EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Jonny]

Can we borrow the EU's army please??

As long as we are outside its zone of conscription. Once Brexit has gone through, no-one in Britain would lift a finger to defend the continental EU states. Especially if Barnier, Juncker et al. carry on along their current trajectory.

 

[Jonny]

Don't forget if we want a trade deal with Turkey, Australia or India we have to accept freedom of movement with these countries. That should shorten the lines by quite a bit.

Only Australia would be viable... on a no-cash-benefits (possibly except National Insurance-based) basis.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Deleted

 

[Jonny]

In fact, once we're out of the EU we can limit the NHS to British nationals (or require a contribution) with relative impunity.

 

[VauxhallandI]

In fact, once we're out of the EU we can limit the NHS to British nationals (or require a contribution) with relative impunity.

How long will it be before you turn on areas within the U.K. After you don't have foreigners to be scared of?

 

[Jonny]

I can't help thinking that as immigration has increased, so has demand on the NHS. Correlation may not mean causation, but it is a massive coincidence.

How long will it be before you turn on areas within the U.K. After you don't have foreigners to be scared of?

That's not the point... as long as the regions stay in the UK ... But new arrivals should ensure that their employer provides equivalent health cover (and a roadmap to citizenship if staying indefinitely) or buy insurance if visiting, similar to when I have gone abroad. Or to the employer-provided insurance that I would consider necessary before I went abroad.

Of course, those who have stayed long enough to become British should do so; how many EU nationals have been here 5+ years and not applied for citizenship?

 

[VauxhallandI]

I imagine in some areas there are far more foreign staff in hospitals than there are patients.

 

[NSEFAN]

I can't help thinking that as immigration has increased, so has demand on the NHS. Correlation may not mean causation, but it is a massive coincidence.

It's not the only problem. We also have an ageing population. And because British people generally have poor diets and are inactive, they have all sorts of (otherwise preventable) conditions that cost a lot of money to rectify. If anything, this is a worse issue in the longer term compared to an influx of working-age migrants who come from cultures which are more active and consume less fatty food than Brits do.

 

[fowler9]

As long as we are outside its zone of conscription. Once Brexit has gone through, no-one in Britain would lift a finger to defend the continental EU states. Especially if Barnier, Juncker et al. carry on along their current trajectory.

Have you heard of NATO mate? We are part of it. Nothing to do with the EU. I guess if you really want you can ask for another stupid referendum to pull out of NATO as well. You are aware the U.S. are our NATO partners as well? Probably not. How many other people who voted leave don't actually have a clue how the world works? I wish they had looked it up. Unfortunately for Jonny we will still have NATO obligations And I would like to reassure you that we will lift at least a finger. Do you have a clue what you voted for Jonny? I suspect not. I'm really having to bite my tongue here.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In fact, once we're out of the EU we can limit the NHS to British nationals (or require a contribution) with relative impunity.

Enjoy getting the same in return if you travel to other countries then!
Personally, I can see an argument for charging those who specifically come to the UK in order to have treatment. But those who live and work here, who pay tax and NI here, some of whom who work in the NHS? Seems a bit much. Especially as the big problem with such systems is quite often the cost of administering them is often just as much as the amount of money they pull in.

I can't help thinking that as immigration has increased, so has demand on the NHS. Correlation may not mean causation, but it is a massive coincidence.

As immigration has increased so has the number of immigrants working in the NHS.

Of course, those who have stayed long enough to become British should do so; how many EU nationals have been here 5+ years and not applied for citizenship?

Probably most of them considering that it costs a fair whack and until Brexit they had no reason to even think of needing Citizenship!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Have you heard of NATO mate? We are part of it. Nothing to do with the EU. I guess if you really want you can ask for another stupid referendum to pull out of NATO as well. You are aware the U.S. are our NATO partners as well? Probably not. How many other people who voted leave don't actually have a clue how the world works? I wish they had looked it up. Unfortunately for Jonny we will still have NATO obligations.

My Grandfather didn't fight in the war so (insert here exactly what he did fight in the war for).

 

[Jonny]

Have you heard of NATO mate? We are part of it. Nothing to do with the EU. I guess if you really want you can ask for another stupid referendum to pull out of NATO as well. You are aware the U.S. are our NATO partners as well? Probably not. How many other people who voted leave don't actually have a clue how the world works? I wish they had looked it up. Unfortunately for Jonny we will still have NATO obligations.

We can always send enlisted (rather than conscripted) personnel or even materiel to meet any NATO obligations.

 

[Jonny]

It's not the only problem. We also have an ageing population. And because British people generally have poor diets and are inactive, they have all sorts of (otherwise preventable) conditions that cost a lot of money to rectify. If anything, this is a worse issue in the longer term compared to an influx of working-age migrants who come from cultures which are more active and consume less fatty food than Brits do.

That's as maybe, but sadly many of them do not end up paying much in the way of tax/NI, especially when their tendency to have large families is taken into account this can often cause a net negative contribution even in optimal employment. Britain would be better off with high-skilled immigrants from the rest of the world; those whose taxes more than cover the cost but are frozen out due to relatively low-skilled EU migrants. In effect, the current system discriminates against non-Europeans and it would be no bad thing if the rest of the world had an equal shot.

Enjoy getting the same in return if you travel to other countries then!
Personally, I can see an argument for charging those who specifically come to the UK in order to have treatment. But those who live and work here, who pay tax and NI here, some of whom who work in the NHS? Seems a bit much. Especially as the big problem with such systems is quite often the cost of administering them is often just as much as the amount of money they pull in.

I would expect the NHS to look after its own foreign staff. Many immigrants only accrue enough to pay minimal tax/NI, in effect they are the wrong kind of immigrant (unless filling a gap in the NHS). Also I make a point of having travel insurance. Maybe emergency treatment could be provided without charge pending stabilisation and repatriation.

As immigration has increased so has the number of immigrants working in the NHS.

They are the right kind of immigrant; we need to start filtering so that major cities are not overcrowded with low-skill, low-tax-revenue workers unless they provide absolutely essential services; something else that has been on the rise for the past few years.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Maybe we could give you a uniform and you could choose who was a right one and who was a wrong one and send them either left or right, oh how much fun would that be. Think about the hard on of control we could have then.

 

[fowler9]

We can always send enlisted (rather than conscripted) personnel or even materiel to meet any NATO obligations.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. We don't have any conscripts. You are talking about just sending our army if need be which is what would happen. You are aware are you not that our army, Air Force and navy are already deployed across Europe aren't you? Probably not.

 

[Howardh]

As long as we are outside its zone of conscription. Once Brexit has gone through, no-one in Britain would lift a finger to defend the continental EU states. Especially if Barnier, Juncker et al. carry on along their current trajectory.

Oh, blimey, I didn't realise we were leaving NATO too.

 

[pemma]

Especially if Barnier, Juncker et al. carry on along their current trajectory.

Barnier and Juncker will be retiring in the not too distant future, just like Theresa May and hopefully Chris Grayling.

 

[EM2]

They are the right kind of immigrant; we need to start filtering so that major cities are not overcrowded with low-skill, low-tax-revenue workers unless they provide absolutely essential services; something else that has been on the rise for the past few years.

So who is going to make your coffee, clean your offices, wash your dishes, pick your vegetables, care for your elderly, deliver your takeaway, drive your minicab? Because there aren't enough Brits to do it.

 

[pemma]

So who is going to make your coffee, clean your offices, wash your dishes, pick your vegetables, care for your elderly, deliver your takeaway, drive your minicab? Because there aren't enough Brits to do it.

The Brits who lose well paid engineering jobs or get sent home as a result of Brexit. In the government's opinion a job is a job.

 

[Senex]

The Brits who lose well paid engineering jobs or get sent home as a result of Brexit. In the government's opinion a job is a job.

And in the Brexiteers' opinion it's all worth it. Did anyone else hear the very carefully-worded comments by the Governor of the Bank of England on R4 "Today" this morning and then the BBC plugging on every succeeding news broadcast the utterly predictable reactions of Bone, Duncan Smith, and Mogg? I think I prefer to listen to a respected financial professional than to a group of party-hack politicians.

 

[pemma]

And in the Brexiteers' opinion it's all worth it. Did anyone else hear the very carefully-worded comments by the Governor of the Bank of England on R4 "Today" this morning and then the BBC plugging on every succeeding news broadcast the utterly predictable reactions of Bone, Duncan Smith, and Mogg? I think I prefer to listen to a respected financial professional than to a group of party-hack politicians.

Especially given Carney was partly responsible for preventing Canada being affected by a global recession by actioning the reverse of what the European banks did and probably the main reason he got headhunted for the Bank of England role.

 

[dosxuk]

Britain would be better off with high-skilled immigrants from the rest of the world; those whose taxes more than cover the cost but are frozen out due to relatively low-skilled EU migrants. In effect, the current system discriminates against non-Europeans and it would be no bad thing if the rest of the world had an equal shot.

You might have a point if there was a quota system. EU nationals are free to come and work here if they can find a job. If they do find a job, it doesn't mean one less non-EU national can cross the border. If we're not employing enough high-skilled, high-tax-paying immigrants, that's because there aren't enough high-skilled, high-earning jobs to attract those people, not because we've employed too many vegetable pickers and car cleaners.

 

[bnm]

That's as maybe, but sadly many of them do not end up paying much in the way of tax/NI, especially when their tendency to have large families is taken into account this can often cause a net negative contribution even in optimal employment.

If they're not welcome to use the NHS on the basis of being low tax payers (whatever that means - they presumably buy taxable goods, run vehicles, pay tax on utilities...) then the same should apply to indigenous low income, large families yes?

 

[AM9]

If they're not welcome to use the NHS on the basis of being low tax payers (whatever that means - they presumably buy taxable goods, run vehicles, pay tax on utilities...) then the same should apply to indigenous low income, large families yes?

Why is everybody here feeding the troll?

 

[bnm]

Accusing those with opposing views of being trolls doesn't help advance debate.

Folk are allowed to be clueless misguided jingoists. Doesn't mean they are deliberately trolling.

Keep challenging.

 

[rdeez]

Remainers want to believe this as it gives them some kind of legitimacy to re-run things. Total nonsense though. Leave voters were repeatedly told that leave would mean leave in the hardest possible sense to try and scare them into not voting that way. Then suddenly when it doesn't go the way remainers expect, there is an invented confusion of what leave really meant. I really do question this idea that some people voted leave thinking we'd only leave a bit, that was not the message of the two campaigns whatsoever and seems like quite a risky choice . I strongly suspect those who only wanted to leave a bit actually voted remain as a 'safe' choice. See 'trash80' above as an example.

I didn't suggest a re-run of the original referendum, though a referendum on the terms of any deal (or lack of) wouldn't be a bad idea, if there was time for one.

The problem with your theory is that it can go both ways. For example, I know of a few people that voted to leave as a way of "sending a message" to the establishment that they weren't happy with certain policies and directions, but never actually imagined (or intended) that leave would win. A member of my family, in fact, was very anxious after the result came back - and after voting leave - saying they wanted changes in our relationship with the EU but didn't actually want leave to win.

I don't doubt there's examples that fit into both camps, and this brings us right back to my original point: we just don't know exactly what people wanted from their vote, one way or another.

 

[VauxhallandI]

. For example, I know of a few people that voted to leave as a way of "sending a message" to the establishment that they weren't happy with certain policies and directions, but never actually imagined (or intended) that leave would win. A member of my family, in fact, was very anxious after the result came back - and after voting leave - saying they wanted changes in our relationship with the EU but didn't actually want leave to win.

Whilst I can understand their misguided reasoning I find it difficult to swallow that they didn't see who they were associating themselves with and didn't conclude that maybe it was the wrong time to have the protest vote.

 

[bnm]

With my vote, I achieved my aim of removing a Tory Prime Minister who had forgotten that he was elected to lead our representative democracy. Leaving the EU should never have been a referendum decision. Far to complex a decision to be a simple in/out vote. It should have either been a manifesto pledge or a government bill.

David Cameron used the electorate to fight a war by proxy. The matter should have been fought within his party. Instead he divided the country almost 50/50 down the middle and left a party that is still infighting and is consequently failing in its primary role. To govern.

 

[rdeez]

Whilst I can understand their misguided reasoning I find it difficult to swallow that they didn't see who they were associating themselves with and didn't conclude that maybe it was the wrong time to have the protest vote.

From conversations with one of the people I mentioned, they imagined leave would get somewhere around 35-45% of the vote, and wanted the numbers to be high enough that the government would take note / get scared and push the EU harder for concessions in certain areas. Polling around the time of the referendum was suggesting a fairly comfortable remain win, but as we all know, it's wise to be very wary of polling data. In retrospect they realised, as you said, that it was the wrong time to be casting a 'protest vote'.

 

[Jonny]

I didn't suggest a re-run of the original referendum, though a referendum on the terms of any deal (or lack of) wouldn't be a bad idea, if there was time for one.

The problem with your theory is that it can go both ways. For example, I know of a few people that voted to leave as a way of "sending a message" to the establishment that they weren't happy with certain policies and directions, but never actually imagined (or intended) that leave would win. A member of my family, in fact, was very anxious after the result came back - and after voting leave - saying they wanted changes in our relationship with the EU but didn't actually want leave to win.

I don't doubt there's examples that fit into both camps, and this brings us right back to my original point: we just don't know exactly what people wanted from their vote, one way or another.

I think it is fair to say that there was some uncertainty, such that a no-deal Brexit was within parameters. I didn't think it would come to that but given how obtuse the EU's negotiation team has been - they make those who negotiated the Treaty of Versailles look like flexible negotiators - it would not surprise me if we ended up with no deal. All I can say about the so-called Lord Mandelson is that he is dependent on the EU for his pension - so beware of vested remain interests!

So who is going to make your coffee, clean your offices, wash your dishes, pick your vegetables, care for your elderly, deliver your takeaway, drive your minicab? Because there aren't enough Brits to do it.

I would expect most of them to be done by machine except possibly the carer-ing which could mostly be done by family members (until Robo-Carer becomes available, which might be a few more years into the future than the other machines).