I said this months ago but nobody on the leave side responded. If you don't want parliament to have a say in the exit terms then you're placing 100% faith in Davis and May to get a good deal. I have to wonder what they have done to prove worthy of such trust.
I said this months ago but nobody on the leave side responded. If you don't want parliament to have a say in the exit terms then you're placing 100% faith in Davis and May to get a good deal. I have to wonder what they have done to prove worthy of such trust.
The sovereignty argument was the biggest red herring in the whole of the Brexit referendum. A bigger red herring even than my avatar. The fact that Brexiteers were happy for a govt clique, putting party interests before national interests, to stifle parliamentary democracy clearly demonstrates what a nonsense it was. Well done to those MPs who took back control.
Superbly put. Anyone trotting out the sovereignty line and then arguing against parliamentary scrutiny is being disingenuous.
When we Leavers talk about taking back control we mean from the EU bureaucracy. When you Remainers talk about taking back control you mean from the British people.
That is the difference between us.
I think you should speak for yourself rather than use the collective 'we leavers'. I'm a leaver and don't agree with your statement at all.
Parliament controls the country with the blessing of the British people through elections. What happened yesterday was democracy in action, and will prove to be a very important part of our leaving the EU.
This isn't going to affect us leaving, but it will ensure that the government doesn't just fudge these negotiations and say 'oh well'.
UK’s biggest international banks are set to move fewer than 4,600 jobs from London in preparation for Brexit — just 6 per cent of their total workforce in the financial centre — according to Financial Times research.
The FT analysis contrasts with consultants’ original claims that tens of thousands of jobs could move from London after Brexit — including an EY study this week that claimed 10,500 could leave on “day one”.
The FT estimates are based on public statements by 15 of the UK’s biggest international institutions, interviews of more than a dozen senior bank executives about Brexit planning and industry benchmarks.
In the case of Deutsche Bank, where Sylvie Matherat, head of regulation, publicly said up to 4,000 jobs could move, the FT estimates that just 350 jobs may leave by April 2019. The figure amounts to 5 per cent of Deutsche’s London headcount, a proportion broadly in line with other big banks.
What a great country we've become. The way we treat rough sleepers is callous in the extreme, if they're British then buy them a one way train tickets, if they're foreign the a one way plane ticket. Anything to make it somebody else's problem.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
I would've thought those ex-servicepeople ought to get support now, not have to wait for reduced migration.
UK’s biggest international banks are set to move fewer than 4,600 jobs from London in preparation for Brexit — just 6 per cent of their total workforce in the financial centre — according to Financial Times research.
The FT analysis contrasts with consultants’ original claims that tens of thousands of jobs could move from London after Brexit — including an EY study this week that claimed 10,500 could leave on “day one”.
The FT estimates are based on public statements by 15 of the UK’s biggest international institutions, interviews of more than a dozen senior bank executives about Brexit planning and industry benchmarks.
In the case of Deutsche Bank, where Sylvie Matherat, head of regulation, publicly said up to 4,000 jobs could move, the FT estimates that just 350 jobs may leave by April 2019. The figure amounts to 5 per cent of Deutsche’s London headcount, a proportion broadly in line with other big banks.
Not having read the article, I don't know whether they are factoring in a transitional period in their calculations. But it seems to reflect reasons, as young Mr. Dury used to claim, to be cheerful - though (IMHO) the nature of the future relationship is so opaque that I would not count on the premises of any of the predictions on staffing.
Deutsche Bank, and other big EU banks, have less need to move staff for the simple reason that they already have EU passporting rights and real HQs within the EU27 - I'd be interested to see what the percentages would be for Japanese and US banks, etc. There's also a potential whereby new recruitment would be focussed in the EU27 and banks gradually restructure by a process of natural wastage.
But, like I say, it's better for the UK if jobs stay, and I hope the FT's right.
The sovereignty argument was the biggest red herring in the whole of the Brexit referendum. A bigger red herring even than my avatar. The fact that Brexiteers were happy for a govt clique, putting party interests before national interests, to stifle parliamentary democracy clearly demonstrates what a nonsense it was. Well done to those MPs who took back control.
Superbly put. Anyone trotting out the sovereignty line and then arguing against parliamentary scrutiny is being disingenuous.
When we Leavers talk about taking back control we mean from the EU bureaucracy. When you Remainers talk about taking back control you mean from the British people.
That is the difference between us.
I think you should speak for yourself rather than use the collective 'we leavers'. I'm a leaver and don't agree with your statement at all.
Parliament controls the country with the blessing of the British people through elections. What happened yesterday was democracy in action, and will prove to be a very important part of our leaving the EU.
This isn't going to affect us leaving, but it will ensure that the government doesn't just fudge these negotiations and say 'oh well'.
If you are right then is it not strangely coincidental that the result was welcomed by everybody who opposes Brexit?. Sometimes you have to look beyond the surface of things to understand their meaning. In this case what was formally a democratic decision was actually an anti-Brexit and therefore anti-democratic one.
The sovereignty argument was the biggest red herring in the whole of the Brexit referendum. A bigger red herring even than my avatar. The fact that Brexiteers were happy for a govt clique, putting party interests before national interests, to stifle parliamentary democracy clearly demonstrates what a nonsense it was. Well done to those MPs who took back control.
Superbly put. Anyone trotting out the sovereignty line and then arguing against parliamentary scrutiny is being disingenuous.
When we Leavers talk about taking back control we mean from the EU bureaucracy. When you Remainers talk about taking back control you mean from the British people.
That is the difference between us.
I think you should speak for yourself rather than use the collective 'we leavers'. I'm a leaver and don't agree with your statement at all.
Parliament controls the country with the blessing of the British people through elections. What happened yesterday was democracy in action, and will prove to be a very important part of our leaving the EU.
This isn't going to affect us leaving, but it will ensure that the government doesn't just fudge these negotiations and say 'oh well'.
If you are right then is it not strangely coincidental that the result was welcomed by everybody who opposes Brexit?. Sometimes you have to look beyond the surface of things to understand their meaning. In this case what was formally a democratic decision was actually an anti-Brexit and therefore anti-democratic one.
Isn't it strangely coincidental that posts like yours which are full of complete rubbish are posted by people who oppose the EU?
You have, several times, attacked Parliamentary democracy and the rights of the 2 thirds of those who did not vote to leave the EU to have democratic power. If anyone is anti-democratic, it is you and your absurd leanings towards far-right views.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
I would've thought those ex-servicepeople ought to get support now, not have to wait for reduced migration.
Country is packed i'm afraid - it's a bit like waiting for a bus, you just have to wait until the rush has died down in order to get a seat.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
I would've thought those ex-servicepeople ought to get support now, not have to wait for reduced migration.
Country is packed i'm afraid - it's a bit like waiting for a bus, you just have to wait until the rush has died down in order to get a seat.
I would be more worried about the strain on services caused by British pensioners returning home from Spain. The impact on the already stretched NHS could be enormous, especially if coupled with a reduction in EU staff.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
I would've thought those ex-servicepeople ought to get support now, not have to wait for reduced migration.
Country is packed i'm afraid - it's a bit like waiting for a bus, you just have to wait until the rush has died down in order to get a seat.
I would be more worried about the strain on services caused by British pensioners returning home from Spain. The impact on the already stretched NHS could be enormous, especially if coupled with a reduction in EU staff.
Hasn't Spain already given an indication of "no change" ? - I thought I had read that somewhere, but maybe not.
In any case, we currently have 300 (net) EU migrants coming permanently to the UK every DAY, so if the 1.5m Brits in Europe do decide to return to UK we will probably be quits in about 10 years (assuming equal life-expectancy). Not forgetting that these folk can return at any time - Brexit or no Brexit, so the issue is not a new one.
We half almost full employment but can offer NHS jobs to as many EU citizens (and Non-EU) as we see fit as/should the need arise.
That's why we need to hurry up with Brexit and reduce the queues at Tesco.
I said this months ago but nobody on the leave side responded. If you don't want parliament to have a say in the exit terms then you're placing 100% faith in Davis and May to get a good deal. I have to wonder what they have done to prove worthy of such trust.
Who else would you suggest to implement Brexit ?
Keir Starmer would be a vast improvement.
The point really is that having one or two people driving something this complex without seemingly wanting to consult their own cabinet let alone the wider parliament doesn't fill me with confidence. Their job isn't to blindly carry out "the will of the people", it is to utilise the knowledge they have of the situation to make the right decisions for the country. This could have easily been done by actually talking to businesses, universities, scientists etc about what impact this would have before triggering article 50.
One of the fundamental underpinning principles of our democracy is that Parliament cannot and shall not be bound by any law or precedent that precedes it. What has been done, Parliament can undo. Without this principle, we are at the mercy of dictators and plutocrats.
So just as Parliament cannot be bound by the 1975 referendum, neither can it be bound by the 2016 referendum. There was nothing undemocratic about Theresa May overturning the decision that came from the 1975 referendum, nor is there anything undemocratic about democratically elected MPs seeking to limit the damage of the 2016 referendum.
650 MPs are democratically elected to represent their constituents as they have for hundreds of years. Brexiters did not seem to have a problem with this system until last night. When the MPs went through the divisions and came to a democratic, lawful decision to uphold the principle of Parliamentary democracy and not hand dictatorial, unregulated and unaccountable powers to the far-right of the Tory Party, that was the same democracy that has been practised for hundreds of years. For those who think this is a betrayal of democracy, you clearly lack any understanding of what democracy in this country is and certainly should not pontificate from your platform of ignorance.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
Have you ever worked with ex-servicemen who are homeless?
The reason they are homeless is lack of support and counselling for PTSD, mental health problems, alcoholism and drug abuse. All the things that your beloved Tories have cut like fuck in the last seven years.
Many of them have been cast out of the services which has often been the only home they know often having come from difficult backgrounds (often the infantrymen) again most of the support and guidance they used to get has also disappeared, guess who cut it.
You do know we have also massively cut our services in the last seven years. I have worked with some prior to leaving and the stories can be heart rending as can be the stories of those who have left and ended up homeless/desperate/in shit jobs.
Sir Oliver Heald = 51.4% voted leave. Jonathan Djanogly = 53.4% voted leave. Anna Sourpuss = 52.5% vpted leave. Nicky (eyes) Morgan = 50% voted leave. Antoinette Sandbach = 52.2% voted leave. Sarah Wollaston = 54.1 voted leave.
Should all join Jeremy and get Catweazle elected!
You do realise they weren't voting to overturn Brexit, just to stop May and the far-right Tories from having complete undemocratic autonomy to bypass democratically elected MPs on future legislation pertaining to Brexit?
Sir Oliver Heald = 51.4% voted leave. Jonathan Djanogly = 53.4% voted leave. Anna Sourpuss = 52.5% vpted leave. Nicky (eyes) Morgan = 50% voted leave. Antoinette Sandbach = 52.2% voted leave. Sarah Wollaston = 54.1 voted leave.
Should all join Jeremy and get Catweazle elected!
Theresa May = 53.9% voted to remain a higher % than all the above as you have Sarah Wollaston in the wrong constituency. She is in Totnes/South Hams which was 52.9% remain.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
Have you ever worked with ex-servicemen who are homeless?
The reason they are homeless is lack of support and counselling for PTSD, mental health problems, alcoholism and drug abuse. All the things that your beloved Tories have cut like fuck in the last seven years.
Many of them have been cast out of the services which has often been the only home they know often having come from difficult backgrounds (often the infantrymen) again most of the support and guidance they used to get has also disappeared, guess who cut it.
You do know we have also massively cut our services in the last seven years. I have worked with some prior to leaving and the stories can be heart rending as can be the stories of those who have left and ended up homeless/desperate/in shit jobs.
Not directly, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
All of the support services you mention are under strain, yes from austerity cuts, yes by the Tories, but also because the population is too high for the existing service structure. We need to build 300,000 homes every year in the UK to keep up with current demand.
Our choice is straightforward:
Build, build build like there is no tomorrow and use every scrap of space in the UK until everyone is suitably housed. Build Schools, Hospitals, Care Centres, new towns, places of worship etc etc - build on flood plains, agricultural land, football pitches, parks, woodland, cliff edges, national parks, anywhere. Let's get the 300 (every day) new UK long term immigrants from the EU housed and looked after and just keep repeating the exercise over and over.
Or
Prevent the population of this island growing out of control by the fairest means available, and concentrate our efforts/housing/services on a known and controlled population number. This will also reduce the queue at Tesco.
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
Have you ever worked with ex-servicemen who are homeless?
The reason they are homeless is lack of support and counselling for PTSD, mental health problems, alcoholism and drug abuse. All the things that your beloved Tories have cut like fuck in the last seven years.
Many of them have been cast out of the services which has often been the only home they know often having come from difficult backgrounds (often the infantrymen) again most of the support and guidance they used to get has also disappeared, guess who cut it.
You do know we have also massively cut our services in the last seven years. I have worked with some prior to leaving and the stories can be heart rending as can be the stories of those who have left and ended up homeless/desperate/in shit jobs.
Not directly, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
All of the support services you mention are under strain, yes from austerity cuts, yes by the Tories, but also because the population is too high for the existing service structure. We need to build 300,000 homes every year in the UK to keep up with current demand.
Our choice is straightforward:
Build, build build like there is no tomorrow and use every scrap of space in the UK until everyone is suitably housed. Build Schools, Hospitals, Care Centres, new towns, places of worship etc etc - build on flood plains, agricultural land, football pitches, parks, woodland, cliff edges, national parks, anywhere. Let's get the 300 (every day) new UK long term immigrants from the EU housed and looked after and just keep repeating the exercise over and over.
Or
Prevent the population of this island growing out of control by the fairest means available, and concentrate our efforts/housing/services on a known and controlled population number. This will also reduce the queue at Tesco.
Ah, proper sex education in schools amd providing proper mentoring & support for young people, I was worried that you meant something silly, like alienating vast swathes of the sort of people that the country needs to run its services and to be economically successful, and causing them to leave or not come here in the first place.
Unfortunately we let governments of all stripes get away with their lie that they wanted to curb immigration but it was the damned EC/EU who was forcing these workshy, benefit-scrounging, thieving, smelly foreigners into the country. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron all paid lip service to curbing immigration but even they knew that immigrants are the lifeblood of our economy and public services. Remember Brown claiming he would guarantee British jobs for British workers? It was just a cynical, hollow ploy to try to placate the same thick little Englanders who could not grow up and face the reality of our reliance on immigrant labour.
But no one bothered to point this out that they were hiding behind the EU excuse when they should have been standing up for these hard workers who helped boost our economy from being the sick man of Europe to the economic powerhouse we are now. Instead they fed us this narrative that immigrants are little better than criminals and for forty years the ignorant voters lapped this tripe up, to the point where some people are deluded enough to think NHS workers from overseas are the reason we have homeless ex-forces persons.
And of course we now are where we are because we allowed our governments to hide behind difficult realities by blaming everything on the EU. Same with the sovereignty red herring. The governments of the last 40 years were willing and active promoters within the EU, more or less every directive from the EU that was adopted into UK law was not only supported by the UK government but most of it was initiated or written with the help of the UK government. Then if a directive got flak from the EU, the government just lied and said it's the nasty EU forcing these laws on us. No wonder you have the likes of Southbank repeating this total shit when even the government is trying to sell this utter rubbish.
The sovereignty argument was the biggest red herring in the whole of the Brexit referendum. A bigger red herring even than my avatar. The fact that Brexiteers were happy for a govt clique, putting party interests before national interests, to stifle parliamentary democracy clearly demonstrates what a nonsense it was. Well done to those MPs who took back control.
Superbly put. Anyone trotting out the sovereignty line and then arguing against parliamentary scrutiny is being disingenuous.
When we Leavers talk about taking back control we mean from the EU bureaucracy. When you Remainers talk about taking back control you mean from the British people.
That is the difference between us.
I think you should speak for yourself rather than use the collective 'we leavers'. I'm a leaver and don't agree with your statement at all.
Parliament controls the country with the blessing of the British people through elections. What happened yesterday was democracy in action, and will prove to be a very important part of our leaving the EU.
This isn't going to affect us leaving, but it will ensure that the government doesn't just fudge these negotiations and say 'oh well'.
If you are right then is it not strangely coincidental that the result was welcomed by everybody who opposes Brexit?. Sometimes you have to look beyond the surface of things to understand their meaning. In this case what was formally a democratic decision was actually an anti-Brexit and therefore anti-democratic one.
Of course they will welcome it. They can't stop Brexit, but anything they feel is a victory along the way, they will celebrate. Ultimately, it was the right and sensible thing to do. You absolutely cannot allow something like this to be decided by the government alone.
Take Brexit out of the picture for a moment and think of any other major decision a government needs to take that affects everybody in the country. Do you think they should be able to make the decision alone, or should it go through Parliament?
The government had already assured MPs that they would get a 'meaningful vote' on the final deal. So in effect, this amendment changes nothing, all it does is ensure that they go through with their promise. If you trust the government as much as you appear to, then why is this such a big deal when they had already given their word that a vote would happen anyway?
The article refers specifically to "the deportation of EU rough sleepers". there is no mention of British ex-servicemen.
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
Have you ever worked with ex-servicemen who are homeless?
The reason they are homeless is lack of support and counselling for PTSD, mental health problems, alcoholism and drug abuse. All the things that your beloved Tories have cut like fuck in the last seven years.
Many of them have been cast out of the services which has often been the only home they know often having come from difficult backgrounds (often the infantrymen) again most of the support and guidance they used to get has also disappeared, guess who cut it.
You do know we have also massively cut our services in the last seven years. I have worked with some prior to leaving and the stories can be heart rending as can be the stories of those who have left and ended up homeless/desperate/in shit jobs.
Not directly, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
All of the support services you mention are under strain, yes from austerity cuts, yes by the Tories, but also because the population is too high for the existing service structure. We need to build 300,000 homes every year in the UK to keep up with current demand.
Our choice is straightforward:
Build, build build like there is no tomorrow and use every scrap of space in the UK until everyone is suitably housed. Build Schools, Hospitals, Care Centres, new towns, places of worship etc etc - build on flood plains, agricultural land, football pitches, parks, woodland, cliff edges, national parks, anywhere. Let's get the 300 (every day) new UK long term immigrants from the EU housed and looked after and just keep repeating the exercise over and over.
Or
Prevent the population of this island growing out of control by the fairest means available, and concentrate our efforts/housing/services on a known and controlled population number. This will also reduce the queue at Tesco.
Comments
Parliament controls the country with the blessing of the British people through elections. What happened yesterday was democracy in action, and will prove to be a very important part of our leaving the EU.
This isn't going to affect us leaving, but it will ensure that the government doesn't just fudge these negotiations and say 'oh well'.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42354864
The FT analysis contrasts with consultants’ original claims that tens of thousands of jobs could move from London after Brexit — including an EY study this week that claimed 10,500 could leave on “day one”.
The FT estimates are based on public statements by 15 of the UK’s biggest international institutions, interviews of more than a dozen senior bank executives about Brexit planning and industry benchmarks.
In the case of Deutsche Bank, where Sylvie Matherat, head of regulation, publicly said up to 4,000 jobs could move, the FT estimates that just 350 jobs may leave by April 2019. The figure amounts to 5 per cent of Deutsche’s London headcount, a proportion broadly in line with other big banks.
https://linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6347074495001427968
You are quite right of course, and the sooner we have available housing and support services brought on by reduced migration - the better for those ex-squaddies.
You would have thought newspapers would have exercised a bit more caution especially after their role in radicalising the murderer of Jo Cox.
Not having read the article, I don't know whether they are factoring in a transitional period in their calculations. But it seems to reflect reasons, as young Mr. Dury used to claim, to be cheerful - though (IMHO) the nature of the future relationship is so opaque that I would not count on the premises of any of the predictions on staffing.
Deutsche Bank, and other big EU banks, have less need to move staff for the simple reason that they already have EU passporting rights and real HQs within the EU27 - I'd be interested to see what the percentages would be for Japanese and US banks, etc. There's also a potential whereby new recruitment would be focussed in the EU27 and banks gradually restructure by a process of natural wastage.
But, like I say, it's better for the UK if jobs stay, and I hope the FT's right.
You have, several times, attacked Parliamentary democracy and the rights of the 2 thirds of those who did not vote to leave the EU to have democratic power. If anyone is anti-democratic, it is you and your absurd leanings towards far-right views.
https://theconversation.com/british-pensioners-in-spain-worry-brexit-could-force-them-to-return-to-uk-74329
In any case, we currently have 300 (net) EU migrants coming permanently to the UK every DAY, so if the 1.5m Brits in Europe do decide to return to UK we will probably be quits in about 10 years (assuming equal life-expectancy). Not forgetting that these folk can return at any time - Brexit or no Brexit, so the issue is not a new one.
We half almost full employment but can offer NHS jobs to as many EU citizens (and Non-EU) as we see fit as/should the need arise.
That's why we need to hurry up with Brexit and reduce the queues at Tesco.
The point really is that having one or two people driving something this complex without seemingly wanting to consult their own cabinet let alone the wider parliament doesn't fill me with confidence. Their job isn't to blindly carry out "the will of the people", it is to utilise the knowledge they have of the situation to make the right decisions for the country. This could have easily been done by actually talking to businesses, universities, scientists etc about what impact this would have before triggering article 50.
So just as Parliament cannot be bound by the 1975 referendum, neither can it be bound by the 2016 referendum. There was nothing undemocratic about Theresa May overturning the decision that came from the 1975 referendum, nor is there anything undemocratic about democratically elected MPs seeking to limit the damage of the 2016 referendum.
650 MPs are democratically elected to represent their constituents as they have for hundreds of years. Brexiters did not seem to have a problem with this system until last night. When the MPs went through the divisions and came to a democratic, lawful decision to uphold the principle of Parliamentary democracy and not hand dictatorial, unregulated and unaccountable powers to the far-right of the Tory Party, that was the same democracy that has been practised for hundreds of years. For those who think this is a betrayal of democracy, you clearly lack any understanding of what democracy in this country is and certainly should not pontificate from your platform of ignorance.
The reason they are homeless is lack of support and counselling for PTSD, mental health problems, alcoholism and drug abuse. All the things that your beloved Tories have cut like fuck in the last seven years.
Many of them have been cast out of the services which has often been the only home they know often having come from difficult backgrounds (often the infantrymen) again most of the support and guidance they used to get has also disappeared, guess who cut it.
You do know we have also massively cut our services in the last seven years. I have worked with some prior to leaving and the stories can be heart rending as can be the stories of those who have left and ended up homeless/desperate/in shit jobs.
Sir Oliver Heald = 51.4% voted leave.
Jonathan Djanogly = 53.4% voted leave.
Anna Sourpuss = 52.5% vpted leave.
Nicky (eyes) Morgan = 50% voted leave.
Antoinette Sandbach = 52.2% voted leave.
Sarah Wollaston = 54.1 voted leave.
Should all join Jeremy and get Catweazle elected!
All of the support services you mention are under strain, yes from austerity cuts, yes by the Tories, but also because the population is too high for the existing service structure.
We need to build 300,000 homes every year in the UK to keep up with current demand.
Our choice is straightforward:
Build, build build like there is no tomorrow and use every scrap of space in the UK until everyone is suitably housed. Build Schools, Hospitals, Care Centres, new towns, places of worship etc etc - build on flood plains, agricultural land, football pitches, parks, woodland, cliff edges, national parks, anywhere.
Let's get the 300 (every day) new UK long term immigrants from the EU housed and looked after and just keep repeating the exercise over and over.
Or
Prevent the population of this island growing out of control by the fairest means available, and concentrate our efforts/housing/services on a known and controlled population number. This will also reduce the queue at Tesco.
But no one bothered to point this out that they were hiding behind the EU excuse when they should have been standing up for these hard workers who helped boost our economy from being the sick man of Europe to the economic powerhouse we are now. Instead they fed us this narrative that immigrants are little better than criminals and for forty years the ignorant voters lapped this tripe up, to the point where some people are deluded enough to think NHS workers from overseas are the reason we have homeless ex-forces persons.
And of course we now are where we are because we allowed our governments to hide behind difficult realities by blaming everything on the EU. Same with the sovereignty red herring. The governments of the last 40 years were willing and active promoters within the EU, more or less every directive from the EU that was adopted into UK law was not only supported by the UK government but most of it was initiated or written with the help of the UK government. Then if a directive got flak from the EU, the government just lied and said it's the nasty EU forcing these laws on us. No wonder you have the likes of Southbank repeating this total shit when even the government is trying to sell this utter rubbish.
Take Brexit out of the picture for a moment and think of any other major decision a government needs to take that affects everybody in the country. Do you think they should be able to make the decision alone, or should it go through Parliament?
The government had already assured MPs that they would get a 'meaningful vote' on the final deal. So in effect, this amendment changes nothing, all it does is ensure that they go through with their promise. If you trust the government as much as you appear to, then why is this such a big deal when they had already given their word that a vote would happen anyway?