GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

13,805 posts in this topic

Quote

.

58 minutes ago, cashinmattress said:

Controlling immigration... either in or out of the EU.

 

Why? Because it is very expensive to do so, time consuming, and generally shines a bad light on the community and it's MP's.

There is also the issue of human rights. Be it EU rights, UN rights, or some future UK set of rights.

If you think it's difficult to deport these people now, just you wait.

What you're on about is a very slippery slope.

There is also the reality of the economy here. Many unregistered labourers EU & non-EU, not paying tax, performing menial tasks that UK.gov think are beneath even our prison's inhabitants... and of course those forced into it by criminality. There are also many Brits doing exactly the same.

 

Or get out and see the world before you cast judgements which for the most part are fundamentally flawed or just due to a lack of enlightenment or knowledge.

Britain just isn't the hard nosed and heavyweight country you lot think it is. It used to be.

An island nation, starved of raw materials and resources, the size of Nova Scotia. Waning on influence every subsequent decade after the collapse of its empire.

A hard Brexit will hammer the UK, however; I believe it will succeed in cutting immigration without so much as a parliamentary debate... because it will no longer economically attractive to migrants. Further, there will be a massive brain drain of Brits, especially the young.

Brexit is a licence to print money for solicitors and the legal profession. It will be a continual kick in the b0ll0x for the rest of us.

I don't want your police state, surveillance, walls, constant invasion of privacy. Is this actually what you guys want? Because that is what is going to take to make this macabre interpretation of Brexit work. And a whole lot of money we don't have.

  our inept government are going to totally fk this up

 

It will most likely define London as some kind of economic free zone for financial services, but subject the rest of the UK to new legislation, tariffs, etc... and generally make most peoples lives more difficult. So no different haha

Any Brexit (unless we totally buckle as a nation) will not have the desired effect on immigration you want.

Also highly probably that Mrs May is going to have an Eden moment and be cast out in the not so distant future.

All speculation on your part ...show me one fact 

 

Edited by long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cashinmattress said:

Controlling immigration... either in or out of the EU.

Difficult, and Britain has done a pretty poor job of it.

Why? Because it is very expensive to do so, time consuming, and generally shines a bad light on the community and it's MP's.

There is also the issue of human rights. Be it EU rights, UN rights, or some future UK set of rights.

If you think it's difficult to deport these people now, just you wait.

What you're on about is a very slippery slope.

There is also the reality of the economy here. Many unregistered labourers EU & non-EU, not paying tax, performing menial tasks that UK.gov think are beneath even our prison's inhabitants... and of course those forced into it by criminality. There are also many Brits doing exactly the same.

Perhaps stop blaming the EU and turn your attention to Westminster?

Or get out and see the world before you cast judgements which for the most part are fundamentally flawed or just due to a lack of enlightenment or knowledge.

Britain just isn't the hard nosed and heavyweight country you lot think it is. It used to be.

An island nation, starved of raw materials and resources, the size of Nova Scotia. Waning on influence every subsequent decade after the collapse of its empire.

A hard Brexit will hammer the UK, however; I believe it will succeed in cutting immigration without so much as a parliamentary debate... because it will no longer economically attractive to migrants. Further, there will be a massive brain drain of Brits, especially the young.

What part of that don't you understand?

Brexit is a licence to print money for solicitors and the legal profession. It will be a continual kick in the b0ll0x for the rest of us.

I don't want your police state, surveillance, walls, constant invasion of privacy. Is this actually what you guys want? Because that is what is going to take to make this macabre interpretation of Brexit work. And a whole lot of money we don't have.

For what it's worth, I believe that some vestige of a Brexit-lite is achievable, but the lack of planning and our inept government are going to totally fk this up

Whatever it is, it will certainly take many, many years to get sorted and a heavy burden to the exchequer.

It will most likely define London as some kind of economic free zone for financial services, but subject the rest of the UK to new legislation, tariffs, etc... and generally make most peoples lives more difficult. So no different haha

Any Brexit (unless we totally buckle as a nation) will not have the desired effect on immigration you want.

Also highly probably that Mrs May is going to have an Eden moment and be cast out in the not so distant future.

I thought about writing a considered and reasoned response to this drivel but you know what? You're too far gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point arguing. Most remainers are off a different planet. They will talk about the technological progress, automatisation and technology but won't explain why with all those brilliant advances more and more people come to the UK to live in MH accommodations and work for cash in hand. It surprises me too that all those computer simulations are unable to link quantity of people with quality of life and public services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, long time lurking said:

.....they know that ends with a P45    

Sadly we can't sack MP's and hand them a P45 as the door hits them on the way out. There's recall but it's not really worth the cost. Only at election time. Bah.

No easy answers.

'Representative' democracy doesn't work if you give government enough time to fashion the laws to in manner that they only represent themselves... such as it is now.

41 minutes ago, F-sake said:

won't explain why with all those brilliant advances more and more people come to the UK to live in MH accommodations and work for cash in hand.

Because it is financial attractive to do so for both sides.

Answer? Write more laws? Round up and inter? More sanctions? Not a good image for the 'worlds oldest democracy, and definitely not going to work in post Empire UK.

Besides... over the next two decades we're going to need a heck of a lot more low paid workers for the boomer die off.

Who's going to do that? All our uni grads?

The buck stops with Westminster, not the EU.

Therein lies the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

When will a Leaver admit that the numbers coming from outside the EU have been higher so if it's about numbers, it's far from clear that leaving the EU is the solution.

They are both an issue. This has been stated here numerous times already. There is no denial or shirking from answering questions that I can see from any brexiters on this thread. 

By the way - you just answered a question with a question. Says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, onlooker said:

.....

So it is with Scotland and NI. If they want to go their own way, carry on. It would be very sad to ditch 400 years of togetherness, but so be it. For us English they have brought little but pain for the last 100 years.

....

(Saying that, I think NI could be vulnerable to a Sinn Fein / RoI plot to grab unification, while getting us to pay for it, and our own pathetic spineless politicians might stupidly fall for it).

Northern Ireland has been a separate 'country' for just under 100 years. There was a 'togetherness' with England for 800 years. No-one in the Republic wants to go back to that union.

When Brexit kicks in and a border is re-instated, all sorts of constitutional problems arise, not least the destruction of the UN brokered Good Friday Agreement. Add the fact that NornIron voted majority Remain.  I wouldn't like to be living there in 2 or 3 years time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, pig said:

Oh dear - is this where we are now ?

Getting pissed on by a prostitute in a Moscow hotel won't kill you either but it's all part of the same nauseating Golden Shower.

You look at the lunacy across the pond and it does put what's happening here into sharp perspective. This has all come down to mainly winding up and exploiting, and I mean really fecking exploiting, anybody who can't think beyond 'white british'  (as I'm sure kzb would agree) and not immigration. Or the EU lol! 

Leavers can keep asking for a 'plan'  for the future of Britain out of spite or shaudenfreude but hey - we all know there never was one. What was the 'plan' in electing a compromised loon for US president ? I mean other than Putins plans for a mighty US and UK ?

Happy, in principle, for the population to double its tax-payers, but I'd agree that for a host of reasons, mainly to do with successive British governments we probably couldn't even cope with halving it.

So another that fails to answer the simple question.

As I expected really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZeroSumGame said:

Northern Ireland has been a separate 'country' for just under 100 years. There was a 'togetherness' with England for 800 years. No-one in the Republic wants to go back to that union.

When Brexit kicks in and a border is re-instated, all sorts of constitutional problems arise, not least the destruction of the UN brokered Good Friday Agreement. Add the fact that NornIron voted majority Remain.  I wouldn't like to be living there in 2 or 3 years time.

I think you will find that NI is legally still part of the Uk, which is the way Brussels will see it.

I would be interested in how people in the RoI feel about the UK nowadays, seeing as they are a more diverse country than formerly, and the Catholic church is in retreat. When I lived in Dublin (long time ago), the one thing they didn't want was unification, with the resulting costs of supporting the NI economy and all those trouble making Unionists.

The border has always been there, even under the EU, because of the grossly different tax and welfare provisions on each side. The only issue will be FoM, which could be easily accommodated in a local area agreement. But if I was a RoI politician at the moment, I would be bricking it, with UK Corporation tax rates heading down to RoI levels, no more EU handouts and having to contribute to the EU budget for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cashinmattress said:

Sadly we can't sack MP's and hand them a P45 as the door hits them on the way out. There's recall but it's not really worth the cost. Only at election time. Bah.

No easy answers.

'Representative' democracy doesn't work if you give government enough time to fashion the laws to in manner that they only represent themselves... such as it is now.

Because it is financial attractive to do so for both sides.

Answer? Write more laws? Round up and inter? More sanctions? Not a good image for the 'worlds oldest democracy, and definitely not going to work in post Empire UK.

Besides... over the next two decades we're going to need a heck of a lot more low paid workers for the boomer die off.

Who's going to do that? All our uni grads?

The buck stops with Westminster, not the EU.

Therein lies the problem.

                                                                                  Control not eliminate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cashinmattress said:

An island nation, starved of raw materials and resources, the size of Nova Scotia. Waning on influence every subsequent decade after the collapse of its empire.

And the answer to that is an ever-increasingly damaging fvck up the place plan like we've got with remaining in the EU? No thanks!

Quote

I don't want your police state, surveillance, walls, constant invasion of privacy. Is this actually what you guys want? Because that is what is going to take to make this macabre interpretation of Brexit work. And a whole lot of money we don't have.

Er, no. You've got to be pretty bonkers to believe that in fact. You don't need anywhere near all of that to address the massively damaging effects of legal immigration. It would probably end up like that if you're hell bent on removing every illegal immigrant no matter the cost but anyone who thinks that's what we're asking for is really twisting what people say to suit their own agenda.

Besides... over the next two decades we're going to need a heck of a lot more low paid workers for the boomer die off.

That's called "facing the reality" and "living within our means". Remainers would rather mess up the future even worse than avoid having to work a bit harder and tighten their belts now, they're selfish, superficial, stupid, and dangerous.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2017 at 1:06 PM, thecrashingisles said:

When will a Leaver admit that the numbers coming from outside the EU have been higher so if it's about numbers, it's far from clear that leaving the EU is the solution.

That has been mentioned and answered numerous times. It looks like it needs repeating yet again, not that I expect the Remainers to notice this time either.

The numbers from both the EU and outside are roughly equal. It's a little more from outside but to imply that it's therefore not really an EU issue is deliberately miselading.

No-one has claimed that leaving the EU will completely solve the immigration catastrophe, it's just one necessary step. This has been said a lot of times.

When will a Remainer admit that continual large scale immigration does the UK no good whatsoever, and that population growth is very undesirable indeed, and that even if for some crazy reason you don't find it a problem now it'll need stopping sooner or later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That has been mentioned and answered numerous times. It looks like it needs repeating yet again, not that I expect the Remainers to notice this time either.

The numbers from both the EU and outside are roughly equal. It's a little more from outside but to imply that it's therefore not really an EU issue is deliberately miselading.

No-one has claimed that leaving the EU will completely solve the immigration catastrophe, it's just one necessary step. This has been said a lot of times.

When will a Remainer admit that continual large scale immigration does the UK no good whatsoever, and that population growth is very undesirable indeed, and that even if for some crazy reason you don't find it a problem now it'll need stopping sooner or later?

Look at the cumulative numbers since 1997, or even 2004 and it's not even close.  It's only very recently that they are in the same ballpark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2017 at 3:16 PM, thecrashingisles said:
13 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And the answer to that is an ever-increasingly damaging fvck up the place plan like we've got with remaining in the EU? No thanks!

Er, no. You've got to be pretty bonkers to believe that in fact. You don't need anywhere near all of that to address the massively damaging effects of legal immigration. It would probably end up like that if you're hell bent on removing every illegal immigrant no matter the cost but anyone who thinks that's what we're asking for is really twisting what people say to suit their own agenda.

 

 

That's called "facing the reality" and "living within our means". 

Exactly. No one seems to understand that if you import a load of cheap unskilled labour to service the needs of a demographic bulge, you're just creating a further bulge that will require welfare and pensions, which under that model can only be resolved be ever increasing immigration. The economy needs rebalancing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

Look at the cumulative numbers since 1997, or even 2004 and it's not even close.  It's only very recently that they are in the same ballpark.

The trend is ever upwards EU migration.

There is some doubt as to how the EU figures are, given the porous nature of EU migration.

Not withstanding, here is a chart to reflect upon:

55416447.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The trend is ever upwards EU migration.

There is some doubt as to how the EU figures are, given the porous nature of EU migration.

Not withstanding, here is a chart to reflect upon:

55416447.png

Which conclusively shows that -

a ) Until 2004, net EU migration was insignificant and therefore not an issue, despite freedom of movement.

b ) The 2004 bounce was self-inflicted because we were the only big economy not to apply the 7 year transition period

I would also suggest that the subsequent growth is also self-inflicted due to the way our tax credit system works as a pull factor - we can reform it without leaving the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/eu-negotiator-wants-special-deal-over-access-to-city-post-brexit

<Barnier wants a “special” relationship with the City of London after Britain has left....

...his apparent concern about financial instability contrasts with bullish statements by EU leaders about swooping on London’s financial sector business.>

This backs up the "threat" to EU finances angle quoted at earlier.   It looks like it's not all one way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

Which conclusively shows that -

a ) Until 2004, net EU migration was insignificant and therefore not an issue, despite freedom of movement.

Indeed, I've said it before that the expansion of the EU was an atrociously bad idea, and that freedom of movement works when it's between roughly equivalent (socially and economically) countries - which was pretty close to the reality of the EU pre-2004.

b ) The 2004 bounce was self-inflicted because we were the only big economy not to apply the 7 year transition period

That would've given us the same problem, maybe a bit less and later, but still the same problem.

I would also suggest that the subsequent growth is also self-inflicted due to the way our tax credit system works as a pull factor - we can reform it without leaving the EU.

That's one part of it, true, and something Cameron should've been putting on the table pre-referendum, but we really shouldn't be forced to extend provisions that we make for our own citizens (whether they're good ones or not is beside the point) to ones from other countries. That said I'd say a larger pull factor is simply English being a very common second language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

Which conclusively shows that -

a ) Until 2004, net EU migration was insignificant and therefore not an issue, despite freedom of movement.

b ) The 2004 bounce was self-inflicted because we were the only big economy not to apply the 7 year transition period

I would also suggest that the subsequent growth is also self-inflicted due to the way our tax credit system works as a pull factor - we can reform it without leaving the EU.

How can we do that without penalising the indigenous part of the country......Cameron the quitter came back from the EU with his tail between his legs 

To do the above is political suicide for any party 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, long time lurking said:

How can we do that without penalising the indigenous part of the country......Cameron the quitter came back from the EU with his tail between his legs 

To do the above is political suicide for any party 

Easy.  Say that to be entitled to in work benefits you have to have been a resident for at least 5 years.  Same rule for everyone.

Cameron went begging for something that was already in his control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That would've given us the same problem, maybe a bit less and later, but still the same problem.

Not really true.  If we'd only opened the door in 2011 along with Germany, France etc, it would have been spread much more equally.  During that 7 year period big EE communities were established in the UK which again was a pull factor even after there was a level playing field.

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Easy.  Say that to be entitled to in work benefits you have to have been a resident for at least 5 years.  Same rule for everyone.

Cameron went begging for something that was already in his control.

So how are you with your one vote going to make that happen .who are you voting for that will do this and when is the vote ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Not really true.  If we'd only opened the door in 2011 along with Germany, France etc, it would have been spread much more equally.  During that 7 year period big EE communities were established in the UK which again was a pull factor even after there was a level playing field.

So why are the numbers still going up now with that logic they should have started to fall from 2011> ...no logic there for sure 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, long time lurking said:

So how are you with your one vote going to make that happen .who are you voting for that will do this and when is the vote ?

Not another pointless discussion about the power of one person in a democracy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Trade agreement would have to include strict rules to prevent Britain becoming offshore haven, Dutch deputy PM says

In a letter seen by the Guardian, however, Asscher writes that it is in the interests of both the UK and the remaining 27 EU member states that May’s government is prevented from creating a low-tax neoliberal outpost.

Maybe they don't want another low tax Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.