EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[PHILIPE]

Whilst I agree that kicking out current EU residents would be counter productive, I'm afraid I don't share the same optimism for May's way of doing things. Some of her decisions as home secretary do make me think that a police state would suit her quite well. Indeed, if she does decide to kick out existing EU residents (and cause serious economic problems), she can blame it on the referendum, given how blunt an instrument it has been so far. "I was only doing what the people asked, which was to break ties with the EU", etc.

How could a police state suit her ? She slashed police numbers when she was Home Secretary

 

[NSEFAN]

How could a police state suit her ? She slashed police numbers when she was Home Secretary

The investigatory powers bill in particular gave me cause for concern, but you are quite right about slashing police numbers. Perhaps she just likes the idea of such a police state, but as a Conservative doesn't believe in the level of taxation required to actually pay for it. Much like wanting access to the single market without paying for it.

 

[meridian2]

So once again, if that is the case then why not guarantee that it won't happen?

Because the UK could prematurely state it will not repatriate European nationals, and the EU could say it will remove Brits as a bargaining chip in further negotiations. Most of the negotiations will be tit for tat, parity based exchanges which suit both sides to agree to, undermining any of those before the fact would be silly. The interesting negotiations will be of a more nuanced variety, even if the exchange is sold domestically as an Agincourt. It'll be mostly legalese and financial Tango and it'll take a long time to work out who "won".

Can you imagine Britain removing Irish EU nationals given both the numbers resident here, the history and an existing border? I can't.

 

[NSEFAN]

Because the UK could prematurely state it will not repatriate European nationals, and the EU could say it will remove Brits as a bargaining chip in further negotiations. Most of the negotiations will be tit for tat, parity based exchanges which suit both sides to agree to, undermining any of those before the fact would be silly. The interesting negotiations will be of a more nuanced variety, even if the exchange is sold domestically as an Agincourt. It'll be mostly legalese and financial Tango and it'll take a long time to work out who "won".

Can you imagine Britain removing Irish EU nationals given both the numbers resident here, the history and an existing border? I can't.

If Britain leaves the EU, will the EU as a single entity take any specific action such as unilaterally kicking out resident Brits? Since the UK wouldn't be in the EU, surely each individual EU nation could decide what to do independently?

 

[meridian2]

If Britain leaves the EU, will the EU as a single entity take any specific action such as unilaterally kicking out resident Brits? Since the UK wouldn't be in the EU, surely each individual EU nation could decide what to do independently?

You tell me! The EU speaks with one voice except when it doesn't. I wouldn't put good cop, bad cop tactics beyond the EU, but the overwhelming likelihood is that an agreement will be reached. Individual MEPs talk of "punishing" the UK for its independence. For an organisation founded on mutual reciprocity I believe such demands show more fear than confidence, in particular that the whole show might fall apart if one member makes a successful break. Is that what people want from an international community, threats and coercion to stay on message?

 

[HSTEd]

So how do you make bricklaying, vegetable picking, tarmac laying and so on attractive?

The obvious example would be to pay them more and give them better terms and conditions. Since the arduous nature of these jobs is inherent in them.
However automation will start to reduce the need for these jobs once the wages start to climb.

 

[AlterEgo]

Can you imagine Britain removing Irish EU nationals given both the numbers resident here, the history and an existing border? I can't.

Not a possibility thanks to the Ireland Act 1949 which states that under no circumstances is an Irish national ever considered a foreigner to the UK. It effectively gives Irish people the right to remain in the UK indefinitely (and the reverse also applies).

So that consideration should be removed from the equation.

 

[NSEFAN]

The obvious example would be to pay them more and give them better terms and conditions. Since the arduous nature of these jobs is inherent in them.
However automation will start to reduce the need for these jobs once the wages start to climb.

With more automation, 20 "fruit picker" jobs would be replaced with 1 "fruit picker technician", for example?

 

[ExRes]

But it appears that that is what many Leave voters expected (and wanted).
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/65...nals-kicked-out-of-UK-if-nation-leaves-Europe

Did I miss the part of the article stating how many people were polled in this ridiculous survey?

These surveys are as informative as picking rolled up pieces of paper out of a jar, perhaps members of this forum could state if they took part in it, personally I didn't even know such a survey existed and I very much doubt I'm the only one

 

[EM2]

Did I miss the part of the article stating how many people were polled in this ridiculous survey?

These surveys are as informative as picking rolled up pieces of paper out of a jar, perhaps members of this forum could state if they took part in it, personally I didn't even know such a survey existed and I very much doubt I'm the only one

You could ask the company that carried out the poll? Their name is mentioned in the extract posted.
It's 1,018 by the way - http://www.voxter.co.uk/blog-brexit-british-future

 

[me123]

Did I miss the part of the article stating how many people were polled in this ridiculous survey?

These surveys are as informative as picking rolled up pieces of paper out of a jar, perhaps members of this forum could state if they took part in it, personally I didn't even know such a survey existed and I very much doubt I'm the only one

It's a Daily Express survey - take with a pinch of salt. They are known to use samples of their own readers and present it as a national survey (a few years ago they claimed that something like 99% of British people wanted to leave the EU based on a survey carried out on the Daily Express website... hardly a balanced audience). They also recently claimed that 98% of people don't want to go through the Article 50 process and thought we should leave the EU immediately - again, this was a telephone survey of Express readers and not a representative population.

Perfectly acceptable to use the statistics provided that the methodology is made clear.

 

[meridian2]

Did I miss the part of the article stating how many people were polled in this ridiculous survey?

These surveys are as informative as picking rolled up pieces of paper out of a jar, perhaps members of this forum could state if they took part in it, personally I didn't even know such a survey existed and I very much doubt I'm the only one

There's a survey for every occasion. 1 in 10 people think HTML is a sexually transmitted disease. More than half of people surveyed think bad weather affects their computing cloud. 1 in 4 Americans think the sun goes round the earth. 40% of Americans would save their dog before a foreign tourist, etc, etc.

 

[EM2]

It's a Daily Express survey - take with a pinch of salt.

Except it isn't:

What the public thinks about Brexit and migration: 4 new insights

British Future commissioned Voxter to explore the public’s views on migration, specifically the status of existing EU migrants in Britain and Britons living in the EU. Our research was used in a recent open letter published in the Financial Times, and Daily Mail.

We would like to share some of the results:

We ran a Voxter online forum on 30/31 March with 1018 Nat Rep UK participants. Our platform involves sharing ideas and opinions anonymously, rating each other’s views and answering traditional survey questions.

We are now analysing the results but we already have some interesting preliminary findings about the public’s views on migration and a possible Brexit.

 

[ExRes]

1018 participants in a survey from 11 months ago, I think I'll definitely treat it with the contempt it deserves regardless of who held it

 

[meridian2]

Let's be clear, the problem has never been French and German people migrating to Britain, the numbers wouldn't affect any UK institution. Even migration of Brits to Spain and France, which has changed communities and created ghettoes, is seen as a perk for local economies even if locals grumble about its effects. The problem is mass migration from anywhere. This isn't a one way problem, a Polish magazine offered young academics a £5k bonus to stay, and the British Polish chamber of commerce has a campaign for Poles to return home. There's an issue with UK medics taking their services overseas on a large scale. Imagine that multiplied through every British profession and service, and you can see how it effects the future of a country.

Mass migration is justified on the basis it provides cheap labour for a few years, there's no other rationale for a brain and labour drain from one country to another. Any country habitually exporting its brightest and best is storing problems for the future.

 

[radamfi]

Mass migration is justified on the basis it provides cheap labour for a few years, there's no other rationale for a brain and labour drain from one country to another. Any country habitually exporting its brightest and best is storing problems for the future.

Does it similarly cause problems if people migrate from one part of a country to another, for example north of England to London?

 

[meridian2]

Does it similarly cause problems if people migrate from one part of a country to another, for example north of England to London?

I'd argue it does, yes. The solution is for central government to revitalise the regions and disperse the economy more equitably. Not for one city to hog the big stuff because the "important" people live just down the road.

 

[furnessvale]

There's a survey for every occasion. 1 in 10 people think HTML is a sexually transmitted disease. More than half of people surveyed think bad weather affects their computing cloud. 1 in 4 Americans think the sun goes round the earth. 40% of Americans would save their dog before a foreign tourist, etc, etc.

Only 40%? May get a shock if they asked that question in the UK!

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue it does, yes. The solution is for central government to revitalise the regions and disperse the economy more equitably. Not for one city to hog the big stuff because the "important" people live just down the road.

But we don't live in some sort of stalinist dictatorship where the economy can be dismantled and moved by party diktat.
London's success is merely a demonstrate of the inherent superiority of large cities over more dispersed living in economic terms.
Cities are incredibly powerful structures, which is why they survived the coming of the car that was often thought to lead inevitably to a country that was essentially continuous low density suburbia.

Attempting to strangle it to force people to move to Dundee or Mansfield is not going to end well for anyone.
If you want to create a competitor to London I am afraid you must create a comparable world city, and it must be sufficiently close to prevent it coalescing into a 'Mega London'.

I don't think Manchester is far enough north for this, I would recommend either one of the cities of Scotland or Newcastle. Or a newbuild city in Northern Ireland or a remote area of Scotland.

With more automation, 20 "fruit picker" jobs would be replaced with 1 "fruit picker technician", for example?

This style of thing, yes.
The job is far more less mind numbing and would involve more work in a maintenance shed that is kept (relatively) warm and dry, rather than slaving through a field in miserable weather.

 

[meridian2]

But we don't live in some sort of stalinist dictatorship where the economy can be dismantled and moved by party diktat.

Do you really believe the distribution of power is not controlled? Government, media, finance, law all in one place? In the digital age there is no such requirement. It's central government's fear of power being devolved, information disseminated, revenue raised and distributed beyond its control. Why else would people live in a place where a flat costs £1m, and a house £10m? People must believe in such a necessity and have the means to pay it. What else attracts people to the place except power and money? No diktat required.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you really believe the distribution of power is not controlled? Government, media, finance, law all in one place? In the digital age there is no such requirement. It's central government's fear of power being devolved, information disseminated, revenue raised and distributed beyond its control. Why else would people live in a place where a flat costs £1m, and a house £10m? People must believe in such a necessity and have the means to pay it. What else attracts people to the place except power and money? No diktat required.

Finance cannot be moved at gun point, and doing so with media is somewhat problematic.

Otherwise you are proposing the wanton abandonment of tens of billions of pounds in accumulated infrastructure just to satisfy some fantasy of "equality" across regions.
And people want to Live in London because it is a dynamic city with a life of it sown, they really don't want to be forced to move to Maryport.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Mass migration is justified on the basis it provides cheap labour for a few years, there's no other rationale for a brain and labour drain from one country to another. Any country habitually exporting its brightest and best is storing problems for the future.

I agree with you to the extent that mass migration can indeed cause problems for both countries involved.

However, I think you're missing the other - very important - rationale for trying to keep immigration controls as light as practical: That people should, in principle, be free to determine their own lives, including where they wish to live. Remember, ultimately, all immigration controls amount to Governments basically telling people where they are and where they aren't allowed to live. Often that includes by implication - preventing people from seeing their families, their friends, even their husbands or wives (And yes, that really does happen *a lot* in the UK today). Too many people blindly call for harsher immigration controls, forgetting (or ignoring) the devastating effect that immigration controls can have on the lives of so many people.

That's not to say that there should be completely open borders everywhere - you've correctly pointed out some of reasons why - if open borders leads to mass migration - it can cause other problems - so I would say there does need to be a balance struck between the needs of individuals and the needs of the wider communities. I think though that your post is wrong to the extent that it implies that the only justification for open borders is this idea of cheap labour - that's just not true. The argument about basic freedom is just as important (and I'm fairly sure it's a very significant rationale behind the EU's strong commitment to open borders).

 

[meridian2]

Finance cannot be moved at gun point, and doing so with media is somewhat problematic.

Otherwise you are proposing the wanton abandonment of tens of billions of pounds in accumulated infrastructure just to satisfy some fantasy of "equality" across regions.
And people want to Live in London because it is a dynamic city with a life of it sown, they really don't want to be forced to move to Maryport.

Every example you've offered has been a small town. There are twelve built up areas in England alone with over half a million people, four with over a million, and two with well over two million. I imagine a number of them would like the opportunity to become a "dynamic city", along with the wealth that follows. Why should a redistribution of such resources be a "fantasy"? Britain has the most centralised economy in Europe.

 

[meridian2]

I agree with you to the extent that mass migration can indeed cause problems for both countries involved.

However, I think you're missing the other - very important - rationale for trying to keep immigration controls as light as practical: That people should, in principle, be free to determine their own lives, including where they wish to live. Remember, ultimately, all immigration controls amount to Governments basically telling people where they are and where they aren't allowed to live. Often that includes by implication - preventing people from seeing their families, their friends, even their husbands or wives (And yes, that really does happen *a lot* in the UK today). Too many people blindly call for harsher immigration controls, forgetting (or ignoring) the devastating effect that immigration controls can have on the lives of so many people.

That's not to say that there should be completely open borders everywhere - you've correctly pointed out some of reasons why - if open borders leads to mass migration - it can cause other problems - so I would say there does need to be a balance struck between the needs of individuals and the needs of the wider communities. I think though that your post is wrong to the extent that it implies that the only justification for open borders is this idea of cheap labour - that's just not true. The argument about basic freedom is just as important (and I'm fairly sure it's a very significant rationale behind the EU's strong commitment to open borders).

Ok, let's extrapolate Europe of the EU into a global economy, a completely border free world where people can choose to live where they will. Which would be the most popular places? Leaving out regions that are too hot or cold for a comfortable existence, I'd suggest countries that allow the possibility of making the most money will win out. That would be the US, Europe and parts of the Far East. What would the effect on those countries of open access be? You only have to look at what's happened to London and New York to see what uncontrolled immigration does to house prices and public services. Cities should, and certainly used to offer, social diversity as part of the contract for living in them. I don't believe they should be global dormitory villages or financial silos for the megarich. Even within a so-called open Europe borders already exist, financial boundaries that dictate where one can live and the quality of life one can expect in them.

Why are EU citizens not flooding into Latvia and Slovenia, both attractive countries with good climatic conditions, but are arriving in the UK and France by the thousand? Of course immigration has an effect on peoples' lives, both those here and those who want to come in. Britain does not have a surplus of good quality housing or health care or any of the other assets of civilised behaviour. All it offers is the potential to make money. That's the story the world over.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But we don't live in some sort of stalinist dictatorship where the economy can be dismantled and moved by party diktat.

Well, not until the hoped-for Momentum aspiration is fulfilled and Comrade Corbyn is at the helm...

 

[najaB]

Why are EU citizens not flooding into Latvia and Slovenia, both attractive countries with good climatic conditions, but are arriving in the UK and France by the thousand?

I wouldn't call being #37 and 57 on the list of net migration as being flooded with migrants. Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Portugal all have higher net migration rates than the UK and France.

 

[HSTEd]

Every example you've offered has been a small town. There are twelve built up areas in England alone with over half a million people, four with over a million, and two with well over two million. I imagine a number of them would like the opportunity to become a "dynamic city", along with the wealth that follows. Why should a redistribution of such resources be a "fantasy"? Britain has the most centralised economy in Europe.

Apart from the possible exception of Newcastle upon Tyne, all of those major built up areas are too close to London.
If we look worldwide most of these large second cities tend to be more than 500km away from the primary economic centre.
Germany is a slightly odd case but that is largely a result of its rather unusual recent history.

Any of these areas would rapidly become an extension of London once infrastructure was developed around them. Watch amazed as HS2 starts the process of turning Birmingham and south Manchester into a commuter suburb for London.

I have spent the last nine years splitting my time between small town Lincolnshire and Manchester - and whilst Manchester has come a long way in that time (it was properly rough when I arrived) it is still a pale imitation of London and it is unlikely it would prosper to the extreme that London does without massive state assistance.

A city of London's size has obtained a critical mass that small cities simply cannot match - you would have double or triple the population of Manchester for it to be able to compete.

The Greater Manchester built-up-area manages 2.5 million.... against London's 9.5.
It simply cannot compete in any realistic projection unless you deliberately hamstring London.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A city of London's size has obtained a critical mass that small cities simply cannot match - you would have double or triple the population of Manchester for it to be able to compete.

The Greater Manchester built-up-area manages 2.5 million.... against London's 9.5. It simply cannot compete in any realistic projection unless you deliberately hamstring London.

I think there was a feeling that the west to east belt of Northern England incorporating Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle upon Tyne should be better viewed as being more of the "Northern Powerhouse" comparison. Population figures on their own need to be viewed as those that meet the requirements of the employment needs of the area as a whole. In this digital age, the need to be very close to other regional trading areas no longer should apply.

 

[EM2]

Britain does not have a surplus of good quality housing or health care or any of the other assets of civilised behaviour. All it offers is the potential to make money. That's the story the world over.

So is your concern not with free movement per se, or more that infrastructure hasn't been built to keep pace?

 

[meridian2]

So is your concern not with free movement per se, or more that infrastructure hasn't been built to keep pace?

Both infrastructure and the space to support it. We are a small island supporting 65-70m people. Britain as Hong Kong, a Blade Runner city rather than a green and pleasant land is a choice within our control.