cap on the number of skilled workers such as doctors or engineers from the EU and elsewhere
• A consultation on a minimum salary requirement of £30,000 for skilled migrants seeking five-year visas
• Visitors from the EU will not need visas
• Plans to phase in the new system from 2021

Mr Javid said the proposals would enable the UK to exercise control over its borders and "deliver on the clear instruction" of the British people when they voted to leave the EU.

Your pro-Brexit home secretary Sajid Javid has it nailed. No targets. 10's of thousands to come in.
So we lose our freedom of movement in order to allow even more migration in and no explanation of what "sustanable levels" are. Gotcha.