EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bantamzen]

So if something is decided democratically or by popular will, this, by extension, means it must be a good idea?

I think you may have some difficulty signing up to that logic unless you believe that British people are uniquely masochistic among nations.

Judging by how some leavers are practically salivating at the prospect of a no deal scenario, I do start to wonder....

Freedom of movement has been hinted at as is a requirement from what's been said for free trading agreements.

Why is this better than the freedom of movement we have with the EU. Places like India, Turkey and Pakistan. What makes these places better than the EU??

And here is the elephant in the room. India have already indicated that they would want more Indian citizens given access to the UK labour market as part of a new trade deal, other countries would likely ask the same. So whilst the Brexiteers are busy celebrating at the prospect of "controlled" movement between us and the EU, by proxy we might just be opening the door to people further afield.

Of course this doesn't mean its a bad thing, these countries have lots of talented people that would be a benefit to our economy, but its the inference that somehow that Brexit will affect more "control" on immigration. Immigration is a fact of human existence, where perceived lifestyles are better, people will move. And in a world with literally billions of people connected by the net, more people than ever will desire to move to make a better lifestyle for themselves. The insular, Victorian-esk views of the world shown by some in support of Brexit belong back there in the past. The world has and continues to move on.

 

[bramling]

Judging by how some leavers are practically salivating at the prospect of a no deal scenario, I do start to wonder....



And here is the elephant in the room. India have already indicated that they would want more Indian citizens given access to the UK labour market as part of a new trade deal, other countries would likely ask the same. So whilst the Brexiteers are busy celebrating at the prospect of "controlled" movement between us and the EU, by proxy we might just be opening the door to people further afield.

Of course this doesn't mean its a bad thing, these countries have lots of talented people that would be a benefit to our economy, but its the inference that somehow that Brexit will affect more "control" on immigration. Immigration is a fact of human existence, where perceived lifestyles are better, people will move. And in a world with literally billions of people connected by the net, more people than ever will desire to move to make a better lifestyle for themselves. The insular, Victorian-esk views of the world shown by some in support of Brexit belong back there in the past. The world has and continues to move on.

And in a country which is already heavily developed and with limited space to affordably enhance infrastructure provision, difficult choices may have to be made in order to control population growth.

 

[Howardh]

And in a country which is already heavily developed and with limited space to affordably enhance infrastructure provision, difficult choices may have to be made in order to control population growth.

So how does having to invite Indians, and all the other countries we will have to hand out visas to in order to get deals, fit in with "the country's full" and so on?? Surely we were better off with the situation we knew rather than sit and wait for the flood??
or are you suggesting us Brits should be forced to have a limit on kids as China did? Is THAT what Brexit was all about?

 

[anme]

So what? If Britain was bigger you still wouldn't like it; you'd still want to leave. The principal driver for people leaving is either that another country simply looks more attractive or that they dislike the country they currently live in.

How many people have you spoken to who have moved to another country?

Indeed we have, and perhaps you could let me know how many citizens from the EU on modest means come to retire and die in the UK without ever working, compared to the reverse.

Perhaps you can tell us if it's so interesting to you. Try www.google.com - it's a good way to find information.

 

[anme]

That's why the governments of Bulgaria and Romania have always been opposed to joining the EU. Their citizens have also always been very opposed to membership.

An interesting insight into the mind of a brexiter.

 

[anme]

How would you feel if this supposition was seen by the Treasury as a novel way of keeping expenditure under an even tighter rain, by applying that ruling to ALL local hospitals? That is one way of how to affect the majority of the UK population.

I don't think you understood the point of my post.

I was highlighting the selfishness of wanting to withdraw freedom of movement rights from all British people, on the grounds that the poster apparently hasn't made use of it her/himself.

 

[najaB]

And in a country which is already heavily developed and with limited space to affordably enhance infrastructure provision, difficult choices may have to be made in order to control population growth.

The UK could *easily* support a population of over 75 million. It wouldn't even mean encroaching on the green belt, never mind losing agricultural land or national parks.

There are at least 49 countries in the world that are more densely populated (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-density/)

Increasing the UK population by 7 million (bringing it to circa 75 million) would only bump us five or so places up the list.

 

[Howardh]

The UK could *easily* support a population of over 75 million. It wouldn't even mean encroaching on the green belt, never mind losing agricultural land or national parks.
There are at least 49 countries in the world that are more densely populated (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-density/)
Increasing the UK population by 7 million (bringing it to circa 75 million) would only bump us five or so places up the list.

The North of Scotland is one of the least-densely places in the world! But one issue I will agree with Brexiters is that we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the current population, the Netherlands is densely populated in the centre (Randstadt) but they have rail, motorways and public transport (and, of course, bicycles) to move everyone around, something which is way off our list of priorities here it seems. Our inability to invest in the future isn't the fault of being in the EU.
We don't want to have more taken off us in taxes yet we want more roads, rail, hospitals, schools, police etc etc.
"Vote For Me I'll Raise Your Taxes". How many seats would that win me???

 

[Struner]

The UK could *easily* support a population of over 75 million. It wouldn't even mean encroaching on the green belt, never mind losing agricultural land or national parks.

There are at least 49 countries in the world that are more densely populated (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-density/)

Increasing the UK population by 7 million (bringing it to circa 75 million) would only bump us five or so places up the list.

The city-states come out on top, of course. & places like Gibraltar, not to be abandoned by the gallant brexiteers .
It’s a pity that table doesn’t show the number of the population per country.
India, two orders of magnitude bigger than NL, has a higher density of population.

 

[EM2]

It strikes me that any country actually does pretty well out of an adult migrant, especially one that's still young.
If a young Pole or Indian or Australian or Dane or American comes to the UK and gets a job, they immediately start paying NI and income tax, plus all the other taxes on goods etc.
But we haven't paid for their birth, their education, their welfare, we've not spent anything on them for the last twenty years. When it comes to 'paying back their debt', they've basically done a runner, and given that money to us.
I'd argue that we get more out of them than out of a home-born citizen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The North of Scotland is one of the least-densely places in the world!

Is a reversal of the "Highland Clearances" being considered?

 

[AlterEgo]

How many people have you spoken to who have moved to another country?

Literally dozens. Possibly a hundred. My social circle these days is almost entirely people who have moved abroad.

Perhaps you can tell us if it's so interesting to you. Try www.google.com - it's a good way to find information.

I rather suspect the data has never been gathered, because I’m unable to find such data.

I’m sure we all know what the answer would be if it ever had been collected.

 

[najaB]

I'd argue that we get more out of them than out of a home-born citizen.

It's not just your intuition, it's fact. EU migrants pay more into the UK treasury than they take out.

 

[radamfi]

If Spain don't want old people, because they are such a drain on the country, then why do they offer retirement visas to non-EU citizens? Obviously only those who meet the financial and health requirements can apply, but eventually you can become a citizen and be entitled to healthcare on the same basis as locals. You may be a cash cow in the beginning but that may well be outweighed by the cost of looking after you in your dotage.

 

[EM2]

In no way unsurprising news, the Prime Minister has told porkie pies, about porkie pies!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49462613

Offering an example of an American trade restriction, Mr Johnson said: "Melton Mowbray pork pies, which are sold in Thailand and in Iceland, are currently unable to enter the US market because of, I don't know, some sort of food and drug administration restriction."

However, on the Today programme on Radio 4, Chairman of the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association says his pies are not sold in Thailand or Iceland.
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1165878083393654784?s=19

I know it's only a little thing, but the sort of thing that anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a Prime Minister should be checking.

 

[anme]

Literally dozens. Possibly a hundred. My social circle these days is almost entirely people who have moved abroad.

So how can you possibly hold the opinions you post here? (I apologise if you were being ironic)

 

[Mag_seven]

It's not just your intuition, it's fact. EU migrants pay more into the UK treasury than they take out.

Since when did facts have anything to do with Brexit.

 

[radamfi]

Quite a few UK residents hold accounts with Bunq, a bank based in the Netherlands, because it is the only bank that offers a fully featured Dutch bank account at reasonable cost to non-Dutch residents. Bunq normally only allow EEA citizens resident in EEA countries to open accounts with them so there is some debate whether people will be forced to close their accounts.

 

[AlterEgo]

So how can you possibly hold the opinions you post here? (I apologise if you were being ironic)

Which opinions do you think are incongruous with my own personal experiences?

 

[najaB]

And here is the elephant in the room. India have already indicated that they would want more Indian citizens given access to the UK labour market as part of a new trade deal, other countries would likely ask the same. So whilst the Brexiteers are busy celebrating at the prospect of "controlled" movement between us and the EU, by proxy we might just be opening the door to people further afield.

Ah, but they'd be people from the Colonies so they'd damned well know how to behave, not like those Europeans.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ah, but they'd be people from the Colonies so they'd damned well know how to behave, not like those Europeans.

Is it not the case that in the GCSE examinations, those students from Indian family backgrounds on average receive a very high marks grading?

 

[Killingworth]

When out walking in the Peak District yesterday I got talking to another walker who seemed to be from the Bristol area. The B word came up and he claimed to have been asked to stand as a Brexit Party candidate. Was totally against PM May, and thought little of Boris. Wouldn't have voted red at any price and was adamant that we must obey democracy and leave, deal or no deal. .

Later he made a claim that he and his friends had followed advice in the Telegraph and joined the Labour party specifically to vote for Corbyn and to make Labour unelectable. All apparently Tory members. Whether he did or didn't the sad fact is that Corbyn is toxic to many brought up in the centre of British politics, let alone those to the right. I admire his stand on lots of issues, his conscience is desirable within a party, niggling away at the fringes, in the background.

However, he's not the strong and determined leader the nation currently needs, one a majority can stand behind in hours of crisis. I'm blessed if I know who has that experience, plus an ability to work with others in all parties to pull us out of this hole we're digging for ourselves. It's certainly not him. Many would go over the cliff rather than standing behind him with anything other than a dagger. Cometh the hour, cometh the man/woman?

The link that follows is 14 pages long, and probably went unread by all but a handful in 2016, facts, not emotions. An update would be good looking from now.
Why the UK should remain in the EU by Nicholas Barr

 

[najaB]

Is it not the case that in the GCSE examinations, those students from Indian family backgrounds on average receive a very high marks grading?

Quite possibly, though I'm not sure of the relevance?

 

[Carlisle]

This merely places you in the same position as the majority of the developed world; I do not see any unjust hardship if that were to become the case..

Identical reasoning could equally be used to justify getting rid of our NHS, parts of our welfare state or arming all our Police etc, however I suspect the UK majority presently consider them an unnecessary backward step both for us & future generations. Better to at least try & be leaders than mere followers.

 

[AlterEgo]

Identical reasoning could equally be used to justify getting rid of our NHS, parts of our welfare state or arming all our Police etc, however I suspect the UK majority presently consider them an unnecessary backward step both for us & future generations. Better to at least try & be leaders than mere followers.

That is not identical reasoning; I don't consider 100% unrestricted free movement of labour a good idea, and my own reasoning wasn't to standardise our policies with other countries anyway.

Your post is predicated on ideals like the NHS being a good idea - something I disagree with anyway.

 

[najaB]

Your post is predicated on ideals like the NHS being a good idea - something I disagree with anyway.

I really don't see how anyone could see universal access to healthcare as anything other than a good.

 

[AlterEgo]

I really don't see how anyone could see universal access to healthcare as anything other than a good.

You can have universal access to healthcare - and often much better health outcomes - without having a comprehensive and socialised national health service, as is the case is many, if not most Western countries.

 

[najaB]

You can have universal access to healthcare - and often much better health outcomes - without having a comprehensive and socialised national health service, as is the case is many, if not most Western countries.

The problem with universal access in many of those countries is that it's not *quite* universal. Certainly, wherever the model is rembursment via insurance the poor have significantly worse healthcare outcomes.

The other issue is that where healthcare is operated on a for-profit basis, costs are higher with no commensurate improvement in outcomes. The extreme example being, naturally, the United States where costs are several orders of magnitude higher than the UK (eg high drug prices) despite having significantly worse outcomes than any other OECD country.

My late aunt worked as a A&E / E.R. nurse starting in the UK and later moving to the USA. She said the difference was stark - in London the first question they asked the ambulance crews as they wheeled people through be door was "What are we dealing with?" In New York it was "Does (s)he have insurance?"

 

[fowler9]

You can have universal access to healthcare - and often much better health outcomes - without having a comprehensive and socialised national health service, as is the case is many, if not most Western countries.

Where in the world can someone with nothing get a better healthcare outcome than the UK? Not saying there is no where but I would be interested to know where.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That is not identical reasoning; I don't consider 100% unrestricted free movement of labour a good idea, and my own reasoning wasn't to standardise our policies with other countries anyway.

Your post is predicated on ideals like the NHS being a good idea - something I disagree with anyway.

Unrestricted i agree is not a good idea. Fortunately the EU has all sorts of mechanisms for denying anyone to stay if they can't demonstrate they are in work. Of course we choose not to use them.