EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

AM9 said:
If it is so bad then maybe there's a good case for reducing freedom of movement within the UK, specifically to prevent further migration from the provinces into the disproportionate overcrowding in the south-east. Maybe a repatriation scheme to 'encourage' those economic migrants to return to whichever part of the UK they grew up in.

We’re sort of already seeing that in the form of house price / cost of living inflation, which is pushing people away from the traditional London commuter belt. My place here has inflated by factor of over six since the 1990s, whereas my place in Durham hasn’t inflated by anything close to that.

RailUK Forums

Esker-pades · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
Yes you might be able to accommodate a million more people, but not in areas where they actually want to be. Meanwhile in places where there is already dense population there’s evidence that all is far from rosy - with many people living in sub-standard accommodation, as epitomised by Grenfell Tower.

We already have the fairly ridiculous scenario of increasing numbers of people commuting to London from increasingly outlying places like Bath or Newark.

That's more an economic-austerity issue than an overpopulation one.

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

FelixtheCat said:
That's more an economic-austerity issue than an overpopulation one.

What does it have to do with austerity?

High demand (increasing population partly fuelled by immigration) versus constricted supply equals increased prices. Unless these immigrants are homeless then they’re occupying housing stock, and thus contributing to a problem.

najaB · 30 Jan 2020

Enthusiast said:
Those requirements have been in place (for non-EU/EEA citizens) since April 2016.

I know. I was answering a question.

Enthusiast said:
If anything is racist it is the UK's current immigration policy which discriminates against non-EU migrants on the basis purely of their race.

I wasn't aware of this, could you tell us more please?

Peter Kelford · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
As a leave voter I’d be more than happy if a positive consequence is that our elected government is less able to hide behind smokescreens.

Our wise and benevolent prime minister of the United Democratic and Popular Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always transparent.

On a more serious note, the UK, free from 3rd party rules, is likely to become less transparent and more clique-like. Even communist countries allow for a degree of meritocracy (e.g. nearly all the big communist leaders today weren't born into a family of ministers or heads of state). I foresee the children of cabinet ministers taking over in 20 years' time.

AM9 said:
If it is so bad then maybe there's a good case for reducing freedom of movement within the UK, specifically to prevent further migration from the provinces into the disproportionate overcrowding in the south-east. Maybe a repatriation scheme to 'encourage' those economic migrants to return to whichever part of the UK they grew up in.

Or maybe some good old-fashioned insults along the lines of 'Dirty, illiterate Redcar parasites', ignoring the idea that the statement is, in the vast majority of cases, untrue.

najaB said:
I wasn't aware of this, could you tell us more please?

Rich countries get better terms than poor ones, ex-colonies better than 3rd party states.

Esker-pades · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
What does it have to do with austerity?

High demand (increasing population partly fuelled by immigration) versus constricted supply equals increased prices. Unless these immigrants are homeless then they’re occupying housing stock, and thus contributing to a problem.

Since the 2010, government has been forced/made the choice to make significant cuts to spending. As part of this, central government has cut ~38% from English local authority budgets. This includes Kensington & Chelsea Council, who's job it was to maintain the tower. Had the money been available to improve the tower, they would have done (I hope).

https://fullfact.org/economy/local-authorities-budgets/

Personally, I'm a bit sceptical of the 'austerity caused the Grenfell Tower fire' as a standalone argument, but the 'overpopulation caused the Grenfell Tower fire' argument is far worse.

najaB · 30 Jan 2020

Peter Kelford said:
Rich countries get better terms than poor ones, ex-colonies better than 3rd party states.

That's not what was claimed. The claim was that immigration policy is to discriminate based purely on race.

AY1975 · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
Does anyone *seriously* think it’s now viable for Britain to re-join? Even if Britain had a massive change of mind, why on earth would Europe want to entertain having us back? I’d like to think there would be a bit more to it than Montgomery Burns in The Simpsons “come crawling back have you?”!

Seriously, it would be difficult enough for an independent Scotland to join/re-join.

Guy Verhofstadt has predicted that we will eventually rejoin (and I think so has the President of the European Parliament). See https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rexit-is-not-an-adieu-only-an-au-revoir-video

Senex · 30 Jan 2020

AY1975 said:
Guy Verhofstadt has predicted that we will eventually rejoin (and I think so has the President of the European Parliament). See https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rexit-is-not-an-adieu-only-an-au-revoir-video

They've said all the right and generous things (particularly given the shameful display by Farage and Co. with their silly little paper versions of one of the least appealing of all flags), but I wonder how easy re-joining could be. Presumably there would be no question of exemptions from at least commitments to join the common currency and Schengen, no rebates of any kind on payments due, and no other special considerations. And how keen would our former partners really be to have us back, given what awkward and stand-offish colleagues we have always chosen to be? Perhaps Scotland would be made very welcome as an independent state, but the reception for England might not be nearly as warm.

Doppelganger · 30 Jan 2020

Senex said:
They've said all the right and generous things (particularly given the shameful display by Farage and Co. with their silly little paper versions of one of the least appealing of all flags), but I wonder how easy re-joining could be. Presumably there would be no question of exemptions from at least commitments to join the common currency and Schengen, no rebates of any kind on payments due, and no other special considerations. And how keen would our former partners really be to have us back, given what awkward and stand-offish colleagues we have always chosen to be? Perhaps Scotland would be made very welcome as an independent state, but the reception for England might not be nearly as warm.

Farage and his ilk are just an embarrassment, who have no decorum.

Once upon a time an Englishman would be praised for his good manners and decent upbringing, sadly no longer. The association with acting like yahoos will stay with England for a long long time and I don't think it will ever go away. After all the Brits won't let Germany forget about 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup...

Cowley · 30 Jan 2020

Doppelganger said:
Farage and his ilk are just an embarrassment, who have no decorum.

Once upon a time an Englishman would be praised for his good manners and decent upbringing, sadly no longer. The association with acting like yahoos will stay with England for a long long time and I don't think it will ever go away. After all the Brits won't let Germany forget about 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup...

That was an absolutely shameful gloatfest yesterday.

Enthusiast · 30 Jan 2020

najaB said:
I wasn't aware of this, could you tell us more please?

What more do you need to know? Migrants from the EU have an unfettered right to live and work here (subject to one or two exceptions). Migrants from elsewhere do not and have to undergo a far more rigorous process than simply turning up at Gatwick or Dover.

herb21 · 30 Jan 2020

Enthusiast said:
What more do you need to know? Migrants from the EU have an unfettered right to live and work here (subject to one or two exceptions). Migrants from elsewhere do not and have to undergo a far more rigorous process than simply turning up at Gatwick or Dover.

Which was not your original claim. Clearly non-EU immigration is considerably more difficult but it is not based on race. Having a white, English speaking family member have to go through it currently makes me pretty certain of this fact.

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

FelixtheCat said:
Since the 2010, government has been forced/made the choice to make significant cuts to spending. As part of this, central government has cut ~38% from English local authority budgets. This includes Kensington & Chelsea Council, who's job it was to maintain the tower. Had the money been available to improve the tower, they would have done (I hope).

https://fullfact.org/economy/local-authorities-budgets/

Personally, I'm a bit sceptical of the 'austerity caused the Grenfell Tower fire' as a standalone argument, but the 'overpopulation caused the Grenfell Tower fire' argument is far worse.

I never said overpopulation *caused* Grenfell.

What I intimated was that it’s by no means a sensible thing to be advocating taking in more and more people when we can’t even take care of those we already have. In that sense the finer details of Grenfell are irrelevant save to say that it happened.

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

AY1975 said:
Guy Verhofstadt has predicted that we will eventually rejoin (and I think so has the President of the European Parliament). See https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rexit-is-not-an-adieu-only-an-au-revoir-video

Well they would say that. Anyone who is part of a club who wants members is bound to say same.

I just can’t see there being appetite for rejoining. Britain has been a reluctant member at best, even Scotland, and now we’re (nearly) out that’s it. We’d almost certainly have to join the Euro, and there’s even less appetite for that. Personally the only way I’d even consider rejoining is if it changed to being a purely trade alliance and shed either free movement and/or the eastern countries - that’s not going to happen I think.

Esker-pades · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
In that sense the finer details of Grenfell are irrelevant save to say that it happened.

In which case, I query your need to mention Grenfell at all in this context.

Doppelganger · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
I’d even consider rejoining is if it changed to being a purely trade alliance and shed either free movement and/or the eastern countries

Which eastern countries would you have in mind exactly then?

NoMorePacers · 30 Jan 2020

Doppelganger said:
Which eastern countries would you have in mind exactly then?

Can't be having those dirty Polish people in here, can we?

Doppelganger · 30 Jan 2020

NoMorePacers said:
Can't be having those dirty Polish people in here, can we?

I ask as eastern in my mind would be places such as Korea and Japan.

Poland is Central Europe, but some people are still stuck in Cold War mode and think there is an East and West and that the West are the saviours of civilization.

Nevermind that these "eastern" countries were a bulwark in the past to things like Ottoman expansion, the Mongols or Tartars.

The UK can now continue down its insular route and live in its past glories and the rest of the EU can progress down whatever path it wants without that millstone round its neck

cb a1 · 30 Jan 2020

bramling said:
My place here has inflated by factor of over six since the 1990s, whereas my place in Durham hasn’t inflated by anything close to that.

Oh, the irony. I'm sat here in my wee rented flat debating with someone complaining about migrants overcrowding the country and putting pressure on resources when they own two properties separated by hundreds of miles.

Enthusiast · 30 Jan 2020

herb21 said:
Clearly non-EU immigration is considerably more difficult but it is not based on race.

It depends on your interpretation of race (which is by no means clear cut). So let's not argue over that and say "nationality" instead then. Those with EU nationalities are subject to virtually no immigration restrictions and are able to live and work here upon arrival. Those with other nationalities are not. So the UK's immigration policy is discriminatory. To avoid such a policy it must either allow unrestricted access from elsewhere (clearly undesirable) or it must leave the EU. Which it's doing tomorrow.

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

NoMorePacers said:
Can't be having those dirty Polish people in here, can we?

Once again a response which is more emotive than constructive.

My point about eastern countries relates to the difference in stages of development between the countries which formed part of the EU's eastern enlargement, compared to those which formed the earlier EU members. This difference in economic prosperity has led to the former group producing high levels of unreciprocated movement towards the UK, whereas the latter group generally doesn't and hasn't. Naturally if things changed further down the line then my view might change accordingly, but at present this isn't even in sight.

Still, all rather academic as in 24 hours time this won't be our problem any more!

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

cb a1 said:
Oh, the irony. I'm sat here in my wee rented flat debating with someone complaining about migrants overcrowding the country and putting pressure on resources when they own two properties separated by hundreds of miles.

In what way does this place pressure on resources? Same burden on NHS, education, et cetera.

bramling · 30 Jan 2020

FelixtheCat said:
In which case, I query your need to mention Grenfell at all in this context.

Because when discussing pressure on housing, Grenfell is an example of where we can barely look after people who are already here. Notwithstanding the issue over the cladding, Grenfell was an ageing tower block built to poor standards, for example only having one stairwell, and typical of such poor quality housing with undesirable feasures spread throughout London in particular, and doubtless in other UK cities too. The only reason much of this housing is still in business is because there's too much of it to easily / affordably replace.

Things have come a little way over the last couple of decades with some of the worst estates being rebuilt or substantially modernised, however anyone who remembers places like the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke, the Stonebridge Estate in Harlesden or the Aylesbury Estate in Camberwell just a decade or so ago will know how poor some of our housing is.

Peter Kelford · 31 Jan 2020

bramling said:
and/or the eastern countries

This is a perfect illustration of why so many people want to stop brexit, such as on this forum. It's plain and simple racism.

cb a1 said:
Oh, the irony. I'm sat here in my wee rented flat debating with someone complaining about migrants overcrowding the country and putting pressure on resources when they own two properties separated by hundreds of miles.

The old 'rich remainers' argument that Cummings propagates.

Enthusiast said:
It depends on your interpretation of race (which is by no means clear cut). So let's not argue over that and say "nationality" instead then. Those with EU nationalities are subject to virtually no immigration restrictions and are able to live and work here upon arrival. Those with other nationalities are not. So the UK's immigration policy is discriminatory. To avoid such a policy it must either allow unrestricted access from elsewhere (clearly undesirable) or it must leave the EU. Which it's doing tomorrow.

And tell me why there's an army and wall on the US-Mexico border whilst the border from the US to Canada is controlled with a light touch? Should the whole world build moats and arm border guards, or should the world do their best to reduce borders?

nidave · 31 Jan 2020

To the total supprise of no one, well apart from those who believed the NHS was not going to be included in any UK-US trade deal

Donald Trump will put the interests of corporate America first and demand that the NHS pays higher prices for US drugs in a free-trade deal with the UK, the outgoing British ambassador to Washington has told the Guardian.

Trump will put US firms first in UK trade talks, says ambassador

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ssador?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Is this still project fear?

bramling · 31 Jan 2020

Peter Kelford said:
This is a perfect illustration of why so many people want to stop brexit, such as on this forum. It's plain and simple racism.

<sigh> Yes of course it is.

Why are people so afraid of discourse regarding population growth that they have to assert racism?

The stopping Brexit boat has, in any case, sailed. Move on!

nidave · 31 Jan 2020

Now its too late to do anything about it - its all coming out of the woodwork...

US insists chlorinated chicken must be on menu in any UK trade agreement

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ZPaa51WPRq39Q3CnpTs1WEDHhsao6A50FazEjahupdIkQ

Doppelganger · 31 Jan 2020

MightyTRexUK said:
To the total supprise of no one, well apart from those who believed the NHS was not going to be included in any UK-US trade deal

MightyTRexUK said:
Now its too late to do anything about it - its all coming out of the woodwork...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ZPaa51WPRq39Q3CnpTs1WEDHhsao6A50FazEjahupdIkQ

Bear sh*ts in wood.

Who is honestly surprised?

This is exactly what people voted for, so the only sympathy I have is for those who have opposed it, continue to do so and have not capitulated because "they lost" and so must "get over it".

herb21 · 31 Jan 2020

Enthusiast said:
It depends on your interpretation of race (which is by no means clear cut). So let's not argue over that and say "nationality" instead then. Those with EU nationalities are subject to virtually no immigration restrictions and are able to live and work here upon arrival. Those with other nationalities are not. So the UK's immigration policy is discriminatory. To avoid such a policy it must either allow unrestricted access from elsewhere (clearly undesirable) or it must leave the EU. Which it's doing tomorrow.

I agree race is no means clear cut, but would argue your use was pushing the bounds of plausible interpretation. I fail to understand how you can argue for a non-discriminatory immigration policy, without arguing for unrestricted access for all. By there very nature any immigration policy must be discriminatory it is simply a case of what you consider acceptable discrimination.
I also think that if our leaving the EU was to allow for a more balanced immigration policy based on nationality, surely we would have made maximum use of the EU immigration limitations we had available. I'm not denying many people probably voted for that reason, just that the UKs prior actions don't support that position.
P.S. Although I disagree with unrestricted access for all I think noting it as clearly undesirable may be a logical fallacy.

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member