The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[The Ham]

Personally, I don't think Boris needs to do anything re Scotland. The Tories don't need Scottish MPs (they've never had many anyway and now even less). The SNP is, and continues to be, a threat to Labour's hopes of winning the next GE. Boris can ignore Scotland and let the SNP and Labour battle it out between them. If, eg, the next Labour leader promises a Scottish Indy Referendum, then Labour may well start to regain Scottish MPs (even moreso if they can find a credible Scottish labour party leader). If Boris can keep the Northern constituencies he's just won, then he'll be in a good position for the next GE. Pointless for Boris wasting time on Scottish issues as he's nothing to lose. As long as he just allows Scotland to carry on as normal (i.e. doesn't do anything against them, just keeps the status quo), it's not an issue for him.

I'd go further and suggest that keeping Scotland actually strengthens Boris' hand.

I'm aware of several people who are "nervous" (I'll leave it up to you as to how you interpret that) about any party which entered into a coalition with the SNP to gain power.

Not least because there's a lot of people who wouldn't want them to get their way and break up the Union.

As such by having them as an enemy it makes it easier to defeat those who would be seen to do a deal with them which could lead to IndyRef2.

 

[Enthusiast]

"Mark Elliot is Professor of Public Law and Deputy Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. He also served, from 2015 to 2019, as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution."


This is why I asked what you meant by 'sovereignty' earlier. The fact that the word is ambiguous means that one can have such a debate. I'm really happy to get into the meat of it. It's a really debatable point. I love this sort of thing. When I have time, I'll do more research and writing. In the meantime, we're probably at an impasse given that we'll just quote bits of essays at each other.

There's no need. As explained above, EU law takes primacy over UK law. It is true that the UK Parliament must endorse any EU directives so that they have effect in the UK. It is also true that the UK Parliament could refuse its endorsement. If it did the UK would be non-compliant with that EU directive concerned and the government pursued through the ECJ in order to enforce compliance and impose penalties for disobedience. Some sovereignty!

 

[Busaholic]

On one of the forms of Proportional Representation that might be adopted in the future, the 'result' of Thursday's election would show the Tories with 288 seats, and Labour and Lib Dem combined with a total of 289 seats. But, of course, the latter wouldn't have worked together and with the SDP to form a government, would they?

 

[The Ham]

That was one lie but IMO not the biggest. To me that was the idea that a vote for remain was a vote for the "status quo" with a clear implication that the status quo meant no change. This is patently untrue as the EU itself states its objective is ever closer union.

Whilst there would be changes going forward by voting to remain (say) Turkey entering the EU, most of those highlighted by the remain side were things which are yet to come to pass.

It should also be noted that the UK had been able to go it alone whilst within the EU, for instance what did most of the EU so when it came to Poland entering the EU?

It was very different to the UK and because the UK was so different it lead to the UK being one of the few countries which they could come to, so guess what happened?

If that's a typical example of us using our Sovereignty then I'm not sure that we're always best suited to making the right choices.

Now there's the argument that without being part of the EU then this wouldn't have been an issue, however to say that the large numbers of Polish people coming here was the fault of the EU is a bit of an unfair complaint.

I'd also suggest that there's a lot of people with selective focus on some issues.

Did the arrival of a load of Eastern Europeans reduce pay for (say) builders?

Yes it did, however that is only to focus on one part of the matter. If builders pay falls from £200 a day to £150 a day and you are having a 10 day building project this cuts the amount you pay for each builder from £2,000 to £1,500. That's then an extra £500 in your back account (or more likely £500 less which you have to borrow). However if you have 2 or 3 builders on site at any one time over those 10 days that's £1,000 to £1,500 which you get to keep (or not spend).

There was also a lot of people who, with a shortage of trained builders and building trades, were finding it hard to get anyone (not even someone who was good) to do those jobs which they wanted/needed to be done.

As such it's not overly clearcut (unless you work as a builder and then your pay will have gone down) as to if this was a bad thing for the country.

Especially given that with more people you need more people to provide all the services which those extra people need. It is one of the reasons as to why unemployment (in actual numbers) can be lower now than it was at other points in the past.

As having an extra 1,000 people in a village of 6,000 doesn't mean that there's then 1,000 people out of work in that village, as there's then a need for more shop & bar staff to serve them, more doctors & dentists to care for them, more builders to fix things for them, more hairdressers to smarten them up, and more teachers to educate their children.

That last one highlights two things of note:
- 1,000 people on average house occupancy is ~400 homes, which is about the amount of extra homes needed to justify another class per year, so even if the village only has Primary education provision that's 7 extra teachers needed.
- 7 extra classes is then about 210 children, is you assume a similar amount are retired people then you're only looking at about 500 adults of working age. As such although 7 extra teachers doesn't sound a lot that's just over 1% of adults with a job straight off. That's before you add in any Teaching Assistants or support staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue over light bulbs I do support as it saves people's money, electricity and are no less affective.

Light bulbs are a different situation because tungsten bulbs in summer are inefficient because they chuck out a load of unnecessary heat as well as the light. There's also further benefit of cool-running lighting - a reduced fire risk.

In winter, the argument is poorer, because the heat is desirable and if it isn't chucked out by the bulbs it's chucked out by your gas boiler instead.

Kettles (or any other form of electric heating) are a silly argument because all of it is basically 100% (or near it) efficient - near enough all the electricity is converted to heat, barring a slight red glow and possibly an LED signifying that the power is on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s ironic that living in a benign, free country makes people take their freedoms for granted, and blinds them to the awful alternatives - just ask the residents of Hong Kong about how important they consider self determination!

And ask the French and you'll get a different answer from that rather extreme example.

Nation states are utterly arbitrary - I can't see why people ascribe so much importance to them (as distinct from cultural aspects, which places like Wales have managed to retain despite not being independent).

 

[The Ham]

I must admit I find this one both bizarre and ridiculous. Domestic vacuum cleaners are used for only a tiny amount of time overall, and if the power is reduced they will be less effective than the same design with a higher power, and so will need to be used for longer.

I understand similarly that they were looking to restrict the wattage of kettles, which is similarly stupid - it will just make them take longer to boil. If you were going to legislate anything about kettles, what would make sense would be to require them to have thick insulation so the water stays warm between boils.

Many of the EU's interventions make sense, but I just can't see any sense at all in this one.

Quick question if I create a Vacuum Cleaner with 5,000 Watts of power that it would be better at cleaning than one with 2,500 Watts of power? Does that mean that both of these would be better than one with 800 Watts?

My current vacuum cleaner at home is just 800 Watts and it is hard to move the head around due to the suction power, this isn't a problem we had with our old 2,500 Watts vacuum cleaner.

Likewise it wasn't that long ago that for large cars 2l engines were seen as what was needed, or current small people carrier had a 1.6l engine and is fairly quick off the mark and more than capable of moving us around (even with a roof box on).

As long as it can be shown that we're not at the most effective with the devices which we use and that there's scope for improving the efficiency whilst still being able to do the job just as well then I don't see why such changes shouldn't be brought through.

Yes it means that we have to learn what is good and what is bad again, in terms of the capability of the devices, but that didn't mean that the rules are a bad thing.

 

[cb a1]

As stated earlier in the thread, democracy requires losers’ consent in order to function.

I must admit that I'd never heard of losers' consent until reading this thread.

I've given it a 5 minute Google research and it would, to me, appear that there is both an onus not only on the losers but also on the winners!

"Losing works in democracies around the globe, and the bargain at issue “calls for winners who are willing to ensure that losers are not too unhappy and for losers, in exchange, to extend their consent to the winners’ right to rule.” This bargain is also one of the core components of democracy."

Your approach to winning in this thread is a great example of why losers' consent isn't forthcoming.

 

[Enthusiast]

Nation states are utterly arbitrary - I can't see why people ascribe so much importance to them (as distinct from cultural aspects, which places like Wales have managed to retain despite not being independent).

And for that reason alone it is clear you will never understand the Leavers' viewpoint and it is pointless you debating the issue with them. Nation states are extremely important to the majority of people worldwide and that importance is not restricted to the relatively few "ignorant, ill-educated racists" who voted to leave.

 

[EM2]

It should also be noted that the UK had been able to go it alone whilst within the EU, for instance what did most of the EU so when it came to Poland entering the EU?

It was very different to the UK and because the UK was so different it lead to the UK being one of the few countries which they could come to, so guess what happened?

If that's a typical example of us using our Sovereignty then I'm not sure that we're always best suited to making the right choices.

The eastern expansion of the EU was something that Britain was very much in favour of, and when it came to pass we had the option of restricting immigration from the new member states for seven years.
We didn't do it.
Like you say, not always best suited to making the right choices.

 

[The Ham]

I find it extraordinary that you place so little emphasis on the importance of national sovereignty - something that many people have laid their lives down to defend.

It’s ironic that living in a benign, free country makes people take their freedoms for granted, and blinds them to the awful alternatives - just ask the residents of Hong Kong about how important they consider self determination!

You may not give a toss about sovereignty, and that is your right in a free country, but thankfully many of us still do and wish to defend it at all costs.

Interestingly many of the Europeans would argue that the very reason that we need the EU is so that no one state can get above itself and cause the problems of the two world wars.

It's why a lot of the thinking from the Brexit Party and those who wish for Brexit to happen (including an easy trade deal) may not go the way that they plan, this is highlighted in this article:

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-british-are-deluded-about-germany-s-fear-of-a-no-deal-brexit-1.3981678

Ask around in German car industry circles and you hear the same response. Yes, they would rather not endanger their British sales but, by now, they have already priced in the potential loss of some British customers and have found alternative firms for UK supply chain components. For them, holding the rest of their EU market together is far more important than UK sales.

Now whilst many within the UK have taken the view that another X years of inactivity by parliament on anything other then Brexit may actually be more damaging than the actual act of Brexit (perhaps part of the reason for the bullish markets on Friday) that's not too say that they welcome Brexit.

Part of the problem with Brexit (and why there's anger on both sides) is that the referendum was akin to asking "Roast dinner or takeaway?"

Given that takeaway wasn't defined (much in the same way that what Brexit actually is) then it leads to arguments about what that looks like. In fact Nigel Farage was saying (during campaigning) that the deal that Boris had isn't Brexit and that we should vote for the Brexit Party to ensure that Boris goes back and gets an actual Brexit deal:

It's why when adding a group of 120 people at a Hustings if their vote at the 2016 referendum was listened to (to be clear the room was very much, like most of the UK, split over Brexit Vs remain) and a very few said yes. As such there's clearly a lot of people who voted for Brexit who don't think that they have been listened to, this could (given the above) even be the case of Boris' deal is voted through. It could still be the case in 5 years time at the next election.

Especially if we end up with free movement of people, regulatory alignment or any one of the other things highlighted by Farage.

Farage clearly wants one type of takeaway whilst Boris wants another. Now some of the public will agree with either of them, yet others may want one of another several types of takeaway.

As such you could even see more support for a people's vote as those who wish for Brexit then realise that they are not getting a Brexit of their liking. Possibly even from the likes of the Brexit Party (although they certainly wouldn't want stay on the paper).

Interestingly the Brexit Party aren't likely to do well in Local Elections (what the EU got to do with how my bins are emptied) and given that there's not likely to be any European Elections going forwards they could find it hard to gain much traction with the general population in future general elections. Especially with little to keep them in people's minds in the intervening years.

That's not too say that if Boris messes up Brexit that they won't do well. Just rather, if it passes without much problem and life carries on much as before (even if Brexit doesn't look that different to staying) but with the Tories investing in the North then things could be much harder for them.

 

[Starmill]

Your approach to winning in this thread is a great example of why losers' consent isn't forthcoming.

There was a consensus around 'losers consent' in 2017. It was clear and obvious in Parliament. The problem is that it was thrown away by Theresa May who utterly refused to agree it.

So now former Remainers who thought it could be worked out amicably in 2017 have seen the hate thrown at them by the winning side, constantly blaming them when it was actually the ERG and the now Prime Minister who consistently blocked Brexit. They've withdrawn that consent that existed because they could do nothing else under May's leadership. Now the Prime Minister seeks to marginalise and suppress any such voices as disagree with him.

Be in no doubt, this Prime Minister does not have losers' consent and he isn't interested in getting it. He is a threat to the democratic process because of it. Former Remainers have little to do with it now as their influence has expired. The man with the influence is the only one who is responsible for what comes next. The feedback loop is almost gone.

 

[43066]

"Mark Elliot is Professor of Public Law and Deputy Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. He also served, from 2015 to 2019, as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution."

This is why I asked what you meant by 'sovereignty' earlier. The fact that the word is ambiguous means that one can have such a debate. I'm really happy to get into the meat of it. It's a really debatable point. I love this sort of thing. When I have time, I'll do more research and writing. In the meantime, we're probably at an impasse given that we'll just quote bits of essays at each other.

The concept of sovereignty is a nebulous one for sure. But without getting too bogged down in all that, it’s certainly true to say that EU law does takes precedence over UK domestic law. That has been well established for several decades.

We might disagree on whether or not that is a good thing. In my view, it isn’t.

"Losing works in democracies around the globe, and the bargain at issue “calls for winners who are willing to ensure that losers are not too unhappy and for losers, in exchange, to extend their consent to the winners’ right to rule.” This bargain is also one of the core components of democracy."

You might want to focus more on the bit about the “winner’s right to rule”. That has been consistently denied to leave voters for 3.5 years.

As a leaver, I certainly don’t want the country to remain divided, but I do want the 2016 leave victory to be respected by remainers (even if they if they don't agree with it), and implemented.

That has clearly been too much to hope for for a long while now!

Interestingly many of the Europeans would argue that the very reason that we need the EU is so that no one state can get above itself and cause the problems of the two world wars.

The causes of the first and second world wars (which could be viewed as one long conflict punctuated by a 20 year cease fire) were complex and had their roots in the age of European empires and their allegiances - Europe was a radically different place in 1914, and in 1939, than it was when the EU was formed.

I’d suggest the UN (born out of the League of Nations) and NATO have had a lot more to do with preventing further world wars than the EU.

He is a threat to the democratic process because of it. Former Remainers have little to do with it now as their influence has expired.

That’s a bit rich after the last 3.5 years of consistent denial of democracy by remainers.

A leave favouring PM has just won a landslide general election victory, and now he’s a threat to democracy.

 

[Esker-pades]

The concept of sovereignty is a nebulous one for sure. But without getting too bogged down in all that, it’s certainly true to say that EU law does takes precedence over UK domestic law. That has been well established for several decades.

We might disagree on whether or not that is a good thing. In my view, it isn’t.

I don't dispute that. I dispute the extent to which it undermines our parliamentary sovereignty. As we've seen, it is very much up for debate (certainly within academia).

 

[43066]

I don't dispute that. I dispute the extent to which it undermines our parliamentary sovereignty. As we've seen, it is very much up for debate (certainly within academia).

It’s true that Parliament remains ultimately sovereign in the sense that it could at any point repeal the legislation enabling EU law primacy. But the fact is that Parliament has repeatedly legislated to give the EU and ECJ primacy over UK laws and courts respectively, across an increasing number of areas, as the EU’s influence has expanded.

Therefore the de facto position is that parliamentary sovereignty has been eroded (that was the gist of the section of the essay you quoted earlier).

The laws made by the EU and developed by ECJ jurisprudence affect our everyday lives, yet they are imposed by a foreign body, and developed by foreign judges, using a legal system which is alien to that of the U.K.

The fact that sovereignty was surrendered on a voluntary basis, and could theoretically be recovered, means very little in practice - and certainly does nothing to assuage the concerns of people like me who simply don’t want foreign interference in UK laws.

 

[St Rollox]

Scottish Indy Ref 2

Game on

Thank you to Nigel and the various English Nationalists. We couldn't have done it without you.

 

[43066]

Scottish Indy Ref 2

Game on

Thank you to Nigel and the various English Nationalists. We couldn't have done it without you.

Quite how that will work is anyone’s guess.

Where will Scotland get its subsidies from in the period between leaving the U.K. and joining the EU as a member state in its own right (assuming it is even allowed to)?

 

[Starmill]

All of the debate about the law is as pointless and vacuous as ever.

Nobody can actually point to a single law that they want changing that the EU directives would prevent. Oh and forget VAT, the new fully fledged European VAT arrangements will be superior to the current transitory ones (not that the UK will benefit now).

It's all just a case of complaining about what they see as outsiders influence, when what it actually is is about commonality and shared law. This makes the law stronger and it makes it better and more effective at achieving its policy goals.

 

[43066]

All of the debate about the law is as pointless and vacuous as ever.

On the contrary, these questions are of fundamental importance to the wider Brexit debate.

Nobody can actually point to a single law that they want changing that the EU directives would prevent. Oh and forget VAT, the new fully fledged European VAT arrangements will be superior to the current transitory ones (not that the UK will benefit now).

It's all just a case of complaining about what they see as outsiders influence, when what it actually is is about commonality and shared law. This makes the law stronger and it makes it better and more effective at achieving its policy goals.

This misses the point entirely.

It’s all very well accepting laws imposed by a foreign body when you agree with them, but what will happen when they start to pass laws and policies that you don’t agree with?

I simply want the laws that affect my life to be solely determined by a Westminster Parliament that I can participate in electing, and developed by UK judges in accordance with the established UK legal system.

 

[The Ham]

The causes of the first and second world wars (which could be viewed as one long conflict punctuated by a 20 year cease fire) were complex and had their roots in the age of European empires and their allegiances - Europe was a radically different place in 1914, and in 1939, than it was when the EU was formed.

I’d suggest the UN (born out of the League of Nations) and NATO have had a lot more to do with preventing further world wars than the EU.

Whilst I agree that the root causes of the wars are complex I would suggest that your post highlights the very difference in opinion which is the reason that there EU and the British Parliament don't understand each other.

The cause of the war, you say it was in the roots of the age of the European Empires, the EU would say to stop Nations getting above themselves. Are these not one and the same thing?

Was not a lot of the problem with empire that the lead nation thought that they were the best and that other empires were getting in their way and not as good?

Is that not the very same as Nations getting above themselves?

Now whilst there's a lot of good from the UN, don't they have the ability to call on an army? Should we leave the UN as that's too much like a worldwide state?

Now I know that it could be argued that it's different in that they call on Nations to lend them their forces, however given the EU doesn't have an army yet how do we know that it's not going to look the same?

Which then leads to the question, if there's a difference of opinion on the wars, even though there's much agreement just with different wording, can you be sure that the thinking is the same when it comes to other matters?

The EU generally look at their own Nations and so when the UK said they had a problem with Eurosceptics they didn't fully understand how someone could be as opposed to the EU as the British can be. They also have a view that the British will ask for something three times, so generally don't give them everything the first time they ask.

Can you see where things may have gone wrong with the new deal that was brought back to the UK? The EU probably expected is to go back and say, we've asked the people and they say that that's not good enough (having had a referendum on the deal) and so would have then offered something else.

They probably didn't expect our PM to ask a straight in/out question and then they didn't really expect us to trigger article 50.

Now on our side there's many who think that the EU won't harm their economies to ensure the survival of the EU. The problem is that having seen much more closely to home what an invading power will do those on the continent of Europe are more inclined to consider anything which keeps the peace (even if other organisations have done more to do so) as something which is worth protecting.

Let's ask one final question, if you're a farmer with a superior type of crop which has taken you years to develop. Would you keep the trees for yourself or would you give then to your neighbors?

There are those who would say "I'll keep it and if they want to share in it they'll have to buy it off me" whilst there'll be others who'll day "if my neighbor has a rubbish crop their crop could reduce the ability of my crop to continue to produce the high quality crop I want, so I'll give them my seeds so that my crop continues to do well".

However which would you do and which do you think the EU is like and which do you think the UK is like, are they the same or different?

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst there would be changes going forward by voting to remain (say) Turkey entering the EU

This has never been a realistic prospect.

It should also be noted that the UK had been able to go it alone whilst within the EU, for instance what did most of the EU so when it came to Poland entering the EU?

It was very different to the UK and because the UK was so different it lead to the UK being one of the few countries which they could come to, so guess what happened?

I'm not sure what point you're making here - you're saying that many Poles came to the UK. This shouldn't be a surprise; Poland and Britain have nearly a century of cooperation...and we're an English speaking nation. Many Poles spoke very good English even before they came to Britain.

If that's a typical example of us using our Sovereignty then I'm not sure that we're always best suited to making the right choices.

Again, confused at what point you're making here, other than, seemingly, the utterly ridiculous point that if a country has made a bad decision through its democratic processes then sure, why not go and give your sovereignty to someone else?

I'd also suggest that there's a lot of people with selective focus on some issues.

Did the arrival of a load of Eastern Europeans reduce pay for (say) builders?

Yes it did

Now enter the headspace of people who do low-skilled or manual jobs for poor wages and tell me they aren't allowed to have selective focus.

however that is only to focus on one part of the matter. If builders pay falls from £200 a day to £150 a day and you are having a 10 day building project this cuts the amount you pay for each builder from £2,000 to £1,500. That's then an extra £500 in your back account (or more likely £500 less which you have to borrow). However if you have 2 or 3 builders on site at any one time over those 10 days that's £1,000 to £1,500 which you get to keep (or not spend).

Oh yay, look, prices come down and the business owners make more money, but:

Did the arrival of a load of Eastern Europeans reduce pay for (say) builders?

Yes it did

So, take the argument to its logical conclusion...

As such it's not overly clearcut (unless you work as a builder and then your pay will have gone down) as to if this was a bad thing for the country.

It is completely clear cut if you are one of the low-paid workers whose wage rises have been squeezed by cheaper immigrant labour. Guess what - there are lots of those people, and they are all motivated to vote. And, for a very long time in this country, everyone like that who has raised questions about the value of immigration has been unfairly branded a xenophobe or a racist. Your argument in a nutshell is "hey everyone - particuarly the middle class - who needs a service, you can get it cheaper now, isn't uncontrolled immigration a good thing?"

Especially given that with more people you need more people to provide all the services which those extra people need. It is one of the reasons as to why unemployment (in actual numbers) can be lower now than it was at other points in the past.

No, it isn't - it's because of a change in the way unemployment figures are calculated. Dole queues are a redundant method for calculating delinquency and deprivation; the reality is, many jobs are now reliant on the gig economy and more people are no longer employed for a salary. (As an aside, the gig economy is a good thing, but a proper government would have better legal and social protections for people who all through the cracks)[/quote]

 

[edwin_m]

I realise you have said you accept it, but it is clear that a great many still don’t!

Overall the remain side has consistently denied democracy since 2016. It’s taken two subsequent elections (and a European election) to even get to a position where it finally looks relatively certain that some form of Brexit will even be implemented.

If you and people sharing your view keep on saying it then people with the opposite view will keep on disagreeing and we'll never be able to "move on".

Please give it a rest.

The EU basically consists of four or five main benefactors which bankroll the project. The U.K. is the second largest (IIRC) contributor to the project, so I completely the reject the argument that the EU holds all the cards - money talks, and the deck is a lot more evenly stacked than that.

No deal isn’t my preferred option but it must be kept on the table in order to negotiate properly - surely that’s just common sense? I would far rather walk away than end up a vassal state of the EU - but my strong preference would be a sensible trading agreement.

The EU is obviously prepared to cut its budgets if it no longer gets any UK contribution, and part of the desire to have the framework of a long-term deal agreed by mid-2020 is to feed the figures into the EU budgeting process.

A sensible trading arrangement will involve some compliance with the EU's rules and standards, and probably some payment into their budget. As an analogy, would you be happy if a state with unrestricted access to the UK market could legally export to the UK electrical goods that don't meet UK safety standards, or have unrestricted rights to undercut our manufacturers because their labour and environmental standards are far lower than ours? The EU is concerned that unless Britain agrees to some "level playing field" standards we will try to do that to them in future. ​

What happened on October 4 to change the legal position in relation to our Article 50 notification?

And if the threat of 'no deal' was removed, then was Jezza and his candidate in my area lying to me when they said the threat of 'no deal' was real and could happen in January or at the end of 2020?

On October 4 the government agreed, in response to the law passed by Parliament, to request an extension to the deadline rather than to default to no deal on October 31. However that was a one-off measure and there is no equivalent provision for the 31 January deadline, though as a deal has been agreed with the EU and is about to be agreed by Parliament that's unlikely to be an issue.

Much more important is the deadline for a long-term trade deal likely to arise at the end of 2020 when no-deal will probably be the default again (unless an extension is agreed which Boris says he will not do).

 

[underbank]

As having an extra 1,000 people in a village of 6,000 doesn't mean that there's then 1,000 people out of work in that village, as there's then a need for more shop & bar staff to serve them, more doctors & dentists to care for them, more builders to fix things for them, more hairdressers to smarten them up, and more teachers to educate their children.

Ironically I live in a Northern village with a population recently grown to 6,000. Shops and pubs have closed down as most people travel to work in nearby towns and cities, so the village itself is a ghost town. It's now impossible to get a GP appointment as we have fewer appointments due to every single GP reducing their working hours due to the 62% marginal tax rate - we usually have to travel to another one of their branch surgeries in a nearby town or village! The school is grossly oversubscribed so new villagers have to drive their kids to school in the next town. Your philosophy only works if the infrastructure had been put in place to cope with a 20% increase in population - it wasn't! That's the same issue repeated all over the North - more people but no facilities, so the extra people have to travel to other towns and cities - unhelpfully usually by road as the railways are either non existent or unreliable/unsuitable.

 

[underbank]

The eastern expansion of the EU was something that Britain was very much in favour of, and when it came to pass we had the option of restricting immigration from the new member states for seven years.
We didn't do it.
Like you say, not always best suited to making the right choices.

Didn't Blair allow unfettered immigration "to rub the noses of the right in diversity" - sounds like a sound decision made on genuine grounds then doesn't it??

 

[SteveP29]

This result plays well for that - they can turn the independence debate into a sore, and blame everything that goes wrong on the Conservative Party, including that the referendum isn't legally being permitted

Sounding eerily like 2016 pre and post referendum

 

[DarloRich]

Didn't Blair allow unfettered immigration "to rub the noses of the right in diversity" - sounds like a sound decision made on genuine grounds then doesn't it??

]

could you provide a source?

 

[TheBigD]

]

could you provide a source?

Wasn't a direct quote from Tony Blair but...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...K-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't a direct quote from Tony Blair but...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...K-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

If that really was the intention, that was a mind-numbingly stupid thing to do and was bound to cause division. A bit like calling a certain referendum.

 

[underbank]

If that really was the intention, that was a mind-numbingly stupid thing to do and was bound to cause division. A bit like calling a certain referendum.

A bit like Brown's "bigoted woman" moment. It's stupid things like that which helped cause the rift and feeling (esp in the North) that the metropolitan political elite just didn't understand (and didn't care) about the issues facing the regions.

 

[Ianno87]

This has never been a realistic prospect.



I'm not sure what point you're making here - you're saying that many Poles came to the UK. This shouldn't be a surprise; Poland and Britain have nearly a century of cooperation...and we're an English speaking nation. Many Poles spoke very good English even before they came to Britain.

Two Polish nationals were integral to the early development of the code-breaking activities at Bletchley Park (e.g. the bomba machine) at the start of WWII.