Brexit matters

[nw1]

The flipside of what you say here is that those seeking to re-join will probably vote Labour (unless in a seat where the LibDems have the best chance of beating the Tories) even if their policy only goes some of the way to what they want. And I think you'll find that Starmer has chosen his words carefully and left some wriggle room to vary the policy depending where public opinion is at the time.

Hoping so.

However, much as I'd like it to be, I don't think rejoining is possible in the next Parliament. The EU will want to see a high degree of political concensus as they won't want a future Tory government just to leave again, and I can't see the Tories coming to that position for at least a decade. There is also the thorny question of whether we get all the opt-outs we had before. Just as it should have been with leaving, we shouldn't commit to rejoin until we have some idea of the terms.

Though to be fair I am not suggesting rejoining. I am just suggesting closer integration.

 

[Annetts key]

But if there had been no council house sales then there would have been no money for the councils to invest to build any new houses anyway!

Where do you think the money to build large numbers of council homes came from in the first place?
And with the right to buy discount, the council may not have got enough money to build a replacement of the same size even if there had been no restrictions.

Certainly there has for a long time been a lack of foresight and investment by the UK Government when it comes to housing and associated services - and that's a problem that needs fixing. But at the same time, the sudden unexpected flow of people into the UK from about 2005ish onwards as a result of freedom of movement would have made it very - shall we say, challenging - to build adequate infrastructure, even if we'd had a Government that was investing properly.

Sudden? Really? We have always had some level of people moving here from other countries around the world, and as another poster pointed out, a very significant number did come (and still come) from outside the E.U.

And also pointed out by other posters, the U.K. did not use some controls that it did have. So, back to poor U.K. government as the primary reason why we are in a big mess.

And brexit makes largely no difference to people coming from outside the E.U.

Immigration was an excuse for brexit used by those who always wanted to not be part of the E.U.

 

[AM9]

Where do you think the money to build large numbers of council homes came from in the first place?
And with the right to buy discount, the council may not have got enough money to build a replacement of the same size even if there had been no restrictions.


Sudden? Really? We have always had some level of people moving here from other countries around the world, as as another poster pointed out, a very significant number did come (and still come) from outside the E.U.

And also pointed out by other posters, the U.K. did not use some controls that it did have. So, back to poor U.K. government as the primary reason why we are in a big mess.

And brexit makes largely no difference to people coming from outside the E.U.

Immigration was an excuse for brexit used by those who always wanted to not be part of the E.U.

... and it became the totem for all of those who don't like anybody from the outside even existing within their view, - a xenophobe's dream fulfilled.

 

[najaB]

But if there had been no council house sales then there would have been no money for the councils to invest to build any new houses anyway!

Where do you think the money to build large numbers of council homes came from in the first place?

Taxation of course. That's where government money always comes from. But that doesn't fit with Tory mantra (low tax, low spend).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sudden? Really? We have always had some level of people moving here from other countries around the world, and as another poster pointed out, a very significant number did come (and still come) from outside the E.U.

Yes, sudden. According to the statistics at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/ net inward migration was well below 100K - typically around 50K for the 1990s up until 1997. Over the next 7 years it jumped to 268K in 2004, and has remained well above 200K in almost every year since then. Compared to the time it takes to build infrastructure, that's a pretty sudden jump - and one that, as far as we can tell - was largely not anticipated by the Government of the time.

And also pointed out by other posters, the U.K. did not use some controls that it did have. So, back to poor U.K. government as the primary reason why we are in a big mess.

So what? Yes, the Government arguably made mistakes in the mid 2000's. But in 2016 we were where we were and we had to respond to the situation at the time. And the situation in 2016 was that immigration levels had become unsustainably high, largely due to people taking advantage of FOM, and there was no way to fix the problem while remaining in the EU. Saying 'if only the Government had done something different in 2005' is not a policy option if the year is 2016.

And brexit makes largely no difference to people coming from outside the E.U.

True, but again, so what? Brexit did make a difference to the numbers of people coming from EU, which has helped the situation. The numbers of people coming from outside the EU is a different issue which will presumably require different solutions unrelated to Brexit. (And actually I'd argue that one good consequence of Brexit is that the reduction in FOM immigration means the Government now has more leeway to allow more immigration from outside the EU - which in many cases is made up of people who arguably have more need to come here - people escaping the repression in Hong Kong, for example).

Immigration was an excuse for brexit used by those who always wanted to not be part of the E.U.

I'm afraid that looks to me like the usual 'progressive'/'left-wing' tactic in arguments of trying to make up motives for your opponents instead of addressing people's actual concerns. Sure, I don't doubt that there are people who didn't want to be in the EU for other reasons, but the fact is that FOM lead to a vast increase in immigration into the UK - and that was a genuine concern for many people, and a reason in its own right why many people voted for Brexit.

 

[DC1989]

The issue is that we still can't build the infrastructure to keep up with the current population let alone the extra 200k a year - yet all I see MP's do (of ALL parties) is try and stop developments and celebrate once they've got them canned!

There is a planned housing amendment going through parliament at the moment (to remove housing targets for councils etc) that has 40+ signatories that will cut building by an estimated 40%

EDIT - this is not me saying we should cut net immigration to zero but to build, build, build

 

[GS250]

... and it became the totem for all of those who don't like anybody from the outside even existing within their view, - a xenophobe's dream fulfilled.

Its generally about sheer numbers. Not where they come from. If every UK born citizen who has left these shores in the last 20 years came back over the period of 2-3 years the effect on out infrastructure would be devastating. There would be calls to halt the madness.

 

[AM9]

Its generally about sheer numbers. Not where they come from. If every UK born citizen who has left these shores in the last 20 years came back over the period of 2-3 years the effect on out infrastructure would be devastating. There would be calls to halt the madness.

I'm not saying it's a rational view, more something that a certain demographic clings to.

 

[REVUpminster]

I'm not saying it's a rational view, more something that a certain demographic clings to.

Is the certain demographic 20-year-olds who have nowhere to live except their parents?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Compared to the time it takes to build infrastructure, that's a pretty sudden jump - and one that, as far as we can tell - was largely not anticipated by the Government of the time.

I would offer the view from the other side: this has actually saved a lot of poorer, more rural Polish municipalities financially. They were able to shut schools and cut back on other services as a result of the massive depopulation that took place, especially in the east of the country.

 

[AM9]

Is the certain demographic 20-year-olds who have nowhere to live except their parents?

I don't think residential arrangements necesarily make nor exclude 20 year olds (or any other adult age) being xenophobes. It's what is inside their heads.

 

[E27007]

Immigration was an excuse for brexit used by those who always wanted to not be part of the E.U.

Not an excuse by any means, but an entirely valid concern for the high levels of immigration which Brussels would not address, immigration has created great problems for the UK, overloading our finite infrastructure and creating social tension, Brussels refused to listen to PM Cameron, Brussels paid the price of their intransigence , losing a key member of their project

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

I would offer the view from the other side: this has actually saved a lot of poorer, more rural Polish municipalities financially. They were able to shut schools and cut back on other services as a result of the massive depopulation that took place, especially in the east of the country.

A further view from the other side, if a country such as Poland or Romania is receiving funding from the EU for extensive modernisation of the infrastructure and utilities to raise Poland or Romania to European standards, then how can that be achieved if the skilled members of the population have emigrated leaving a void of qualified construction workers?

 

[DC1989]

Not an excuse by any means, but an entirely valid concern for the high levels of immigration which Brussels would not address, immigration has created great problems for the UK, overloading our finite infrastructure and creating social tension, Brussels refused to listen to PM Cameron, Brussels paid the price of their intransigence , losing a key member of their project

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

But immigration hasn't reduced since we left the EU, and it's not going to reduce!

 

[najaB]

Not an excuse by any means, but an entirely valid concern for the high levels of immigration which Brussels would not address

How could Brussels address the UK government's choice not to implement the powers they had to control immigration?

 

[nw1]

Yes, sudden. According to the statistics at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/ net inward migration was well below 100K - typically around 50K for the 1990s up until 1997. Over the next 7 years it jumped to 268K in 2004, and has remained well above 200K in almost every year since then. Compared to the time it takes to build infrastructure, that's a pretty sudden jump - and one that, as far as we can tell - was largely not anticipated by the Government of the time.



So what? Yes, the Government arguably made mistakes in the mid 2000's. But in 2016 we were where we were and we had to respond to the situation at the time. And the situation in 2016 was that immigration levels had become unsustainably high, largely due to people taking advantage of FOM, and there was no way to fix the problem while remaining in the EU. Saying 'if only the Government had done something different in 2005' is not a policy option if the year is 2016.



True, but again, so what? Brexit did make a difference to the numbers of people coming from EU, which has helped the situation. The numbers of people coming from outside the EU is a different issue which will presumably require different solutions unrelated to Brexit. (And actually I'd argue that one good consequence of Brexit is that the reduction in FOM immigration means the Government now has more leeway to allow more immigration from outside the EU - which in many cases is made up of people who arguably have more need to come here - people escaping the repression in Hong Kong, for example).



I'm afraid that looks to me like the usual 'progressive'/'left-wing' tactic in arguments of trying to make up motives for your opponents instead of addressing people's actual concerns. Sure, I don't doubt that there are people who didn't want to be in the EU for other reasons, but the fact is that FOM lead to a vast increase in immigration into the UK - and that was a genuine concern for many people, and a reason in its own right why many people voted for Brexit.

This is only a problem if you have a problem with immigration.

France and Germany don't see the need to restrict immigration from other parts of the EU, why do we?

The modern UK political dogma seems to regard immigration/emigration as a bad thing. What about looking at it another way, in that it opens up doors and gives you more options on how you want to live your life? What if you have personal reasons for wanting to move? Brexit could destroy potential relationships between UK and EU citizens, maybe the selfish anti-immigrationists should think about that before whinging and whining about having to share your neighbourhood, or block of flats, with foreigners. There would be no way for a UK and EU citizen to have a close relationship now, unless they both move to Ireland. Also it locks UK citizens into having to endure our terrible wet, dark winters. SAD is a real thing and FoM opened up the opportunity to seek work and live elsewhere in Europe under kinder climates where it never gets dark shortly after 4pm and it's not permanently dull and raining from November to January.

I just don't think some people get what an extreme curtailment of rights and opportunities Brexit is. And the anti-immigrationists need to realise that FoM gave them the right to live elsewhere. Maybe they need to realise that, rather than whinging and whining about foreigners, they need to realise they could be an immigrant too: they could learn another language and emigrate themselves.

 

[RT4038]

This is only a problem if you have a problem with immigration.

Which a lot of people have. Maybe you could look at your own point of view and try to understand why this may be?

France and Germany don't see the need to restrict immigration from other parts of the EU, why do we?

Perhaps those countries have other overriding considerations to them staying in the EU? I think both countries have fairly large groups of opposition against the uncontrolled immigration to their countries. However, their populations have not had the chance of a referendum on the issue.

The modern UK political dogma seems to regard immigration/emigration as a bad thing. What about looking at it another way, in that it opens up doors and gives you more options on how you want to live your life?

You can look at this way, and you can also discount it if you wish. To those who perceive that they don't want / need doors to be opened or more options, why would you put up with the downsides of others exercising this?

Brexit could destroy potential relationships between UK and EU citizens, maybe the selfish anti-immigrationists should think about that before whinging and whining about having to share your neighbourhood, or block of flats, with foreigners.

Well of course selfishness works both ways. Selfish immigrationists who wish to subject fellow citizens to such things, so they can easily leave the country?

There would be no way for a UK and EU citizen to have a close relationship now, unless they both move to Ireland.

Wherever do you get that idea from? People have always had close relationships over borders, UK included. Immigration rules permit it, you know? Settlement visa, then apply for citizenship if they want, or equivalent vice versa for you to another country. More hoops, but certainly not 'no way'!!!! Methinks there is a bit of hyperbole and exaggeration here.

Also it locks UK citizens into having to endure our terrible wet, dark winters. SAD is a real thing and FoM opened up the opportunity to seek work and live elsewhere in Europe under kinder climates where it never gets dark shortly after 4pm and it's not permanently dull and raining from November to January.

We are British, we are used to such things. It is in our DNA. 90 days in each 180 should give people plenty of sun. 'Enduring' is mere hyperbole.

I just don't think some people get what an extreme curtailment of rights and opportunities Brexit is. And the anti-immigrationists need to realise that FoM gave them the right to live elsewhere. Maybe they need to realise that, rather than whinging and whining about foreigners, they need to realise they could be an immigrant too: they could learn another language and emigrate themselves.

But if you don't want to exercise this right, and you perceive others exercising their reciprocal right is adversely affecting you, I do not see it as selfish to vote to curtail these rights, any more than it is selfish for those, such as yourself, who wish to avail themselves (both by work and relationship) of the right, imposing these adverse effects on those who don't.

As much as you want to tell others what they must realise, you must realise that all was not sweetness and light to those who did not wish to learn other languages or become emigrants. Particularly when many of those who were adversely affected would have had great difficulty learning another language, and anyway there were no employment opportunities elsewhere in the EU for them to go to. It is somewhat disingenious to suggest that FOM was some sort of 'people go round' which everybody should be happy with for the greater good.

I have strong sympathies with your views on FOM, but I can also see the imperfections and understand what the issues are and why people voted the way they did. There is certainly not a 'right' or 'wrong' way of thought, and poking fun or hurling insults is not at all helpful. The real annoyance is that when the problem surfaced, that amendments/concessions could not be made to head off the armageddon option that was adopted. But maybe that is just symptomatic of a fundamental difference of outlook between the UK and the rest of Europe?

 

[najaB]

To those who perceive that they don't want / need doors to be opened or more options, why would you put up with the downsides of others exercising this?

"I'm alright so screw you".

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is only a problem if you have a problem with immigration.

That's a very loaded way of putting it. It's not about having any 'problem' with immigration per se. It's about recognising that immigration, while being great in some ways (freedom for people, exposure to different cultures and ways of thinking, economic benefits, etc.), can only be sustained up to a certain point: If the rate of people arriving in any country becomes too great, then immigration starts to do more harm than good because of pressures on infrastructure, destabilisation of local communities, etc. Freedom of movement sounds like a lovely ideal, but it doesn't provide any way for countries to control the rate of immigration to ensure those problems don't occur.

France and Germany don't see the need to restrict immigration from other parts of the EU, why do we?

Because, as I've said several times, FOM hasn't caused the unsustainable influx into France and Germany that the UK saw.

The modern UK political dogma seems to regard immigration/emigration as a bad thing. What about looking at it another way, in that it opens up doors and gives you more options on how you want to live your life? What if you have personal reasons for wanting to move? Brexit could destroy potential relationships between UK and EU citizens, maybe the selfish anti-immigrationists should think about that before whinging and whining about having to share your neighbourhood, or block of flats, with foreigners.

You seem to think my point of view is selfish, but to me, it's your attitude that looks selfish - because you keep going on about your own desire to roam the World without having to apply for visas etc., but your posts don't seem to show any concern for the needs of the local communities around you.

To take an example, I live in a part of London that has become very cosmopolitan - loads of people from Europe: And individually, to my mind, they are lovely people and very welcome. But the flip side of that is large numbers of people who grew up here being effectively forced to move out against their will - to have to abandon the place where they grew up, where all their friends are, etc. because the influx of new people has driven house prices and rents up, resulting in local people being unable to afford to live in their own communities any more. That's a problem which is caused in large part by Freedom of Movement (although to be fair it's not the only cause: Lack of infrastructure planning and housebuilding by the UK Government played its part too). You're very hot on defending your right to roam the World, but it'd be nice if you could show some concern for the people affected by those kinds of problems too.

(And don't get me wrong: I think the desire to move abroad is a perfectly legitimate desire. If that's what you personally want to do, then I hope you're able to achieve that. But I think it's important to consider the needs of local communities as well as of individuals).

 

[E27007]

How could Brussels address the UK government's choice not to implement the powers they had to control immigration?

By taking serious action to address the concerns raised by PM Cameron in his pre-referendum meetings with the EU as he warned of the aggrieved UK electorate and the high risk of a Leave result

 

[AlterEgo]

The modern UK political dogma seems to regard immigration/emigration as a bad thing. What about looking at it another way, in that it opens up doors and gives you more options on how you want to live your life? What if you have personal reasons for wanting to move?

I would like to move to Canada or Singapore for personal reasons but I don't think it's unfair I can't.

There would be no way for a UK and EU citizen to have a close relationship now, unless they both move to Ireland.

Do you even read what you post? Of course you can have close relationships with people from other countries - there are still loads of ways for foreigners to enter, work, stay and settle permanently in the UK.

Also it locks UK citizens into having to endure our terrible wet, dark winters.

Clutching at straws here really.

I just don't think some people get what an extreme curtailment of rights and opportunities Brexit is. And the anti-immigrationists need to realise that FoM gave them the right to live elsewhere. Maybe they need to realise that, rather than whinging and whining about foreigners, they need to realise they could be an immigrant too: they could learn another language and emigrate themselves.

What if they'd like to stay at home? Lots of people simply don't want to leave their home and don't value the transactional nature of the right of EU FoM. And it is transactional.

Brexit is bad, but for one main reason - it's very likely to stunt our growth and make us poorer and smaller on the world stage.

All this stuff about dark winters and not being able to be friends with Finnish people or whatever is not an attractive or sensible argument.

 

[RT4038]

"I'm alright so screw you".

Works both ways.

 

[najaB]

By taking serious action to address the concerns raised by PM Cameron in his pre-referendum meetings with the EU as he warned of the aggrieved UK electorate and the high risk of a Leave result

The UK wasn't using the powers we already had, so why would the EU give us more powers?

Patient: You prescribed this medicine and it's not working!
Doctor: Have you been taking them three times a day as I instructed?
Patient: No, I've only been taking them in the morning. They aren't working, I want something else!
Doctor: …

 

[RT4038]

The UK wasn't using the powers we already had, so why would the EU give us more powers?

Patient: You prescribed this medicine and it's not working!
Doctor: Have you been taking them three times a day as I instructed?
Patient: No, I've only been taking them in the morning. They aren't working, I want something else!
Doctor: …

I don't think these powers were of any help by 2016? In good faith the country had opened its doors in 2005 to the new accession countries, but once opened I don't think it was possible to close them again when it was realised what the effects were. With hindsight you can blame the politicians of 2005, but that held little truck with the electorate in 2016. The EU did not proscribe restrictions to FoM in 2005, they were voluntary , and in good UK form the spirit of FoM was upheld. (I am not sure how easy it would have been to implement the permitted, time limited, restrictions anyway, without changing some of our systems to a more mainland European model, which would not have been acceptable to the UK electorate).
The EU may well have taken the view that it was too bad that the UK didn't impose the permitted restrictions on FoM 11 years earlier and that the consequences would have to be lived with - but the result was Brexit.

 

[GS250]

Have to say this thread is providing some great entertainment!!!

Two points I'll pick up on, both by NW1.

Those horrible dark UK winters. Seriously? Are they really that bad? Now I know SAD is an actual thing and not to be taken lightly. Depression runs intermittently on one side of my extended family so I know its no joke. But there are far worse places in the World where winter really is truly long and dark. Have to say the apparent nastiness of our winters wasn't apparent as I sat on the end of Bournemouth Pier between xmas and the NY in glorious sunshine and 17c last year!

Wanting to galivant around the World and encourage others to do so. Yes...its a great concept. Cultural enrichment and experiencing other environments can only be good for the long term well being of the human race. Economically it can bring great benefits too. However the flip side, as has been pointed out above is the potential effect on those already living there. This applies to areas where people are either incoming or outgoing too. The apparent middle class EU 'diversity party' going on in parts of London is all well and good if you are relatively wealthy. However, how many of those who were actually raised in an area where they are connected with family can afford to live there now? And we're talking the Windrush 2nd-3rd generation plus the original East/West enders etc. They loved their cheap EU labour too who were willing to live alongside them in cramped conditions but thankfully they wised up sooner than later. And then of course there's those areas that have seen people leave en masse. Is that really a good thing? What happened to those living in Poland when they wanted a builder or a Doctor?

 

[DoubleLemon]

I disagree.

The "concessions" that the UK had (kindly allowing us to retain both our own currency and borders) were made long before the Eurosceptic movement had any steam (except among some Conservatives). More than that, the EU does not "leave things as they are". It's not what they do and when the time was right those concessions would have been withdrawn. There was nothing "soft" about our membership at all and certainly nothing soft that would have continued for very long had we voted to remain.

You don't have a single shred of evidence for this yet you seem to be presenting this as fact. Which was indicative of the leave campaign in general. Make up something which may happen (but no one was even thinking about it) and present the worst possable outcome as if its a dead cert that its going to happen.

 

[Peterthegreat]

You don't have a single shred of evidence for this yet you seem to be presenting this as fact. Which was indicative of the leave campaign in general. Make up something which may happen (but no one was even thinking about it) and present the worst possable outcome as if its a dead cert that its going to happen.

But the EU army would have enforced the arrival of 40 billion turks had we not left.

 

[nw1]

That's a very loaded way of putting it. It's not about having any 'problem' with immigration per se. It's about recognising that immigration, while being great in some ways (freedom for people, exposure to different cultures and ways of thinking, economic benefits, etc.), can only be sustained up to a certain point: If the rate of people arriving in any country becomes too great, then immigration starts to do more harm than good because of pressures on infrastructure, destabilisation of local communities, etc. Freedom of movement sounds like a lovely ideal, but it doesn't provide any way for countries to control the rate of immigration to ensure those problems don't occur.



Because, as I've said several times, FOM hasn't caused the unsustainable influx into France and Germany that the UK saw.



You seem to think my point of view is selfish, but to me, it's your attitude that looks selfish - because you keep going on about your own desire to roam the World without having to apply for visas etc., but your posts don't seem to show any concern for the needs of the local communities around you.

But are foreigners really the problem with the needs of communities? Or is austerity-led cuts to public services such as buses, or the closure of shops, pubs and the like, the bigger problem? I would definitely say the latter. And the latter is mostly driven by government cuts and/or the free market (I'm not judging these, by the way, just mentioning them as a potential cause), not the presence of immigrants.

To take an example, I live in a part of London that has become very cosmopolitan - loads of people from Europe: And individually, to my mind, they are lovely people and very welcome. But the flip side of that is large numbers of people who grew up here being effectively forced to move out against their will - to have to abandon the place where they grew up, where all their friends are, etc. because the influx of new people has driven house prices and rents up, resulting in local people being unable to afford to live in their own communities any more. That's a problem which is caused in large part by Freedom of Movement (although to be fair it's not the only cause: Lack of infrastructure planning and housebuilding by the UK Government played its part too). You're very hot on defending your right to roam the World, but it'd be nice if you could show some concern for the people affected by those kinds of problems too.

So why is it OK in that case for affluent people from Surrey to move to Somerset and Cornwall and push up the house prices there? (For avoidance of doubt, I would not advocate such intra-UK movement restrictions, but it's basically the same idea).

I just tend to think the problem with immigration are exaggerated.

But at the end of the day maybe this is one of these arguments that's going to go round in circles as most people (including myself, I will admit) are pretty set on their point of view. I would just like to see some recognition from one of the parties that pro-FoM and pro-EU people do actually exist.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2022 ==

I would like to move to Canada or Singapore for personal reasons but I don't think it's unfair I can't.


Do you even read what you post? Of course you can have close relationships with people from other countries - there are still loads of ways for foreigners to enter, work, stay and settle permanently in the UK.

But not easily or reliably though. From 1973 to 2019 EEC/EU citizens could freely move here. Now they can try, but absolutely no guarantee that they will succeed.

Brexit is bad, but for one main reason - it's very likely to stunt our growth and make us poorer and smaller on the world stage.

I agree with that; it's my other main objection to Brexit.

All this stuff about dark winters and not being able to be friends with Finnish people or whatever is not an attractive or sensible argument.

Isn't it? I think it's about freedom. I will admit that I have a more philosophical attachment to freedom than some others, and particularly resent the removal of rights held since 1973 and the fact that UK citizens have much less freedom to emigrate than the rest of western and central Europe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But are foreigners really the problem with the needs of communities? Or is austerity-led cuts to public services such as buses, or the closure of shops, pubs and the like, the bigger problem? I would definitely say the latter. And the latter is mostly driven by government cuts and/or the free market (I'm not judging these, by the way, just mentioning them as a potential cause), not the presence of immigrants.

It is mathematically indisputable that if - say - 10 000 new people move into an area, then, depending how many occupy a house, there will be x 000 fewer houses available for local people than if no-one had moved in (at least until more houses can be built). Unless there was previously a large surplus of houses, that means that some locals will be forced out of the area, probably against their will. No amount of fretting about buses or the market or whatever can change the laws of mathematics!

So why is it OK in that case for affluent people from Surrey to move to Somerset and Cornwall and push up the house prices there? (For avoidance of doubt, I would not advocate such intra-UK movement restrictions, but it's basically the same idea).

My answer would be that at an individual level, you can't judge anyone for wanting to move. But if it's large numbers of people and it's shutting locals out of their own community, then, at a community level, it becomes not OK, and something that the Government should address. Of course it's a difficult problem - but hey, welcome to the real world!

The impression your posts give me is that you seem to imagine some ideal world in which freedom to go anywhere is absolute. But unfortunately we all live in the Real World - a World in which people's actions affect other people and you have to balance people's rights against each other: One person's right to roam the World against another person's right to actually have somewhere to live, for example! In the Real World, solutions are often messy, and you often have to just deal with the problems that you can solve, and leave problems that you can't solve. In this example, I would say that too many people coming into the UK is a problem you can solve - although, sadly, thanks to the EU's unwillingness to compromise on FOM, the solution ended up being Brexit. Internal migration within the UK causing people to be shut out of their communities is a similar problem which maybe we can't solve - because the right to move within your own country is so fundamental. Having said that, I certainly would like to see some action, at the very least, to prevent people buying 2nd homes in places where locals can't get a look-in for their first homes, and perhaps some regulation to control how much homes in those areas are marketed to outsiders.

 

[The Ham]

Immigration is often going to cause a heated debate regardless of what view individuals hold.

The sight difficulty that the UK has is that the population is growing, but 1/3 (2.6 million out of 7.5 million in increase in UK population) of the growth seen between 1996 and 2016 is from those aged 65 and older.

Arguably the percentage increase in over 65 would have been even greater without immigration and may well have seen the number of under 16's fall rather than being less than 0.5 million larger over that timeframe.

It is one of the reasons why Canada is looking to increase the rate of immigration.

Yes there needs to be some controls, however there also needs to be some immigration, as without it there wouldn't be the workforce to provide the goods and services that those who have retired require.

Over the 20 years from 1996 to 2016 the population grew by about 13%, or about 0.6% year on year. That sort of growth, with good governance, should be sustainable.

To bring it to a more easy to comprehend level, of there was a town with 5,000 homes in it they would have had to have built a further 650 homes over a 20 year period to deal with that level of population increase.

The problem is, because of the aging population, services like doctors surgeries see more use from those who are older than those who are younger. Likewise with an aging population there are fewer children, so fewer family homes and so you need more homes to house the same population (especially if people lose their spouse, which is quite likely the older people get). As such those 5,650 homes aren't enough for the population (even though it should be if household size was the same as it was 20 years ago) and so people get priced out of home ownership (that's before you consider the increase in second homes).

As such services, like doctors, get overloaded, and infrastructure, like houses, get stretched much more because of the aging population than is the case for the same population increase from immigration.

The problem is that a political party saying so would find older people not voting for them, so another reason is found. Even though some immigration is needed (how much is up for debate, but zero is unlikely to be the right answer - unless we can do a lot more automation of jobs).

 

[Annetts key]

It is mathematically indisputable that if - say - 10 000 new people move into an area, then, depending how many occupy a house, there will be x 000 fewer houses available for local people than if no-one had moved in (at least until more houses can be built). Unless there was previously a large surplus of houses, that means that some locals will be forced out of the area, probably against their will. No amount of fretting about buses or the market or whatever can change the laws of mathematics!

You can’t move into a house, flat, home or building that does not exist.

And tourist towns, cities and other areas in the U.K. experience significant changes in population between the traditional holiday season and out of season times. Our world does not stop because of this (yes, I live in a tourist area). Some of these tourists decide to move here permanently.

It’s never a question that I have asked before, but I suspect people that want to move, do find and sort out where they will be living before moving. Especially if you are moving from one country to another.

The main problem that local people have, is the amount of money they need to buy their own home. Has the price of property really gone down since brexit? Did all those people from other E.U. countries that went home make any significant difference to the ability of locals to buy their own home?

And one fundamental principle that I think is important, is that it’s far better to have official routes and processes that people can use (and by this I mean practical methods), rather than the alternative, which then encourages illegal routes and methods. The latter results in criminals getting involved and making money out of the people who want to take the unofficial routes.

It’s all well and good to go on about ‘too many’. But how many is that? What are the limits? Both of the total population in this country and of the number of people moving here?

And do we ignore the birth rate in this country or take that into account?

I certainly would be uneasy if people actually think that it’s a good idea to try to impose limits on the above in a country that is supposed to be free and democratic.