The EU "Deal" - poll!

[Shaw S Hunter]

Cameron promised the referendum because he was afraid of UKIP making inroads into his core vote. This was a real thing because UKIP had won the popular vote in the Europeans in May 2014. He was also fearful of a labour/SNP coalition getting into power. So he thought neutralising UKIP by offering a referendum, and campaigning on a 'vote labour or UKIP, get SNP' ticket would win him the election. Seems to have worked.

Hardly. The only election since the referendum led to the current lame-duck minority government. Not a successful outcome at all. And that with a rather dysfunctional opposition.

The crass error Cameron made was that the UK electorate would vote to remain even with his sham negotiations and he seems to have convinced the EU leaders he was right.

True enough. I'm glad that such arrogance led to his complete exit from politics.

 

[bramling]

Hardly. The only election since the referendum led to the current lame-duck minority government. Not a successful outcome at all. And that with a rather dysfunctional opposition.

The strategy worked very well in 2015, combined with a manifesto that actually made people want to vote Conversative. By contrast May's 2017 manifesto and campaign was like a flat fizzy drink.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The strategy worked very well in 2015, combined with a manifesto that actually made people want to vote Conversative. By contrast May's 2017 manifesto and campaign was like a flat fizzy drink.

Except the referendum wasn't until 2016 and has only damaged the Conservative Party's standing subsequently even with a dying UKIP. In trying to avoid a "civil war" within his party Cameron has only managed to create bitter division across the country. It could all have been dealt with so much better. The more time goes on the more I look back on the period of the Coalition government with a regret at what has been lost.

 

[bramling]

Except the referendum wasn't until 2016 and has only damaged the Conservative Party's standing subsequently even with a dying UKIP. In trying to avoid a "civil war" within his party Cameron has only managed to create bitter division across the country.

I don't think it's fair to blame Cameron for creating that division across the country. In my view it was already there, and eventually the lid was going to burst off the bottle. If anything I'd suggest previous governments in the 1990s and - particularly - the 2000s are more to blame for not addressing concerns about immigration and EU membership.

The rise of UKIP was simply reflecting the public mood, and eventually a major party was going to have to take notice.

The more time goes on the more I look back on the period of the Coalition government with a regret at what has been lost.

Agreed. Whilst not perfect, it wasn't a bad government at all IMO. I've always thought history has been a little unfair to Nick Clegg, even if personally his political persuasion isn't to my taste.

 

[Howardh]

I can't understand why brexiters are so keen for us to lose our freedom of movement, if as alluded to above had the referendum been multiple choice, I for one would have voted for the EFTA/EEA option so we would have left but still kept the benefits. Cake, bananas, passports, the lot.

 

[Ken H]

I can't understand why brexiters are so keen for us to lose our freedom of movement, if as alluded to above had the referendum been multiple choice, I for one would have voted for the EFTA/EEA option so we would have left but still kept the benefits. Cake, bananas, passports, the lot.

because it does not allow the UK to prioritise those with skills we need. `Its also discriminatory against non EU citizens, who have to use a proper process.

 

[bramling]

I can't understand why brexiters are so keen for us to lose our freedom of movement.

Not just a Brexiteer thing.

This is perhaps what the remain campaign failed to grasp - not that much could be done about it if remaining of course.

 

[nidave]

We have the European Union (Withdrawal) act 2018.
That states quite clearly, that if Parliament fails to endorse a UK/EU agreement, then we just leave on 29th March 2019. We resort to WTO.
This act became necessary because Gina Miller challenged in court the government position that leaving the EU did not require parliamentary approval.

So to extend Article 50, or to have a referendum that has any effect, or to remain in the EU, then a new act needs passing to allow this. But will MP's vote for that when they have not voted for the draft Withdrawal Agreement(WA)? They will have to admit they are negating the the result of a referendum.

If Mays WA fails to pass in the commons, then I would expect a vote of no confidence in the government. I think the DUP will vote against the government, so the vote will succeed. Then the Tories have 14 days to change things to get the DUP on side, then win a vote of confidence, to avoid a general election(GE). They could probably do that by sacking May and installing a caretaker PM acceptable to the Tories and the DUP.
The WA failing in the commons, or losing a vote of confidence does not mean an automatic GE. This is all laid down in The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

DUP = Democratic Unionist Party.

We cant just fall back on WTO rules as we have to be accepted to the WTO and places like the Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Russa are making complaints about our current application as we are trying to bodge it rather than do it properly.
https://mlexmarketinsight.com/insig...blocks-uks-post-brexit-tariff-proposal-at-wto

"The UK’s proposal to split its import quotas from those of the EU after Brexit has drawn an official objection from Russia at the World Trade Organization, MLex has learned.

An objection from a single trading partner means that the WTO can’t certify the proposal until the problem is resolved. It might also force the UK to undergo the full procedure for changing its rates, rather than the simplified “rectification” procedure it has so far pursued."

 

[Howardh]

because it does not allow the UK to prioritise those with skills we need. `Its also discriminatory against non EU citizens, who have to use a proper process.

Not just a Brexiteer thing.
This is perhaps what the remain campaign failed to grasp - not that much could be done about it if remaining of course.

Judging by Sky news today, there seems to be a growing momentum behind the Norway/EFTA model which would keep, as far as I know, a degree of - if not all of - freedom of movement. If we eventually end up down that route, we have left the EU (box ticked) so what would, or could, those of you who think freedom of movement is dreadful do about it?

 

[geoffk]

Judging by Sky news today, there seems to be a growing momentum behind the Norway/EFTA model which would keep, as far as I know, a degree of - if not all of - freedom of movement. If we eventually end up down that route, we have left the EU (box ticked) so what would, or could, those of you who think freedom of movement is dreadful do about it?

Freedom of movement isn't just about Poles, Romanians etc. coming here. It's about our children's and (if we're old enough) our grandchildren's future, their right to study, live, work and retire in 27 other countries. Why would they want to give up that? The European workers who come here contribute to our economy and pay taxes. Without them, there would be a crisis in the NHS, social care, agriculture and construction, not to mention hotels and restaurants.

 

[EM2]

because it does not allow the UK to prioritise those with skills we need. `Its also discriminatory against non EU citizens, who have to use a proper process.

In that case, just have free movement for everyone. No hurdles for the best people wherever they might be from, and no discrimination against those from outside the EU.
Problem solved!

 

[bramling]

In that case, just have free movement for everyone. No hurdles for the best people wherever they might be from, and no discrimination against those from outside the EU.
Problem solved!

Simple. Now work out how you solve a self-inflicted housing disaster...

 

[EM2]

Simple. Now work out how you solve a self-inflicted housing disaster...

Is the answer 'build more housing'?

 

[Giugiaro]

"Build more housing" might not be the wrong answer, but it is indeed incomplete.

Up until now most of the housing has been made for the rich to buy and sell as assets and haven't really solved the issue, but rather create a whole other problem.
Build more affordable housing could be more sensible, but with just that as the criteria, the country would quickly become more Soviet/Communist looking in a pinch.

 

[Howardh]

Simple. Now work out how you solve a self-inflicted housing disaster...

Just out of interest, Japan is roughly the same size as the UK and has a population density of 903 people per square mile. They are thirty-fifth in the world's list; we are the 49th most densely populated.
Any idea how they cope when we can't? Of course one (the Netherlands) is famed for reclaiming from the sea.
Here's a list; http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php
To be fair I have emboldened larger countries as places like Monaco and Singapore skew the list a bit!
Rank; name; Pop; /sq km /sq mile
1 Monaco 38,897 26,105.37 67,612.62 Europe
2 China, Macao SAR 632,418 21,151.10 54,781.13 Asia
3 Singapore 5,791,901 8,274.14 21,429.94 Asia
4 China, Hong Kong SAR 7,428,887 7,075.13 18,324.51 Asia
5 Gibraltar 34,733 3,473.30 8,995.81 Europe
6 Bahrain 1,566,993 2,061.83 5,340.12 Asia
7 Holy See 801 1,820.45 4,714.96 Europe
8 Maldives 444,259 1,480.86 3,835.42 Asia
9 Malta 432,089 1,350.28 3,497.21 Europe
10 Bangladesh 166,368,149 1,278.08 3,310.22 Asia
11 Bermuda 61,070 1,221.40 3,163.41 North America
12 Sint Maarten (Dutch part) 40,552 1,192.71 3,089.10 North America
13 Channel Islands 166,083 874.12 2,263.96 Europe
14 State of Palestine 5,052,776 839.33 2,173.86 Asia
15 Mayotte 259,682 692.49 1,793.53 Africa
16 China, Taiwan Province of China 23,694,089 669.14 1,733.05 Asia
17 Barbados 286,388 666.02 1,724.98 North America
18 Mauritius 1,268,315 624.79 1,618.19 Africa
19 Lebanon 6,093,509 595.65 1,542.73 Asia
20 Aruba 105,670 587.06 1,520.47 North America
21 Nauru 11,312 565.60 1,464.90 Oceania
22 San Marino 33,557 559.28 1,448.54 Europe
23 Republic of Korea 51,164,435 526.22 1,362.91 Asia
24 Rwanda 12,501,156 506.74 1,312.44 Africa
25 Netherlands 17,084,459 506.66 1,312.23 Europe
26 India 1,354,051,854 455.42 1,179.53 Asia
27 Comoros 832,347 447.26 1,158.39 Africa
28 Burundi 11,216,450 436.78 1,131.25 Africa
29 Puerto Rico 3,659,007 412.51 1,068.41 North America
30 Haiti 11,112,945 403.23 1,044.35 North America
31 Israel 8,452,841 390.61 1,011.68 Asia
32 Belgium 11,498,519 379.74 983.52 Europe
33 Tuvalu 11,287 376.23 974.44 Oceania
34 Curaçao 161,577 363.91 942.53 North America
35 Martinique 385,065 363.27 940.86 North America
36 Philippines 106,512,074 357.22 925.19 Asia
37 Réunion 883,247 353.30 915.04 Africa
38 Japan 127,185,332 348.88 903.59 Asia
39 Sri Lanka 20,950,041 334.08 865.26 Asia
40 Grenada 108,339 318.64 825.28 North America
41 Viet Nam 96,491,146 311.19 805.98 Asia
42 El Salvador 6,411,558 309.44 801.44 North America
43 Guam 165,718 306.89 794.83 Oceania
44 United States Virgin Islands 104,914 299.75 776.36 North America
45 Marshall Islands 53,167 295.37 765.01 Oceania
46 Saint Lucia 179,667 294.54 762.85 North America
47 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 110,200 282.56 731.84 North America
48 American Samoa 55,679 278.40 721.04 Oceania
49 United Kingdom 66,573,504 275.18 712.70 Europe

 

[Gostav]

"Build more housing" might not be the wrong answer, but it is indeed incomplete.

Up until now most of the housing has been made for the rich to buy and sell as assets and haven't really solved the issue, but rather create a whole other problem.
Build more affordable housing could be more sensible, but with just that as the criteria, the country would quickly become more Soviet/Communist looking in a pinch.

Really？ I can also found those communist style public housing on Manchester suburbs.

 

[bramling]

Is the answer 'build more housing'?

If you want to live in an over populated congested dump then yes. Strangely enough not everyone wishes to buy in to this!

 

[Ken H]

Just out of interest, Japan is roughly the same size as the UK and has a population density of 903 people per square mile. They are thirty-fifth in the world's list; we are the 49th most densely populated.
Any idea how they cope when we can't? Of course one (the Netherlands) is famed for reclaiming from the sea.
Here's a list; http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php
To be fair I have emboldened larger countries as places like Monaco and Singapore skew the list a bit!
Rank; name; Pop; /sq km /sq mile
1 Monaco 38,897 26,105.37 67,612.62 Europe
2 China, Macao SAR 632,418 21,151.10 54,781.13 Asia
3 Singapore 5,791,901 8,274.14 21,429.94 Asia
4 China, Hong Kong SAR 7,428,887 7,075.13 18,324.51 Asia
5 Gibraltar 34,733 3,473.30 8,995.81 Europe
6 Bahrain 1,566,993 2,061.83 5,340.12 Asia
7 Holy See 801 1,820.45 4,714.96 Europe
8 Maldives 444,259 1,480.86 3,835.42 Asia
9 Malta 432,089 1,350.28 3,497.21 Europe
10 Bangladesh 166,368,149 1,278.08 3,310.22 Asia
11 Bermuda 61,070 1,221.40 3,163.41 North America
12 Sint Maarten (Dutch part) 40,552 1,192.71 3,089.10 North America
13 Channel Islands 166,083 874.12 2,263.96 Europe
14 State of Palestine 5,052,776 839.33 2,173.86 Asia
15 Mayotte 259,682 692.49 1,793.53 Africa
16 China, Taiwan Province of China 23,694,089 669.14 1,733.05 Asia
17 Barbados 286,388 666.02 1,724.98 North America
18 Mauritius 1,268,315 624.79 1,618.19 Africa
19 Lebanon 6,093,509 595.65 1,542.73 Asia
20 Aruba 105,670 587.06 1,520.47 North America
21 Nauru 11,312 565.60 1,464.90 Oceania
22 San Marino 33,557 559.28 1,448.54 Europe
23 Republic of Korea 51,164,435 526.22 1,362.91 Asia
24 Rwanda 12,501,156 506.74 1,312.44 Africa
25 Netherlands 17,084,459 506.66 1,312.23 Europe
26 India 1,354,051,854 455.42 1,179.53 Asia
27 Comoros 832,347 447.26 1,158.39 Africa
28 Burundi 11,216,450 436.78 1,131.25 Africa
29 Puerto Rico 3,659,007 412.51 1,068.41 North America
30 Haiti 11,112,945 403.23 1,044.35 North America
31 Israel 8,452,841 390.61 1,011.68 Asia
32 Belgium 11,498,519 379.74 983.52 Europe
33 Tuvalu 11,287 376.23 974.44 Oceania
34 Curaçao 161,577 363.91 942.53 North America
35 Martinique 385,065 363.27 940.86 North America
36 Philippines 106,512,074 357.22 925.19 Asia
37 Réunion 883,247 353.30 915.04 Africa
38 Japan 127,185,332 348.88 903.59 Asia
39 Sri Lanka 20,950,041 334.08 865.26 Asia
40 Grenada 108,339 318.64 825.28 North America
41 Viet Nam 96,491,146 311.19 805.98 Asia
42 El Salvador 6,411,558 309.44 801.44 North America
43 Guam 165,718 306.89 794.83 Oceania
44 United States Virgin Islands 104,914 299.75 776.36 North America
45 Marshall Islands 53,167 295.37 765.01 Oceania
46 Saint Lucia 179,667 294.54 762.85 North America
47 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 110,200 282.56 731.84 North America
48 American Samoa 55,679 278.40 721.04 Oceania
49 United Kingdom 66,573,504 275.18 712.70 Europe

comparing countries without looking at the land isnt helpful. There are huge parts of the UK that are not habitable. Like the Pennines, The Lakes, big parts of N Wales, and much of the Scottish Highlands. And also quite a lot of the UK is liable to flooding.

 

[bramling]

Just out of interest, Japan is roughly the same size as the UK and has a population density of 903 people per square mile. They are thirty-fifth in the world's list; we are the 49th most densely populated.
Any idea how they cope when we can't? Of course one (the Netherlands) is famed for reclaiming from the sea.
Here's a list; http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-population-density.php
To be fair I have emboldened larger countries as places like Monaco and Singapore skew the list a bit!
Rank; name; Pop; /sq km /sq mile
1 Monaco 38,897 26,105.37 67,612.62 Europe
2 China, Macao SAR 632,418 21,151.10 54,781.13 Asia
3 Singapore 5,791,901 8,274.14 21,429.94 Asia
4 China, Hong Kong SAR 7,428,887 7,075.13 18,324.51 Asia
5 Gibraltar 34,733 3,473.30 8,995.81 Europe
6 Bahrain 1,566,993 2,061.83 5,340.12 Asia
7 Holy See 801 1,820.45 4,714.96 Europe
8 Maldives 444,259 1,480.86 3,835.42 Asia
9 Malta 432,089 1,350.28 3,497.21 Europe
10 Bangladesh 166,368,149 1,278.08 3,310.22 Asia
11 Bermuda 61,070 1,221.40 3,163.41 North America
12 Sint Maarten (Dutch part) 40,552 1,192.71 3,089.10 North America
13 Channel Islands 166,083 874.12 2,263.96 Europe
14 State of Palestine 5,052,776 839.33 2,173.86 Asia
15 Mayotte 259,682 692.49 1,793.53 Africa
16 China, Taiwan Province of China 23,694,089 669.14 1,733.05 Asia
17 Barbados 286,388 666.02 1,724.98 North America
18 Mauritius 1,268,315 624.79 1,618.19 Africa
19 Lebanon 6,093,509 595.65 1,542.73 Asia
20 Aruba 105,670 587.06 1,520.47 North America
21 Nauru 11,312 565.60 1,464.90 Oceania
22 San Marino 33,557 559.28 1,448.54 Europe
23 Republic of Korea 51,164,435 526.22 1,362.91 Asia
24 Rwanda 12,501,156 506.74 1,312.44 Africa
25 Netherlands 17,084,459 506.66 1,312.23 Europe
26 India 1,354,051,854 455.42 1,179.53 Asia
27 Comoros 832,347 447.26 1,158.39 Africa
28 Burundi 11,216,450 436.78 1,131.25 Africa
29 Puerto Rico 3,659,007 412.51 1,068.41 North America
30 Haiti 11,112,945 403.23 1,044.35 North America
31 Israel 8,452,841 390.61 1,011.68 Asia
32 Belgium 11,498,519 379.74 983.52 Europe
33 Tuvalu 11,287 376.23 974.44 Oceania
34 Curaçao 161,577 363.91 942.53 North America
35 Martinique 385,065 363.27 940.86 North America
36 Philippines 106,512,074 357.22 925.19 Asia
37 Réunion 883,247 353.30 915.04 Africa
38 Japan 127,185,332 348.88 903.59 Asia
39 Sri Lanka 20,950,041 334.08 865.26 Asia
40 Grenada 108,339 318.64 825.28 North America
41 Viet Nam 96,491,146 311.19 805.98 Asia
42 El Salvador 6,411,558 309.44 801.44 North America
43 Guam 165,718 306.89 794.83 Oceania
44 United States Virgin Islands 104,914 299.75 776.36 North America
45 Marshall Islands 53,167 295.37 765.01 Oceania
46 Saint Lucia 179,667 294.54 762.85 North America
47 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 110,200 282.56 731.84 North America
48 American Samoa 55,679 278.40 721.04 Oceania
49 United Kingdom 66,573,504 275.18 712.70 Europe

It would be more relevant to break this down into the constituent parts of the U.K.

 

[Howardh]

It would be more relevant to break this down into the constituent parts of the U.K.

Yes. If it's overcrowded where you live, and the "solution" is to reduce immigration; how can you do that in certain areas and not in others? Why should someone in Scotland lose their freedom of movement because it's overcrowded in Surrey?
And what about inter-UK migration..in order to solve problems in London; should we in the north be banned from moving south?
There are two answers.
1. if someone doesn't like where they live as it's overcrowded...move!
I know that's not easy but if the situation's that bad that we have to remove people's freedom then maybe moving is the only solution; or isn't it so bad after all....
2. get the infrastructure and wages in other parts of the country up to scratch to make it (a) more agreeable for southerners to move elsewhere and (b) more of a reason for people up here to stay.

 

[bramling]

Yes. If it's overcrowded where you live, and the "solution" is to reduce immigration; how can you do that in certain areas and not in others? Why should someone in Scotland lose their freedom of movement because it's overcrowded in Surrey?
And what about inter-UK migration..in order to solve problems in London; should we in the north be banned from moving south?
There are two answers.
1. if someone doesn't like where they live as it's overcrowded...move!
I know that's not easy but if the situation's that bad that we have to remove people's freedom then maybe moving is the only solution; or isn't it so bad after all....
2. get the infrastructure and wages in other parts of the country up to scratch to make it (a) more agreeable for southerners to move elsewhere and (b) more of a reason for people up here to stay.

I, in principle at least, agree with the second of those - although naturally it’s easy to say but not something which is easy to do especially in the shorter term. However I don’t agree with the first - why should I move away from where I was born just because of the EU’s freedom of movement ideology? Part of the issue is of course that freedom of movement worked quite happily before the eastern enlargement. As ever the EU failed to adapt.

 

[Howardh]

I, in principle at least, agree with the second of those - although naturally it’s easy to say but not something which is easy to do especially in the shorter term. However I don’t agree with the first - why should I move away from where I was born just because of the EU’s freedom of movement ideology? Part of the issue is of course that freedom of movement worked quite happily before the eastern enlargement. As ever the EU failed to adapt.

I'll give you a clue....losing freedom of movement won't make one scrap of difference! Example...the figures of EU migrants entering the UK has gone down, not up since the vote. The lowest level since 2012. Have you noticed any difference? Course not, the roads are just as crowded as ever before...
And as I have alluded to several times before, that also restricts the number of people who wish to leave the UK but now can't...and there may well be a spike on the number of UK ex-pats returning.
So the net gain from FoM could be - more people living here, blocking the roads, filling the hospitals, crowding the schools.
Wouldn't it be as good by your methods to stop us moving freely around our own country? Why not??

 

[bramling]

I'll give you a clue....losing freedom of movement won't make one scrap of difference! Example...the figures of EU migrants entering the UK has gone down, not up since the vote. The lowest level since 2012. Have you noticed any difference? Course not, the roads are just as crowded as ever before...
And as I have alluded to several times before, that also restricts the number of people who wish to leave the UK but now can't...and there may well be a spike on the number of UK ex-pats returning.
So the net gain from FoM could be - more people living here, blocking the roads, filling the hospitals, crowding the schools.
Wouldn't it be as good by your methods to stop us moving freely around our own country? Why not??

Course no one has noticed the difference because the population size is still *rising*. However just because things aren’t noticeably emptier doesn’t mean it hasn’t been worthwhile, things would have been worse had the population increased more. As you say, EU immigration has reduced over the last couple of years, so that’s already a very worthwhile positive effect of the leave vote.

 

[EM2]

If you want to live in an over populated congested dump then yes. Strangely enough not everyone wishes to buy in to this!

OK, what about restoring the housing that is already built, but left empty or falling into disrepair?
Places like the 756 in Southampton:
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17270972.hundreds-of-homes-still-being-left-empty-in-southampton/

Government data revealed that there were 756 long-term empty homes in the city this September.

This compares to the previously reported figure of around 550 in 2016, meaning the increase is one of around 35 per cent.

Or 650 around Colchester:
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news...ill-empty-despite-colchester-homeless-crisis/

Housing charity Action on Empty Homes has warned empty homes reveal the “stark reality” of the country’s “broken” housing market.

In September, there were 650 long-term empty homes in the area.

Action on Empty Homes campaigns to bring more empty properties back into use for people in need of housing.

Government statistics do not include derelict properties which could be refurbished, or second homes that are rarely occupied.

Nearly three thousand in Hull:
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/theres-staggering-number-empty-houses-1058087

Hull has nearly 3,000 empty houses - with more than 100 of them left for longer than a decade.

Now calls for urgent action to tackle the problem have been made after figures show of the 3,000, almost 1,000 homes have been left empty for over two years.

In total, 452 of these have been left empty for two to five years and 311 have been left empty for five to ten years.

FIVE thousand in Derbyshire:
https://www.nedbd-libdems.com/housing/lib-dems-force-action-on-empty-houses/

In February 2018, the Liberal Democrats highlighted that over 5,000 homes across Derbyshire were left vacant, some of which had been empty for over 10 years.

That's nearly ten thousand empty homes while barely scratching the surface.

 

[Howardh]

Course no one has noticed the difference because the population size is still *rising*. However just because things aren’t noticeably emptier doesn’t mean it hasn’t been worthwhile, things would have been worse had the population increased more. As you say, EU immigration has reduced over the last couple of years, so that’s already a very worthwhile positive effect of the leave vote.

Except that it's risen significantly from the rest of the world. So no benefit at all in the vote.
Should we restrict people from moving from t'north to the south east? Same thing as restricting them moving from Belgium - which is nearer of course!

 

[nidave]

If you want to live in an over populated congested dump then yes. Strangely enough not everyone wishes to buy in to this!

If things are so bad in your area... MOVE

 

[Howardh]

The MOD has over 10,000 homes unused, many are in a state of disrepair but nothing a few grand couldn't solve. Reports are it's unlikely the MOD will wish to use them again so let's get families into them.

 

[radamfi]

A lot of people seem to actually relish the prospect of living in a crowded, hectic city, for example many of the people who have moved there. London saw a massive decrease in population from the 1950s to around 1990 and people were worried about the city's decline and what could be done to make people want to live in London again.

 

[Giugiaro]

Really？ I can also found those communist style public housing on Manchester suburbs.

As if having bad weather wasn't enough...

 

[mmh]

This thread is a great example of why remainers haven't had any success at persuading leavers, even though the process of leaving has turned out to be so awful.

They just don't get it. When, as an example from the last few posts, people have a concern about immigration, you don't change any minds with:

- Well Japan and Bangladesh (!) are more densely populated
- A lot of people live in London
- If you don't like it, move

They're all ludicrous responses, the last particularly so when used by someone from Northern Ireland!