EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[trash80]

Sorry i didn't know i needed to add </joke> after something i thought was obvious

 

[WelshBluebird]

Sorry i didn't know i needed to add </joke> after something i thought was obvious

Apologies if I took your post the wrong way!
Sadly, based on other posts in this thread, and the fact that a lot of people (tending to be those who are of the "make Britain great again" persuasion") actually do think what you posted, that would probably help!

 

[trash80]

No one will bring back conscription anyway, the military for a start don't want it and i suspect it would be a hard sell electorally

 

[AM9]

It would probably take a direct threat to the UK homeland for any government to even try to introduce a call up. 36% of the electorate might be persuaded to patrol beaches and ferry ports though.

 

[trash80]

Yes they could wear army surplus, maybe they could be called the Home Guard?

 

[Howardh]

It would probably take a direct threat to the UK homeland for any government to even try to introduce a call up. 36% of the electorate might be persuaded to patrol beaches and ferry ports though.

Won't they all be in the queue to man the border posts between the UK and Ireland??

 

[AM9]

Won't they all be in the queue to man the border posts between the UK and Ireland??

Not really. The mentality is of much of the 36% is to repel people invading 'our shores'. Those who get through the (very large mesh) net of UK border checks will be dealt with as has become established practice in provincial towns where they will get the 'not welcome here' greeting.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

If we had compulsory conscription, what would we do with youngsters (ie 18 - 25) who are soley caring for an infirm elderly parent or relative? Conscript them and hand their cared-for to the NHS (increasing the cost of their care considerably)?

no.. they would have an exemption obviously...after all, if they've grown up being sole carer for a parent they've been doing "National Service" all their childhood.

 

[Howardh]

no.. they would have an exemption obviously...after all, if they've grown up being sole carer for a parent they've been doing "National Service" all their childhood.

That sounds too much like common sense. Are you SURE you're British??!!

 

[bramling]

Not really. The mentality is of much of the 36% is to repel people invading 'our shores'. Those who get through the (very large mesh) net of UK border checks will be dealt with as has become established practice in provincial towns where they will get the 'not welcome here' greeting.

Here's a good example of emotive language from the remain side. Population in Britain is increasing, especially in certain areas, EU membership contributes to this through its freedom of movement policy. It's quite reasonable to wish to arrest that process of uncontrollable population growth, in a country which is considerably more densely populated than most of the rest of the EU, and is at the point where new or expanded infrastructure is unaffordably expensive or technically difficult due to existing dense levels of development.

The remain side consistently fails to acknowledge population growth as an issue, and as such fails to propose solutions to something which is clearly an issue to a large segment of the population. If I were advocating remain and looking to gain the support of the wider population it would be pretty high on the list of issues to try to address, but of course there's the "small" problem that it's not an area where the EU is likely to change policy, thus clearly supplying a demonstration of Britain being hamstrung by its EU membership.

 

[radamfi]

Here's a good example of emotive language from the remain side. Population in Britain is increasing, especially in certain areas, EU membership contributes to this through its freedom of movement policy. It's quite reasonable to wish to arrest that process of uncontrollable population growth, in a country which is considerably more densely populated than most of the rest of the EU, and is at the point where new or expanded infrastructure is unaffordably expensive or technically difficult due to existing dense levels of development.

The remain side consistently fails to acknowledge population growth as an issue, and as such fails to propose solutions to something which is clearly an issue to a large segment of the population. If I were advocating remain and looking to gain the support of the wider population it would be pretty high on the list of issues to try to address, but of course there's the small issue that it's not an issue where the EU is likely to change policy, thus clearly supplying a demonstration of Britain being hamstrung by its EU membership.

Without immigration, almost all developed countries would experience population decline due to fertility rates less than 2 per woman. So, regardless of any rhetoric from governments, they secretly want immigration to reduce problems caused by an ageing population. EU immigration will therefore be replaced by more immigration from developing countries outside Europe. Blame for Britain's high population density would be better targeted at British born people born before 1950 who couldn't resist having lots of babies.

 

[bramling]

Blame for Britain's high population density would be better targeted at British born people born before 1950 who couldn't resist having lots of babies.

It's not about blame, but about solutions. The leave side's "controlled immigration focusing on the people Britain may *need*" is more palatable and pragmatic to most people than the status quo offered by remaining.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Without immigration, almost all developed countries would experience population decline due to fertility rates less than 2 per woman. So, regardless of any rhetoric from governments, they secretly want immigration to reduce problems caused by an ageing population. EU immigration will therefore be replaced by more immigration from developing countries outside Europe. Blame for Britain's high population density would be better targeted at British born people born before 1950 who couldn't resist having lots of babies.

seriously? you really think that the recent acceleration of population growth due to uncontrolled immigration, and said immigrants having large families is all the fault of those living here before 1950? hmmm...

as to whether we need immigration... well yes there is a case for controlled immigration.... but not uncontrolled. Cripes if a country as empty as Australia can tightly control immigration and be lauded for it's tough line on border security then why is it such an anathema to remainers that a country as small and crowded as ours should want the same tight controls?

 

[nidave]

You do realise the UK always had the ability to control immigration it is jsut has not done so.
Plus a few facts more than 50% of immigration is from non EU countries

Under EU Law if after 3 months EU Migrants are not working they can be returned to the home country
Under EU Law the UK can register migrants when they arrive
None of which the UK chose to do.

 

[radamfi]

seriously? you really think that the recent acceleration of population growth due to uncontrolled immigration, and said immigrants having large families is all the fault of those living here before 1950? hmmm...

Just look at historical population figures pre-1980 if you want to see how much the UK population grew before that time.

 

[bramling]

You do realise the UK always had the ability to control immigration it is jsut has not done so.
Plus a few facts more than 50% of immigration is from non EU countries

Under EU Law if after 3 months EU Migrants are not working they can be returned to the home country
Under EU Law the UK can register migrants when they arrive
None of which the UK chose to do.

Regardless of what the UK chooses to do, it doesn't prevent someone coming and finding low-pay low-skill low-tax-contribution work for example serving in a café.

The big issue Remain has is that they simply don't have an answer to this question which large sections of the population find credible. Comparing with non-EU immigration doesn't advance this as it simply comes across to people as a deflection.

 

[bramling]

Just look at historical population figures pre-1980 if you want to see how much the UK population grew before that time.

Again, people are interested in *now*. For the now they see overcrowded transport, stretched public services and massive housing availability / affordability issues (particularly in some areas), and no practical solutions offered.

 

[nidave]

Regardless of what the UK chooses to do, it doesn't prevent someone coming and finding low-pay low-skill low-tax-contribution work for example serving in a café.

The big issue Remain has is that they simply don't have an answer to this question which large sections of the population find credible. Comparing with non-EU immigration doesn't advance this as it simply comes across to people as a deflection.

How many people are willing to do these jobs who were born in the UK - is the fact that we dont pay people enough an EU issue?
Whats going to happen after we leave the EU - Who is going to do these jobs? It wont be UK nationals - it will be people from Non EU countries.
You ask someone who is not working if they are willing to work on the farms during the picking season. I bet you will get a very quick NO.

 

[Howardh]

Regardless of what the UK chooses to do, it doesn't prevent someone coming and finding low-pay low-skill low-tax-contribution work for example serving in a café.

The big issue Remain has is that they simply don't have an answer to this question which large sections of the population find credible. Comparing with non-EU immigration doesn't advance this as it simply comes across to people as a deflection.

You seem to think that reducing immigration will solve our "problems".
Put that against
(a) non-EUs coming here and being entitled to bring their extended families who then reproduce adding to the population. Leaving the EU doesn't solve that.
(b) UK citizens living overseas returning home as a result of Brexit (declining £ making their pensions worth less and therfore life becomes unaffordable there, health provision issues etc) who will probably NOT appear in the migration statistics
(c) the number of UK citizens living here who would have gone to live and work in the EU but can't if they restrict our access to jobs (which they will) so they won't appear in the migration stats
(d) we could send non-working EU's home anyway if they couldn't support themselves.
Basically, it's a very large sledghammer to crack a very small nut which probably wasn't there in the first place.
If you think that restricting EU freedom of movement will make more space on the roads, quicker waiting times at A+E, more school places, more affordable housing and so on; I think you will be quite disappointed. Example, 30 less places at a school simply means they will employ one less teacher.
If you need some room, and cheaper housing, then try Nelson, Accrington, Colne...

 

[nidave]

Again, people are interested in *now*. For the now they see overcrowded transport, stretched public services and massive housing availability / affordability issues (particularly in some areas), and no practical solutions offered.

Thats becasue most people choose to live in cities rather than rural areas - the people in the rural areas object to any increase in housing stock.
Stretched public services have nothing to do with immigration its ideological. EU migrants pay in more to the treasury than they take out or use in services (This has been mentioned time and time again - they tend to go back to thier birth country when it comes to retirement). Its the goverment wont pay for things.
In fact with less imigration and an aging population the state pension age is going to have to go up again to cope and with less % of the population working as we come up to retirement there is less money avaiable to pay for elderly care. This is a massive issue.

How is the fact that
Construction of homes for social rent drops 80% in a decade
"The number of new homes built for social rent has fallen by almost four-fifths in a decade, according to official figures that come as more than 1 million families are stuck on waiting lists for council housing in England.

Figures released by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government show just 6,463 homes were built in England for social rent in 2017-18, down from almost 30,000 a decade ago."

https://www.theguardian.com/society...n-a-decade-ago-england-families-waiting-lists

The fault of the EU or EU migrants???

 

[Howardh]

Thats becasue most people choose to live in cities rather than rural areas - the people in the rural areas object to any increase in housing stock.
Stretched public services have nothing to do with immigration its ideological - the goverment wont pay for things. In fact with less imigration and an aging population the state pension age is going to have to go up again to cope and with less % of the population working as we come up to retirement there is less money avaiable to pay for elderly care. This is a massive issue.

Indeed, if the population decreases or rises slowly, who will pay our pensions and care needs? As you allude to the number of retired is increasing year-on-year and therefore more funds will be required, which means (a) increasing taxes and/or (b) increasing the retirement date into the 70's.
Ironically, we should be encouraging the retired to go and live in the sun and free up their houses - so what happens, we throw away their freedom of movement to do so.
#Brexitlogic

 

[bramling]

its ideological - the goverment wont pay for things.

Again, a simplistic argument. The reason governments prefer not to pay for things is because no one likes paying tax, and as such it's never wise to run an election campaign based on increasing taxes. Even Corbyn and McDonnell are being quite guarded about where they say tax increases will occur to pay for spending increases.

Immigration isn't a silver bullet for this problem if the country is taking in low-skilled low-contribution individuals. More targeted immigration would naturally help - which as it happens tends to be the leave position!

 

[GusB]

Thats becasue most people choose to live in cities rather than rural areas - the people in the rural areas object to any increase in housing stock.

It could be argued that some people in rural areas are crying out for more housing stock, but there is a very vocal section of the rural population that feels that the countryside is somewhere to go to retire/have a second home (usually people who aren't from the local area), and are opposed to any development that would spoil the their idyllic lifestyle.

 

[Howardh]

Again, a simplistic argument. The reason governments prefer not to pay for things is because no one likes paying tax, and as such it's never wise to run an election campaign based on increasing taxes. Even Corbyn and McDonnell are being quite guarded about where they say tax increases will occur to pay for spending increases.

Immigration isn't a silver bullet for this problem if the country is taking in low-skilled low-contribution individuals. More targeted immigration would naturally help - which as it happens tends to be the leave position!

If we lose the taxes from immigrants (maybe May's quota has been reached?) then who fills the vacancies, and if they aren't filled how much should taxes go up before people start to accept FoM was, in fact, helpful to the country and it's economy?

 

[Howardh]

It could be argued that some people in rural areas are crying out for more housing stock, but there is a very vocal section of the rural population that feels that the countryside is somewhere to go to retire/have a second home (usually people who aren't from the local area), and are opposed to any development that would spoil the their idyllic lifestyle.

IMO "second homes" should be taxed to the rafters; and that money directly put back into the local community. If a building's unoccupied for 40 weeks it ain't contributing locally, if people REALLY need to escape to the countryside for a few weeks a year, park caravans can fill those gaps.

 

[nidave]

Again, a simplistic argument. The reason governments prefer not to pay for things is because no one likes paying tax, and as such it's never wise to run an election campaign based on increasing taxes. Even Corbyn and McDonnell are being quite guarded about where they say tax increases will occur to pay for spending increases.

Immigration isn't a silver bullet for this problem if the country is taking in low-skilled low-contribution individuals. More targeted immigration would naturally help - which as it happens tends to be the leave position!

Considering EU migrants pay in more to the treasury than they take out in services how are we going to make up for the shortfall?? Higher taxes or cuts in services?

 

[SWTCommuter]

Immigration isn't a silver bullet for this problem if the country is taking in low-skilled low-contribution individuals. More targeted immigration would naturally help - which as it happens tends to be the leave position!

Considering EU migrants pay in more to the treasury than they take out in services how are we going to make up for the shortfall?? Higher taxes or cuts in services?

This article on the Full Fact website might be of interest to those on both sides of the immigration debate. https://fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/

[*]The net fiscal impact of immigration is the difference between the taxes and other contributions immigrants make to public finances, and the costs of the benefits and public services they receive.
[*]There is no single "correct" estimate of this impact. Results of existing studies all depend on the methodology and the assumptions researchers must make (for example, about whether to include the costs of educating UK-born children of immigrants).
[*]Most studies suggest that the fiscal impact of immigration in the UK is relatively small (amounting to less than 1% of the country's overall Gross Domestic Product).
[*]The fiscal impact overall depends on the characteristics of individual immigrants and what they do in the UK. Immigrants who are young, skilled and working in highly-paid jobs are likely to make a more positive net fiscal contribution than those working in low-wage jobs with large families.

 

[greyman42]

We could put three options to people. The deal, no-deal or no-brexit. As we do now know clearly what the options are rather than having a binary choice where one of the options (leave) is wholly undefined and means all things to all people.

I doubt any one of those would get a majority.

 

[bramling]

Considering EU migrants pay in more to the treasury than they take out in services how are we going to make up for the shortfall?? Higher taxes or cuts in services?

One can’t help but think of that divorce bill and those contributions we make to the EU on a regular basis!

 

[EM2]

I doubt any one of those would get a majority.

Which would mean that there's no clear mandate for the deal