EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[SHD]

Ah, declaring something off-topic!

So, I get a letter from my water company telling me I must go on a meter because water supply is under "severe stress" and citing "rising population in London & the south east" as the main contributory factor, with London & the south east being an area which has seen very considerable immigration both EU and non-EU. And that's "off topic". I love it!

Your use of floating qualificatives such as "very considerable" is very cunning and misleading, especially when it is reinforced by your posture (We discuss A on this topic, and although A and B are SO OBVIOUSLY linked, you declare B to be off-topic!)

With such rhetoric, it seems so easy to bypass quantitative analysis and demonstrate that migration is the main factor in L&SE population growth, and ultimately in this pesky requirement to install a meter.

Yet, statisticians at the ONS seem to indicate otherwise:
For instance, projected population change in London is mainly caused by natural change – the difference between the number of births and deaths – and not migration. This is because London’s net inflow of international migrants is offset by a similar number of people moving to other parts of the UK. That contrasts with the North East, where growth is mostly down to migration. What’s also clear is that the population is ageing in all regions, with the number of people aged 65 and over growing considerably faster than younger age groups.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...d-to-be-the-fastest-growing-region-in-england

(I anticipate a reaction of yours: since according to ONS Tower Hamlets is expected to be the fastest growing part of London, and considering that (2011 Census) 43% of Tower Hamlets residents were born outside the U.K. and 69 % are BME, you will shrewdly argue that the population growth is indeed linked with immigration (2nd or 3rd generation))

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ah, declaring something off-topic!

So, I get a letter from my water company telling me I must go on a meter because water supply is under "severe stress" and citing "rising population in London & the south east" as the main contributory factor, with London & the south east being an area which has seen very considerable immigration both EU and non-EU. And that's "off topic". I love it!

I suspect that letter was simplifying things a bit. I remember buying a house in NW England in the 1990's, questioning why the water was to be metered, and being told that regulations required that for all new-build houses. So compulsory metering is not entirely a new thing and certainly pre-dates large-scale immigration from the EU.

Realistically, charging a fixed price and letting people use as much as they like for a commodity like water is not a sensible economic model anyway. It works for things where the actual cost to provide more of a utility is essentially free (Internet, where most costs are incurred in laying down the infrastructure), or there is some other thing that restricts how much people will use (eat-all-you-can restaurants - restricted by the sizes of people's stomachs ), but not for something like water where people could use huge amounts and there is a significant marginal cost to provide it. Besides, not metering is arguably pretty unfair to households that are careful with how much water they use.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the real reason why water has not been metered in the past is that, long ago when most of the infrastructure to pipe water to houses was being built, there was no available technology to measure how much water each household consumed that was cheap enough to make fitting it to every house worth while. That's obviously changed now. That would imply the real driver behind metering is the fact that technology has reached the point that it's now affordable to retro-fit it to existing houses on a large scale. (Of course, the water company are never going to say that in a letter because that would be politically explosive - blaming population growth would be politically much easier for them). Growing awareness of the environmental impact of consuming water is going to be a factor too, along the creaking state of our Victorian water infrastructure, and climate change. Plus that, water companies are now privately owned and so do actually need to run sensible business models! And yes, increasing population will obviously be a factor amongst all those other things.

Immigration may have made the pressures more urgent, but I'd suggest you're making the mistake of blaming the EU for something that was inevitably going to happen anyway.

 

[radamfi]

Immigration from the EU is bound to decline as time goes on, because economic growth in central/eastern Europe is faster than in the west. Eventually there will be convergence.

 

[Jonny]

To come back to the sovereignty of Parliament, it needs to be bounded. When elected representatives go off on their own, especially from opposition parties, that is a very dangerous situation indeed. I was surprised how few MPs actually want to be fully sovereign; especially when they are selling themselves out to the EU.

 

[Jonny]

Besides, there is a whole body of jokes about how many representatives get elected by means bordering on fraud, comparing what is in the manifesto to what actually happens. Sadly such jokes reflect reality. They run along the lines of... "How do you know if a politician is lying? They open up their mouth to speak".

 

[Howardh]

Immigration from the EU is bound to decline as time goes on, because economic growth in central/eastern Europe is faster than in the west. Eventually there will be convergence.

Would be heavily ironic if losing our freedom of movement prevents our labourers attaining higher wages in Poland! OK some time off, although if our economy plummets post Bday the convergence will come quicker.

 

[Giugiaro]

Guys, is it possible for people to unsign a petition? The % of constituents who voted in Bristol was above 26% yesterday, but today it sits at 25,75%

I think it's also safe to say that the Petition may have plateaued. I guess the most it will reach is 6,000,000 signatures unless something major happens. It's still far away from the 17,000,000+ that voted to leave, or even the 16,000,000 that voted to remain. Even if the petition gets a reaction from the government and debate in parliament, I don't think it will be in no way significant.

 

[Darandio]

Even if the petition gets a reaction from the government and debate in parliament, I don't think it will be in no way significant.

It will be debated on 1st April.

 

[Jonny]

Guys, is it possible for people to unsign a petition? The % of constituents who voted in Bristol was above 26% yesterday, but today it sits at 25,75%

I think it's also safe to say that the Petition may have plateaued. I guess the most it will reach is 6,000,000 signatures unless something major happens. It's still far away from the 17,000,000+ that voted to leave, or even the 16,000,000 that voted to remain. Even if the petition gets a reaction from the government and debate in parliament, I don't think it will be in no way significant.

On the missing votes, I suspect some duplicates have been identified and are quietly being deleted.

Not that it, or the high concentration in pro-remain areas, will make much difference for the liar politicians who were elected by borderline deception and who are looking for an excuse to impose their own agenda.

Some had enough of claims like "cost per household" which suggests that there was an attempt at deliberate exaggeration. For starters, not everyone's arrangements are like that. That's assuming that it was not an attempt at outright deception.

 

[Jonny]

Oh, and here's a video of a couple of fake signatures being added. It's quite plausible with minimal technical knowledge.

 

[Howardh]

It will be debated on 1st April.

No doubt ignored on 1st April. Hopefully by then we will be heading towards a much softer Brexit, but in the meantime it looks like the ERG are capitulating over Mays deal. As long as she resigns allowing them to take over. Isn't democracy wonderful? Hopefully the remaining Tory MP s will elect a moderate like they did with Major. Rudd?

 

[EM2]

Robert Peston - https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-26/prime-minister-would-break-the-law-if-she-ignores-letwin-result/

This matters.

I am told that the cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill and the attorney general Geoffrey Cox informed Cabinet that if at the end of the Letwin process MPs pass a motion mandating the PM to pursue a new route through the Brexit mess - perhaps a referendum, or membership of the customs union, or some other softer future relationship with the EU - the PM and government would be in breach of the ministerial code and the law if they fail to follow MP's instructions.

Or to put it another way, the PM would be obliged to endeavour to negotiate with the EU the revealed will of MPs, even if that revealed will involved a Brexit delay that requires the UK to participate in May's European parliamentary elections, or is at odds with the Tories' manifesto.

So the impression created by the PM that she could ignore the results of the indicative votes process is not true - or so ministers who attended Cabinet tell me.

And although the prime minister has said she would not negotiate a Brexit delay that obliges the UK to participate in those elections to the European Parliament, she would not have a choice - unless she quits.

This legal advice to her and her cabinet may explain why she is working to a new plan, to bring her own deal back to MPs for a third meaningful vote on Friday - because with the Letwin process starting tomorrow, she can now warn her MPs and Northern Ireland's DUP that they may genuinely face a choice between her deal and either no Brexit at all or a Brexit that is even less properly Brexity than her own version.

I imagine she will present this message to her MPs, when she meets them tomorrow at the 5pm meeting of the 1922 meeting (when she may or may not give a timetable for stepping down, according to different members of the government).

Whether enough of the ERG Brexiters among them will be scared enough of losing Brexit altogether to vote for her deal at the third go, well I slightly doubt that - but who can be sure?

 

[bramling]

Your use of floating qualificatives such as "very considerable" is very cunning and misleading, especially when it is reinforced by your posture (We discuss A on this topic, and although A and B are SO OBVIOUSLY linked, you declare B to be off-topic!)

With such rhetoric, it seems so easy to bypass quantitative analysis and demonstrate that migration is the main factor in L&SE population growth, and ultimately in this pesky requirement to install a meter.

Yet, statisticians at the ONS seem to indicate otherwise:
For instance, projected population change in London is mainly caused by natural change – the difference between the number of births and deaths – and not migration. This is because London’s net inflow of international migrants is offset by a similar number of people moving to other parts of the UK. That contrasts with the North East, where growth is mostly down to migration. What’s also clear is that the population is ageing in all regions, with the number of people aged 65 and over growing considerably faster than younger age groups.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...d-to-be-the-fastest-growing-region-in-england

(I anticipate a reaction of yours: since according to ONS Tower Hamlets is expected to be the fastest growing part of London, and considering that (2011 Census) 43% of Tower Hamlets residents were born outside the U.K. and 69 % are BME, you will shrewdly argue that the population growth is indeed linked with immigration (2nd or 3rd generation))

One can provide other statistics, however the basic fact is these EU migrants are real and clearly living somewhere, and in many cases that somewhere is London.

As far as Londoners moving out as migrants move in goes, my town (comparatively far into the home counties, not London itself) has seen considerable influx from London, which in itself has lead to a considerable increase in house prices as well as large amounts of house building, the same effect can be seen throughout the Home Counties and further afield to places like Peterborough, Wellingborough and Northampton. That would tend to support the notion that the stress on water supply in these areas is a consequence of rising population driven at least partly by EU migration. As it happens my local news has carried this story today, so it’s evidently a salient issue.

 

[EM2]

Oh, and here's a video of a couple of fake signatures being added. It's quite plausible with minimal technical knowledge.

Just because that person hasn't used their real name and has used a disposable email address, that doesn't make it a fake 'signature'. They have confirmed the email address, and in doing so have made a conscious decision that they want to be added to the petition. A fake signature would be something like an automated process that 'confirms' email addresses automatically.

 

[EM2]

Conservative MP Ben Bradley (Mansfield) voted Remain, then became a Brexiteer, then voted against the deal, then voted for the deal, then said he’d struggle to back the deal again, then said he would back the deal.
But we only get one vote, because 'it's the will of the people'.

 

[kermit]

Assuming that this forum is populated by real people, not robots, and having noted that the majority of contributors to this thread seem to be firmly in the Remain camp, can I respectfully suggest, if you have not done so already, that signing the petition to revoke Article 50 would be a good idea? And then asking your friends and families? https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

 

[Howardh]

One can provide other statistics, however the basic fact is these EU migrants are real and clearly living somewhere, and in many cases that somewhere is London.

As far as Londoners moving out as migrants move in goes, my town (comparatively far into the home counties, not London itself) has seen considerable influx from London, which in itself has lead to a considerable increase in house prices as well as large amounts of house building, the same effect can be seen throughout the Home Counties and further afield to places like Peterborough, Wellingborough and Northampton. That would tend to support the notion that the stress on water supply in these areas is a consequence of rising population driven at least partly by EU migration. As it happens my local news has carried this story today, so it’s evidently a salient issue.

When/if we get HS2 will that mean Birmingham becomes the new London? Could that relieve some of the pressure on London? Or make it worse??

 

[kermit]

Guys, is it possible for people to unsign a petition? The % of constituents who voted in Bristol was above 26% yesterday, but today it sits at 25,75%

I think it's also safe to say that the Petition may have plateaued. I guess the most it will reach is 6,000,000 signatures unless something major happens. It's still far away from the 17,000,000+ that voted to leave, or even the 16,000,000 that voted to remain. Even if the petition gets a reaction from the government and debate in parliament, I don't think it will be in no way significant.

View attachment 60808

More than 10,000 signatures in the last hour. By Monday 1st April, 7 or even 8 million now seems entirely possible. Remember as well that this isn't the level of support for a second referendum (which would be higher). This is support for just scrapping Brexit altogether.

 

[Darandio]

Assuming that this forum is populated by real people, not robots, and having noted that the majority of contributors to this thread seem to be firmly in the Remain camp, can I respectfully suggest, if you have not done so already, that signing the petition to revoke Article 50 would be a good idea? And then asking your friends and families? https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

Don't bother, they have now officially responded.

This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.

It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government.

The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government.

British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.

This Government stands by this commitment.

Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

Department for Exiting the European Union.

 

[Giugiaro]

Don't bother, they have now officially responded.

How predictable. I really wouldn't expect any more than what the government has stated.

... can I respectfully suggest, if you have not done so already, that signing the petition to revoke Article 50 would be a good idea?

Unfortunately, I'm not a UK citizen nor resident, thus it would be improper for me to sign the petition, even if I could easily do so like:

Oh, and here's a video of a couple of fake signatures being added. It's quite plausible with minimal technical knowledge.

Supposedly this sort of thing shouldn't happen if an ID card number was requested in order to vote. As an example, I present a case study from Portugal. If the full name doesn't match the ID card number, or the said number doesn't match a valid ID card, the signature is automatically rejected.

 

[Howardh]

How predictable. I really wouldn't expect any more than what the government has stated.



Unfortunately, I'm not a UK citizen nor resident, thus it would be improper for me to sign the petition, even if I could easily do so like:



Supposedly this sort of thing shouldn't happen if an ID card number was requested in order to vote. As an example, I present a case study from Portugal. If the full name doesn't match the ID card number, or the said number doesn't match a valid ID card, the signature is automatically rejected.


View attachment 60810

You should sign it because we are taking away your freedom of movement to the UK. Some don't want you here (no names!)...but I do, and Portugal sounds the kind of place I could retire to. If you believe in freedom, sign the darned thing!

 

[LOL The Irony]

You should sign it because we are taking away your freedom of movement to the UK. Some don't want you here (no names!)...but I do, and Portugal sounds the kind of place I could retire to. If you believe in freedom, sign the darned thing!

But he can't offically.

 

[Howardh]

But he can't offically.

Why, is it UK only? Thought Brexiters told us it was signed by 19,263,572 Russian spam bots? But if he genuinely can't, then fair enough, but that also prevents ex-pats signing.

 

[LOL The Irony]

but that also prevents ex-pats signing.

As it should

 

[507021]

As it should

Erm, why?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Erm, why?

If you don't live in a country, you shouldn't control it's government.

 

[507021]

If you don't live in a country, you shouldn't control it's government.

Sorry, but I totally disagree.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you don't live in a country, you shouldn't control it's government.

So are are you saying that you think UK citizens living abroad should not be entitled to vote?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

So are are you saying that you think UK citizens living abroad should not be entitled to vote?

Too damned right they SHOULDN'T as should anyone not living in a particular place - you're living the life of Riley (other surnames may be applicable) in some far flung land and expect to have a say and influence in a place you don't even live ? It's damnable bare faced cheek - you should vote for and in the place you reside and that place alone. You should not be able to influence a place where you don't even live.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What is the eventual aim ? ..for everyone to be on Berlin time ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ing-time-from-2021/ar-BBVfl9w?ocid=spartanntp


This is something that should be down to individual countries to decide - the wrench from the EU will be painful but it is the only alternative to the dictatorship of bureaucracy.